Posted by ptravel on 11/24/06 09:02

Smarty wrote:

> Your point that a 3 CCD camera will do better than a 1 CCD camera is one I
> have agreed with since the start. Since used TRV900s are fetching close to
> $900 on eBay, other possible choices might be a used TRV950, which quite
> deservedly is bringing much less than $900, or maybe one of the cheaper
> Panasonic 3 CCD consumer cameras purchased used.

>From what I've read, the cheaper Panny 3ccd machines don't do well in
low light, but I can't say for certain. The TRV950 is pretty dismal in
low light -- it's the reason I wound up with a VX2000: the TRV900 was
no longer available and the TRV950 just wouldn't cut it.


> If the issue remains whether you can do low light video with an inexpensive
> DV camcorder, as opposed to needing to spend a great deal more than $400 to
> buy a 3 CCD design, I can only say that Sony, Canon, JVC, Samsung and others
> have devoted immense energy to making this particular aspect of consumer
> camcorders very capable. For example, the low light performance on this Sony
> is very good since it uses a sensor which is over twice the area / size of
> the 1/6 inch camcorders previously discussed. This one sells for under $400.
>
> http://www.easycamcorders.com/specs/Sony--DCR-TRV19.htm

I had a TRV20, which was the predecessor of the TRV19. It's low-light
performance, while better than the current crop of mini-sensor consumer
machines, was far worse than my older Hi8. If budget is an absolute
limit, then I suppose this is better than anything else around, though
I'd be surprised if you could find one new.

[Back to original message]