|
|
Posted by PTravel on 01/10/07 01:41
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> 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.
The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably
more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement.
>
> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the
> FX-1 with its' higher resolution.
That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was unable
with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my TRV20. When
Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range that addresses
these issues, I'll consider it.
> 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.
That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light
performance make the camera a non-starter for me.
>
> 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.
And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors.
> 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.
That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed, it
is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My TRV20
did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong
horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera.
> 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'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines
with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I
like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm
talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though it
might turn out nice video, even stunning video _under_the_right_conditions_,
does not turn out professional HD. There's no reason, other than a
marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to, as yet, put out a prosumer
machine that does pro quality HD.
> 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.
I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra
batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in
order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've gotten
used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera, either
SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher form factor,
I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does.
>
>
> 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]
|