Hi all.

The Sony DCRTRV250 is at a particularly good price here at the moment,
and I think we'll get one.

The only concern I've noted in reviews on the Net is about low-light
performance.

Anyone got one and care to comment?

We have a 1995 CCD-TR330E analog Video8 Handycam, and we're happy with
how it performs in low light.

Our standards are therefore pretty low (as is our budget), but we
don't want to go backwards!

Are the reviewers marking down the 250's low-light capabilities in
comparison with more expensive current models, or is the 250 actually
likely to be worse than our eight-year-old analog?

We use our 330 a lot for school concerts, where the lighting is fairly
low.

On 1 Aug 2003 18:53:24 -0700, (Fruitbat) wrote:

Hi all.

The Sony DCRTRV250 is at a particularly good price here at the moment,
and I think we'll get one.

The only concern I've noted in reviews on the Net is about low-light
performance.

Anyone got one and care to comment?

We have a 1995 CCD-TR330E analog Video8 Handycam, and we're happy with
how it performs in low light.

Our standards are therefore pretty low (as is our budget), but we
don't want to go backwards!

Are the reviewers marking down the 250's low-light capabilities in
comparison with more expensive current models, or is the 250 actually
likely to be worse than our eight-year-old analog?

We use our 330 a lot for school concerts, where the lighting is fairly
low.


You'll notice a significant increase in picture quality over your 8
year old camera....bad light or not.

It has been said that the camera performs badly in low light, however
I would say that all the other (more expensive) cameras in the range
suffer from the same problem.

I did some filming with a TRV250 in dusk conditions......is was very
nearly dark, but the results were very good......in fact when I played
back the footage it looked much brighter that it did to my eye at the
time.

The only time I really notice any quality reduction, is when filming
in the dark with the built in light on.......it gets grainy, but I
believe if you switch the steady shot off in thiese cirumstances it
improves the picture a bit.

All in all I'd go for it. It has DV in/out so you can get the footage
onto your PC, edit it and send it back to tape.

People may say that the digital 8 format that the camera uses is dying
and that you should get a mini DV camera.......however they are alot
more expensive, and look like a childs play thing................

...........but the reality is it does'nt really matter what tape the
camera uses....it's only a means to an end, as the majority or users
simply copy their footage to VHS or DVD

Got a TRV250 and love it. Thanks for your advice.


You'll notice a significant increase in picture quality over your 8
year old camera....bad light or not.

It has been said that the camera performs badly in low light, however
I would say that all the other (more expensive) cameras in the range
suffer from the same problem.

I did some filming with a TRV250 in dusk conditions......is was very
nearly dark, but the results were very good......in fact when I played
back the footage it looked much brighter that it did to my eye at the
time.

The only time I really notice any quality reduction, is when filming
in the dark with the built in light on.......it gets grainy, but I
believe if you switch the steady shot off in thiese cirumstances it
improves the picture a bit.

All in all I'd go for it. It has DV in/out so you can get the footage
onto your PC, edit it and send it back to tape.

People may say that the digital 8 format that the camera uses is dying
and that you should get a mini DV camera.......however they are alot
more expensive, and look like a childs play thing................

..........but the reality is it does'nt really matter what tape the
camera uses....it's only a means to an end, as the majority or users
simply copy their footage to VHS or DVD

On 1 Aug 2003 18:53:24 -0700, (Fruitbat) Typedy
Typed:

The only concern I've noted in reviews on the Net is about low-light
performance.

To be fair most cameras are ****e in reality when used in low lighting
conditions, you are best to consider 'how' to lighten the room up
rather than put up with a grainy picture, because thats what you will
get with any cam (Until you get to the pro stuff i guess?).

I have found that with my cam if i take the exposure down manually
when filming (It puts it on full automatically) and then lighten it up
on the computer i get a better effect than that fizzy/grainy look.


--
I dont need a sig anyway

In message , SkiJumpToes
writes
Snipped...

To be fair most cameras are ****e in reality when used in low lighting
conditions, you are best to consider 'how' to lighten the room up
rather than put up with a grainy picture, because thats what you will
get with any cam (Until you get to the pro stuff i guess?).

I don't know how indicative it is, but when QVC demo camcorders on their
channel, you'll often see a shot of the area behind the lighting setup,
on both the camcorder being demo's and on the professional studio
camera(s). There's simply no comparison - the camcorder being demo'd
appears infinitely superior in such low light conditions.
--
Tony Morgan

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , SkiJumpToes
writes
Snipped...

To be fair most cameras are ****e in reality when used in low
lighting
conditions, you are best to consider 'how' to lighten the room up
rather than put up with a grainy picture, because thats what you will
get with any cam (Until you get to the pro stuff i guess?).

I don't know how indicative it is, but when QVC demo camcorders on
their
channel, you'll often see a shot of the area behind the lighting
setup,
on both the camcorder being demo's and on the professional studio
camera(s). There's simply no comparison - the camcorder being demo'd
appears infinitely superior in such low light conditions.

I've not seen QVC but I'd guess the pro camera isn't readjusted for the
dimmer lighting. I know the name, address etc of a QVC cameraman. Maybe
I'll ask. I know he absolutely hates the results from a camera set to
auto.
--
Malcolm