On 12 Nov 2000 16:07:10 GMT, pbocciardi@aol.com (PBocciardi) wrote:

>Thank you. I did look at the VX-2000, but it is too large for my needs. Are
>the three-chip models, as a group, better in low light than the one-chip
>models? I had been wondering why the three-chip models don't have the Night
>Shot feature. And again in general, does the difference between, say, a 4-lux
>rating and a 5-lux rating mean all that much?

No - the lux-ratings are not precise, and may not translate
well between camera models or brands (don't get hung up
on them...). On my web page I compare the images of the
cameras in the same too-low-to-look-good light level (at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison ). This is
more useful than lux ratings. No. 1 for very low-light is
the VX-2000 (both in picture quality and effectiveness of
AF in low light); no. 2: TRV-900; no. 3: GL-1. For
medium-low light: no. 1: VX-2000; no. 2: TRV-900/GL-1.
If your primary goal is good low-light performance, there
is no real choice - get the VX-2000; the alternatives will
not do the job (unless you like dark grey images with lotsa
grain and poor color and AF that hunts all the time...;-).
Second choice, if size is paramount: TRV-900. The one-chip
Mini-DV camcorders as a group are quite poor in low light.
Adding lights spoils the available-light look of the image
and is FAR more obtrusive than a larger camera. Using IR
limits you to B&W and poor lighting.