TRV950 -- various questions

Kenn Jolemore · January 31st, 2003, 06:07 AM

what works for some don't work for all I guess.Personally I like the look and use it often but it's not for everyone.
Some folks just don't seem to really get the limitations of DV but rather feel that a couple of grand will get them the same quality as a 40 thousand $ cam and of course this leads to disapointment every time it happens.

Frank Granovski · January 31st, 2003, 06:18 AM

Vanja Marin - check out about the film look(s) and about DV shot with lower shutter settings here:

http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/location/5272/

Check out some of the links I have posted here:

http://www.dvfreak.com/links.htm

Vanja Marin · January 31st, 2003, 04:11 PM

I don't have my VCR at the moment (it is on service), but I am just reading article on "pass-through" on DV camcorders, and how it is very unussual that some pretty expencive models of 3CCD cameras don't support it....

So, does TRV 950???

When mentioning "pass-through", I don't think ov possibilitie to use cam as bridge for PAL monitor but for posibilitie to send material from analog VCR to comp (digitalize it), without having to record it on DV tape first....- so to get signal through camera (AVin and DVout - FireWIre - to comp)

So, can it convert it directly and send it straight to HDD????

PS
Excuse my English; I hope you've understood what I ment!:)

Frank Granovski · February 17th, 2003, 11:52 PM

I heard it does, but I could be wrong. Perhaps get a Sony Store to check their spec catalog.

Kenn Jolemore · February 18th, 2003, 05:34 AM

Look at 204 in the manuel under Signal Convert. The 950 can act as a pass through for an anolog signal with of course the caveat of having the proper software on your computer .
There are several places on-line to download a copy of the manuel if you do not have one by the way.

Roger Wu · February 23rd, 2003, 04:52 PM

I am a beginner so I am not ready to shell out a lot of money for a "good" tripod, i.e. Manfrotto.
I saw on e-bay a certain "PTR-990" and am wondering if it's "okay".
The link is at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2912882322&category=30094 and hope if anyone with any experience with this particular model tell me if it's any good and if the price is not too hight.

Derek Beck · February 23rd, 2003, 09:15 PM

Don't know about the tripod. But really it depends on what you are doing with it, but really any tripod with a fluid head and a sturdy build will do great. The key is that fluid head otherwise your pans will look like crap :)

The tripod I have: Velbon Videomate 607

Here it is at amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004TYBM/qid=1046056591/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/104-0087999-3625543?v=glance&s=photo

I've been very happy with it.

Derek Beck · February 23rd, 2003, 09:17 PM

This pass-through seems to be an inherent quality in most every dv cam these days. Even my 1 CCD camera (Sony TRV330) does it.

Don Berube · February 23rd, 2003, 10:56 PM

For a mere $189, you can have the Libec TH-M20
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/...ID=F3C75216110
which is a ball-leveling, two stage tripod with a mid-level spreader.

This will support up to 11 pounds, should work fine with the TR-950.

- don

Tom Hardwick · March 5th, 2003, 09:15 AM

Frank - the MX500 is a real advance on the MX300, and I'd say it was well worth the upgrade. From the tape loading to the little flash, from the looks to the side-screen, the 500 is hugely better than the 300.

But Sony have moved the TRV950 into a lower class than the 900. It's lost the 900's six bladed aperture and it's switchable ND filter, and the 950 really is now well removed from the VX2k. The 900 was uncomfortably close to the VX2k and Sony were really loosing sales to this little upstart with its huge side-screen.

But I'd still be interested to hear what the venerable Beale has to say about this.

tom.

Frank Granovski · March 5th, 2003, 03:44 PM

I should e-mail him and ask him for his take---to post on this thread. I heard he's been very busy these days.

Phil Dale · March 5th, 2003, 05:18 PM

But the 950 produces far better results than the 900 and Im not just talking about the usual low light debate. As far as it outselling the VX, I dont know any 900 owners but plenty of VX and 950 owners. I had the choice of a 950 or VX and I went for the 950 the extra £500 for the VX was just not worth it as under reasonable lighting I found there was very little difference in picture quality and at the end of the day thats what matters to me. People seem to have a real downer on this cam why I do not know. I know its the wrong forum to mention this and I dont want to upset anyone but I would rather a MX300 than 500 anyday, I waited six months to view this over hyped cam which I hoped to replace my 300 with and it was the biggest dissapointment Ive ever come across but I guess its each to there own Tom it would'nt do if we all liked the same thing.

Frank Granovski · March 5th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Phil, are you saying you like the MX300 much more than the MX500? Do you like the TRV950 more than the MX300? What are your reasons? I'm simply asking because I'm curious. Thanks!

Phil Dale · March 6th, 2003, 01:51 PM

I am saying I like the 300 ver the 500 and Im not the only one, here in PAL Land (UK) the 500 has'nt had the over the top praise showered on it that it has in NTSC Land. I personaly feel it has allot to do with its low light performance. Living in a rather murky Country weather wise, I found the 500's images even on a overcast day were to noisy due to the 1/6" CCDs and I just simply dont like the picture it produces a kind of forced sharpness. Add to that its too small for my hands, I dont like the zoom switch, the viewfinders terrible (I prefer using the viefinder to LCD) and it looks like a childs toy. Panasonic should have put more effort into improving the 300 instead of bringing out a cam that doesnt know if its a stills cam or video cam. Overall as you can tell I much prefered the 300, picture quality and handling, and just think its a far superior machine thats sadly now no more. Overall I prefer the 950 to both of them put together, chunky build, superb handling, a real zoom rocker switch, sharp picture quality allmost free of noise even in lower lighting and the best stabilizer Ive ever come across. I was once I die hard Panasonic fan but personally feel they are loosing the plot fast, whats with all these poor performing 1/6" CCDS there stuffing into the latest efforts?

Derek Beck · March 8th, 2003, 02:15 AM

Phil:

What do you mean by real zoom rocker switch? On which cam?

Also, how's the 950 on overcast days?

Any/All:

What do you think about 900 vs. 950? I actually have a buddy that'll sell me his 900 for $1200 including battery and its in great working condition, but I'm leaning towards the 950 (actually the x10). I'm just waiting for the dv mag review on the x10. Should I consider the 900?

January 31st, 2003, 06:07 AM	#31
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	what works for some don't work for all I guess.Personally I like the look and use it often but it's not for everyone. Some folks just don't seem to really get the limitations of DV but rather feel that a couple of grand will get them the same quality as a 40 thousand $ cam and of course this leads to disapointment every time it happens. __________________ KennJ

January 31st, 2003, 04:11 PM	#33
Vanja Marin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Zagreb,HR,Croatia Posts: 38	TRV950 pass-through - yes/no??? I don't have my VCR at the moment (it is on service), but I am just reading article on "pass-through" on DV camcorders, and how it is very unussual that some pretty expencive models of 3CCD cameras don't support it.... So, does TRV 950??? When mentioning "pass-through", I don't think ov possibilitie to use cam as bridge for PAL monitor but for posibilitie to send material from analog VCR to comp (digitalize it), without having to record it on DV tape first....- so to get signal through camera (AVin and DVout - FireWIre - to comp) So, can it convert it directly and send it straight to HDD???? PS Excuse my English; I hope you've understood what I ment!:)

February 18th, 2003, 05:34 AM	#35
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	Look at 204 in the manuel under Signal Convert. The 950 can act as a pass through for an anolog signal with of course the caveat of having the proper software on your computer . There are several places on-line to download a copy of the manuel if you do not have one by the way. __________________ KennJ

February 23rd, 2003, 04:52 PM	#36
Roger Wu Tourist Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: North Brunswick, NJ Posts: 2	Cheap but decent tripod for TRV950 I am a beginner so I am not ready to shell out a lot of money for a "good" tripod, i.e. Manfrotto. I saw on e-bay a certain "PTR-990" and am wondering if it's "okay". The link is at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2912882322&category=30094 and hope if anyone with any experience with this particular model tell me if it's any good and if the price is not too hight.

February 23rd, 2003, 09:15 PM	#37
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	Don't know about the tripod. But really it depends on what you are doing with it, but really any tripod with a fluid head and a sturdy build will do great. The key is that fluid head otherwise your pans will look like crap :) The tripod I have: Velbon Videomate 607 Here it is at amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004TYBM/qid=1046056591/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/104-0087999-3625543?v=glance&s=photo I've been very happy with it. __________________ Derek Beck

January 31st, 2003, 06:18 AM	#32
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Vanja Marin - check out about the film look(s) and about DV shot with lower shutter settings here: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/location/5272/ Check out some of the links I have posted here: http://www.dvfreak.com/links.htm

February 17th, 2003, 11:52 PM	#34
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I heard it does, but I could be wrong. Perhaps get a Sony Store to check their spec catalog.

February 23rd, 2003, 09:17 PM	#38
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	This pass-through seems to be an inherent quality in most every dv cam these days. Even my 1 CCD camera (Sony TRV330) does it. __________________ Derek Beck

February 23rd, 2003, 10:56 PM	#39
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	For a mere $189, you can have the Libec TH-M20 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/...ID=F3C75216110 which is a ball-leveling, two stage tripod with a mid-level spreader. This will support up to 11 pounds, should work fine with the TR-950. - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

March 5th, 2003, 09:15 AM	#40
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Frank - the MX500 is a real advance on the MX300, and I'd say it was well worth the upgrade. From the tape loading to the little flash, from the looks to the side-screen, the 500 is hugely better than the 300. But Sony have moved the TRV950 into a lower class than the 900. It's lost the 900's six bladed aperture and it's switchable ND filter, and the 950 really is now well removed from the VX2k. The 900 was uncomfortably close to the VX2k and Sony were really loosing sales to this little upstart with its huge side-screen. But I'd still be interested to hear what the venerable Beale has to say about this. tom.

March 5th, 2003, 03:44 PM	#41
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I should e-mail him and ask him for his take---to post on this thread. I heard he's been very busy these days.

March 5th, 2003, 05:18 PM	#42
Phil Dale Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UNITED KINGDOM Posts: 25	But the 950 produces far better results than the 900 and Im not just talking about the usual low light debate. As far as it outselling the VX, I dont know any 900 owners but plenty of VX and 950 owners. I had the choice of a 950 or VX and I went for the 950 the extra £500 for the VX was just not worth it as under reasonable lighting I found there was very little difference in picture quality and at the end of the day thats what matters to me. People seem to have a real downer on this cam why I do not know. I know its the wrong forum to mention this and I dont want to upset anyone but I would rather a MX300 than 500 anyday, I waited six months to view this over hyped cam which I hoped to replace my 300 with and it was the biggest dissapointment Ive ever come across but I guess its each to there own Tom it would'nt do if we all liked the same thing.

March 5th, 2003, 05:33 PM	#43
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Phil, are you saying you like the MX300 much more than the MX500? Do you like the TRV950 more than the MX300? What are your reasons? I'm simply asking because I'm curious. Thanks!

March 6th, 2003, 01:51 PM	#44
Phil Dale Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UNITED KINGDOM Posts: 25	I am saying I like the 300 ver the 500 and Im not the only one, here in PAL Land (UK) the 500 has'nt had the over the top praise showered on it that it has in NTSC Land. I personaly feel it has allot to do with its low light performance. Living in a rather murky Country weather wise, I found the 500's images even on a overcast day were to noisy due to the 1/6" CCDs and I just simply dont like the picture it produces a kind of forced sharpness. Add to that its too small for my hands, I dont like the zoom switch, the viewfinders terrible (I prefer using the viefinder to LCD) and it looks like a childs toy. Panasonic should have put more effort into improving the 300 instead of bringing out a cam that doesnt know if its a stills cam or video cam. Overall as you can tell I much prefered the 300, picture quality and handling, and just think its a far superior machine thats sadly now no more. Overall I prefer the 950 to both of them put together, chunky build, superb handling, a real zoom rocker switch, sharp picture quality allmost free of noise even in lower lighting and the best stabilizer Ive ever come across. I was once I die hard Panasonic fan but personally feel they are loosing the plot fast, whats with all these poor performing 1/6" CCDS there stuffing into the latest efforts?

March 8th, 2003, 02:15 AM	#45
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	Phil: What do you mean by real zoom rocker switch? On which cam? Also, how's the 950 on overcast days? Any/All: What do you think about 900 vs. 950? I actually have a buddy that'll sell me his 900 for $1200 including battery and its in great working condition, but I'm leaning towards the 950 (actually the x10). I'm just waiting for the dv mag review on the x10. Should I consider the 900? __________________ Derek Beck