On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:21:00 GMT, Don H. wrote:

[...]
>My wife and I are looking for a Camcorder to record the new life of
>our infant son. I expect to be shooting both indoors and outdoors,
>but certaining indoor performance will be important. I don't care
>about still pictures because I prefer my 35mm film SLR for that.
>
>I've followed several threads discussing the performance of the TRV25
>and TRV18. It seems that there is a tradeoff between increased
>resolution and bright-light color saturation with the TRV25 and better
>low light (indoor) performance and fewer motion artifact with the
>TRV18. Some seemingly knowledgable people suggest that for a 1/4"
>"one chipper" CCD, the TRV18 may have the optimal resolution.
[...]
>Which model would recommend for my needs. Certainly the difference in
>price is not important, but I also don't want to choose the TRV25 just
>because of resolution hype from Sony.

Either would suffice, but I tend to recommend the
non-"megapixel" cameras for those into casual
recording, as it appears you are - these cameras'
images are good enough, freer of artifacting, but
further from "state of the art" - but the results
are satisfying, and sufficient for many purposes...
For a comparison of several Sony imaging types, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
(but read the text descriptions of motion-artifacting
in addition to comparing the frame-grabs...). BTW,
I still own most of the cameras used in this comparison
(plus others), and still deal with the trade-offs you
have mentioned when going out to shoot "fun" stuff.
For highest quality, the choice is easily the VX2000
(but, for casual shooting.....? ;-); for good quality,
short the best, the TRV900 serves (but if video is
not the primary reason for the outing, it may still
be a bit much...;-); if the lighting is soft, or
the subject free of strong patterning or fine detail,
the megapixel TRV30 is a good choice (but if the
conditions are otherwise...?;-); for really "casual"
video "snap-shooting", but with enough quality that
the footage can often still be used for serious
projects, the tiny PC9 (same imaging as the TRV18)
goes with me... But, if I find something really
wonderful, I regret afterward not having the VX2000
with me - as with yesterday's trip to a particularly
beautiful local flower garden, with its multitude of
amazing color combinations in tiny flowers massed
together. The TRV30 images were OK, but a bit "busy"
with artifacting, and "hard"-looking overall - though
the fisheye close-ups of large bees on flowers were
OK... If I had nothing to compare it with, though,
the PC9 image quality is generally "good enough"
to be satisfying...