On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 03:27:54 GMT, Tio wrote:

>I am looking for a bare bones DV camera that will produce the best
>resolution possible for a price of < $800. What I mean by bare bones is
>one that has few if any options other than some amount of zoom and maybe
>stabilization.

N-R responded:

I would look for used/demo/close-out Sony
TRV11/17/20-PC5/100/110 camcorders, perhaps
a few others I'm not familiar with - but these
all have good picture quality (picture quality
is about more than just resolution - but if
resolution alone is your thing, of the above
choose from among the TRV20/PC100/110...).

[then...;-]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:51:04 GMT, Tio wrote:
>
>Thanks for the input David. I'll check into the Sony TRV series.
>
>I am sure there are many other factors which come together resulting in
>different grades of quality. I guess I really could have stated it
>differently. Resolution most likely was not the correct choice of
>descriptors. What I probably should have stated was a corder that would
>gather the most quality image information for < $800.

The advice, above, applies to this...

>I am hoping to be
>able to pull stills from my vids and enlarge them without loosing too
>much in interpolation.

Uh, uh...! ;-)
Video images are 640x480 pixels, interlaced - doing
what you propose results in VERY low quality prints,
but *possibly* acceptable stills for web work (if
not enlarged).

>If I read correctly, camcorders capture on average
>only half the resolution of still shot cameras.

1/2 to FAR less...;-)

>My problem is that I am a neophyte in regards to digital camcorders and
>don't want to be stung by the usual... well, Sony measures their values
>this way while JVC measures like this... the old apples to oranges deal
>;) I'm reading all I can but am on a tight time frame!

I would not use a video camera for print images.
Most one-chip video camcorders cannot produce
adequate-quality stills even in still-mode,
even for web use only. Exceptions are the Sony
megapixel one-chippers (and the 3-chippers), but
these all produce their best quality at 640x480,
too low for printing. Samples from the VX-2000
are at:
www.nikonlinks.com/ruether (shot with the WD-58
Canon .7X on the lens), and:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
and from the PC-100 (3-D images) are at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video2.htm
If you try to print any of these, you will quickly
see the problems.;-)
Get a good digital still camera for stills...

>Well, I'll look at the Sony's and compare specs. Hopefully the
>differences are in editing features only... the fewer the better!

The specs won't tell you much about image quality...