On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:50:33 -0800, "Paul Tauger" wrote:

>Thanks, Jay. I think I'm leaning towards the TRV11 or, if I can deal with
>the size and weight, the TRV-900. The VX2000 is too big for my "drag it
>along on vacation" application. I've looked at the TRV-20, and it seems to
>be an excellent machine, except for its relatively high lux rating. I
>honestly don't understand why Sony is willing to sacrifice low-light
>performance for gimmicks like still-imaging capability. I would think that
>anyone interested in a higher-end consumer camera like the TRV-20 would care
>more about performance than extra "tricks"; if they'd want digital still
>capability, they'd buy a megapixel still camera (or use chemical-based film,
>like I do, which provides the best resolution, color, contrast and overall
>image quality at the lowest price and in the lightest package). If I rule
>out the TRV-900 because of the weight and size, I'll wind up buying a TRV-11
>for about $500 less than the TRV-20. What is Sony thinking? Keep the
>gimmicks for the lower-end stuff, and reserve the high end for higher
>quality/performance.

Amen!!! ;-)
I've been hollering about the silly extras on video cameras
for a while now (here, and in my camcorder reviews, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm ).
I prefer a video-optimized, non-progressive-scan, non
"TV-like" (with "big" screen and speaker),non-still-capable
V I D E O camcorder - which I suspect would not only have
a somewhat better motion-picture (better color-balance and
exposure, and better low-light capability), but would also
be cheaper and possibly more reliable...