|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/09/07 17:09
Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than the
$1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900 was
introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a lot of
the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in price than
the FX1 currently.
Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the
FX-1 with its' higher resolution. I have not used the VX2100 very much but I
did own the VX2000, and the Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several
respects, including noise level, resolution, and optical performance.
It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks which
add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no value in
improving the ultimate picture quality. I must say, however, that I recently
returned from a cruise into the Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of
footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV camcorder, and the outdoor videos were
stunningly beautiful with rich colors and superb detail. The still image
functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my TRV900, VX, and
other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video taken with this $1100
camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy consumer machine with
relatively poor video". I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I
did not want to take it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it
around when on vacation.
Smarty
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net...
> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does
> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I also
> think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who care
> about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you a
> crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid and
> useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still
> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less,
> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's SD
> prosumer line.
>
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a
>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is my
>> belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in fact
>> the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the TRV900
>> did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining excellent
>> performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the
>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other pro
>> HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, and
>> features which make market sense by creating real differences which
>> separate these buyers / market segments.
>>
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz...
>>>>
>>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales of
>>> their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" machines
>>> that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they took the
>>> TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less capable
>>> TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was loaded with
>>> the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the kid's
>>> birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that functioned
>>> at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 competed with
>>> the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost sales of its more
>>> expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional machines, so it has
>>> decided not to market an HD equivalent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|