On 18 Aug 2002 22:07:27 -0700, Paul Rubin wrote:
>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) writes:

>> Not really - the GL2 is much closer in both form and
>> size to the VX2000 than to the TRV950. If low-light
>> range is not important, I would not dismiss the
>> TRV950. I have not tried the GL2 or TRV950, but the
>> URLs in this post of mine (and my comments on them)
>> may be useful(?).

>Thanks. Low light is important for some of my shooting,
>e.g. interviews in dimly lit interiors such as restaurants.
>
>Do you think a Sony EVW-300 is crazy as an alternative to a
>VX2000-level DV camera?

Yes, if compactness, ease-of-use are issues...;-)

>The EVW-300 was a professional hi-8 camera
>with 1/2" CCD's (the camera head is similar to a Betacam SP camera).
>They were at least $5K new, but now that everyone has gone digital,
>you can get them for $1200 or so on Ebay. Does immediate digital
>recording have THAT much advantage? Would something be lost by
>strapping a PC9 to the back of the EVW-300 and recording digitally via
>the S-video input?

I have thought of doing this, mainly to get around
some of the unpleasant artifacting in some DV camcorder
"front ends" (though with the VX2000, it is relatively
minimal compared with others...), assuming that the DV
medium itself is not the main culprit (the BetaSP copied
to DV for the comparison at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
retained much of its image "smoothness", so this may
work...).

>I wonder why this alternative isn't used more.

Awkward, and bulky - but if the results are excellent,
tempting...;-)