TRV900 -- various questions
 

I am looking into buying either the TRV900 or maybe the TRV950. I was just curious about their widest field of view. When I look at the two cameras the actual lens/barrel on the 950 looks about twice the size of the older 900. Now I'm not sure about this...but usually a bigger lense will give you a WIDER angle or field of view. Does anyone knows from FACT which one has a wider angle lens?
before you answer...I know wide angles and fisheyes are available....but I'm looking to find out before an adapter is added.

at their widest settings the image on the 900 is approx 20% wider than 950

if you want wider get a pdx10 which has in 16:9 mode the same width of image as the 900

Just to straighten a few misconceptions. The size of a lens or its filter diameter has no bearing on the quality of the lens or on its focal length. The TRV900 has a wide-angle that equates to 41.3mm if you think in terms of lenses for your 35mm still camera. The TRV950 has a 49mm equivalent - which shows that you'll need to add a 0.8x wide-angle converter just to equal the 900.

The 950 takes 37mm wide-angle converters and these will probably be cheaper than the 52mm converters for the 900.

tom.

thanks all...I appreciate the help.

Help Comparing TRV900 with Panasonic 953
 

Hi All
I'm posting here in order to alert you Sony types to another (more complete) post over in the Panasonic DV/MX forum. Please check it out if you have a chance--I need some opinions on the relative qualities of the TRV900 and the PV-DV953, especially the image quality under normal (meaning "well-lit") lighting conditions. I have a purchase decision looming...

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it greatly
Chris

The DV953 - do you know what the PAL designation of this camcorder was/is? If it was the MX300 I can help you...

tom.

The PV-DV953 is the MX5000 with the PAL version being the MX500.

TRV 900 "clicks" at the end of clip
 

I own a Sony TRV900. It's 2 years old. It records just fine, but when I play the footage after capturing into my NLE, at the end of each clip, there's a sound "click". I capture it with Scenalyzer Live and my other cameras like Sony PD150 or JVC DV500 don't have that problem. So far what I do is going throw each clip on Premiere timeline and cut out the "click" parts at the end of each clip. Any better solution? Sorry I couldn't find a TRV900 forum to post the question.
Thanks,
Lucas

Just what is it that Panasonic hope to gain by having so many different names for the same camera? Is that right that there's three different numbers on the MX500 Frank?

Whatever, the TRV900 was introduced in September 1998 and the MX500 came along in late 2002 so there's got to be a lot of technology movement that shows up in the 500.

Although it has tiny 1/6" chips (900: 1/4") they are mega-pixel and so give much better stills to SD/Multimedia card. It also has a built in flashgun - so useful for any sort of still photography. The 16:9 capabilities are rated to be better than Sony's black bars method and if the lens is anything like the Leica Dicomar fitted to my MX300 then it's a corker!

I like the manual Sony ND filter better than the automatic variety on the MX, but if the cameras are handled by ordinary people, then the footage from the Panasonic will generally look better in bright light - simply because of the auto ND filter switching.

tom.

Yup.

The Americas: PV-DV953 (NTSC)
Japan / Korea: NV-MX5000 (NTSC)
NV-MX500A, NV-MX500E and EN or EG. I also think there might be one with a B at the end. Not sure, though. (PAL)

Yes, it's "B" here in the UK (PAL)

Thanks. I used to know that.

TRV900 battery
 

hey guys

my buddy picked up a used 900 and wants a new battery for it.
he wasn't sure if the 900 battery is the same as the 950 and i'm a canon user so I wasn't sure.

can anyone confirm for me if they are?

thanx

no, it is different, I think TRV900 use F series, and TRV950 uses M series.

Quite correct. The TRV900 uses the NP-F series and the 950 (which has a greater power consumption) uses the smaller NP-FM batteries.

The TRV900 uses 5.2 watts and the 950 uses 6.3 watts, so Sony dcided to fit it with smaller capacity batteries. What kind of design thinking is that?

tom.

thanx alot guys

i'll pass the info on to him

trv900 vs pdx-10 lowlight performance
 

Hi there..

I have a trv 900 that has served me faithfully over the past three years. Im now looking at upgrading to the pdx-10 however some of the concerns about low light performance scare me a little..

Did Sony get it right on this one?

Would be interested to know any thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Dan

Hi, Dan. Welcome to dvinfo. The TRV900/PD100A requires less light than the PDX10, but the audio is improved and you have that neat widescreen capability. If low light is a concern, just hang on to your TRV900 a bit longer. :-))

Just watched Agnes Varda tote her 900 around France in The Gleaners and I.
Great film.

The PDX performs well in many light situations, and being in control of the lighting does away with the "problem" altogether, of course. This isn't always possible, and there are better low light performances in other cams at this price, or near. Buy the PDX because you can light your stuff or shoot in more optimum conditions, and because you favor compactness, native XLR sound, and excellent 16:9.

yep I am thinking bout hanging onto it for now.

Ill be going over to central asia virtually backpacking. Lighting setups are gonna be a bit harder to manage and any extra lowlight performance I can attain would be worthwhile in these circumstances..

I like the pdx a lot and I think if I was in more 'controlled' situations I would definitely go for the newer camera. At the moment it will take something a little more to 'push me over the edge' and replace the 900.

Still interested in peoples thoughts/experiences on this topic though. Are there any previous 900 owners out there that have gone the way of the pdx?

I have a TRV-950.

If you are willing to shoot at a shutter speed of 1/30 the "low light" (with AGC set to off) is actually quite good. I shoot indoors only with this shutter speed and it gives me 2-3 clicks extra exposure over default 1/60. For the subjects I shoot (my kids ramming around) the slower shutter is indistinguishable from 1/60.

IF you are backbacking, and want quality video and pretty good audio, the TRV950 is compact optimized......

I have excellent video in a room with a 7 watt bulb with 1/8 shutter speed. I pan very, very slowly to minimize the blur. Room is about 25x15 or so. Got the whole room.

At 1/4 shutter speed with the same lighting the room was too bright on the video!!

I think you're right to consider the PDX10 an upgrade from your 900 Dan, but I'm not so sure the 950 would be. It's considerably cheaper than the 900 ever was, so I suppose we can't really expect it to be much better.

In your situation I'd stay with the 900. It uses bigger batteries and draws less power into the bargain. It has a much better wide-angle end of the zoom and you can take some floppy discs to 'give away' to kind folk you meet on your travels. You can easily put stills on these from tape or from the Photo button, and anyone can see these on their pc.

The 900 is better in low light though the 950 has a little flash gun built in. the 900 lets you be much more creative with progressive scan, shutter speeds, apertures and ND filters. Choose the PDX if you want to shoot 16:9, but remember to keep point sources of light outside the frame and to avoid high shutter speeds.

tom.

That information has been very helpful! Im going to hang onto it now for sure... The widescreen is a nice feature but thats something I can work around..

Thanks for the feedback!


Dan

Daniel,

I think you will find some comparisons of the TRV-900 and 950 at this site: http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html

Buying a used TRV900 - asking for trouble?
 

There's some possibility I may have to replace a cam in for repair ( Pan dv852, very good cam ). I will shoot less than 100 hours/year, probably less than 50. Low light performance with motion ( like a dance club ), then reliability and good but not pro quality video are my concerns. After that, a cam I can grow into as I understand the art of filming. Better to buy it once.

I'll use the camera without added gear - it must be unobtrusive and quick to deploy. I'm not using it on a set - I'll use it on occasions where filming is permitted if it's unbotrusive.
For my use I cannot add lighting, and sometimes would like to capture dim conditions such as nightclubs or the ocean under moonlight.
I understand that the 900 is often used as part of a pro videographer's toolbox and so will have high hours, and that the mic typical goes out. From some comparisons I've seen online it picks up a video image with very little light, so I'm guessing it will capture a sharp image of motion when there's just enough light to be comfortable.
Is a used 900 a reasonable choice, or for my simple uses would it be overkill with a repair bill?

thanks

Larry

I don't have any experience with the 900, however you should visit John Beale's website if you're interested in this camera.

Re: Buying a used TRV900 - asking for trouble?

Laurence, if a used PV-DV852 or used TRV900 is in good shape, with low head hours, I can't see any worry.

Regarding your other concerns, I would bet that the 852's image quality is more or less on par with the TRV900's---the 852 plays back a lot more lines but the TRV900's color saturation would be "fuller."

If a cam breaks, have it fixed or replace it, and don't worry about it.

Yeah, I was getting more worked up than need be. I just got through with a long aggravation with my computer - the mfr failed numerous times to fix it and eventually sent a newer model - and was very skeptical about repairs for any consumer electronics. One of the few times an extended warrantee pays off is with a laptop.
I worked in tech supporting Compaq Presarios a few years back. Few people then suspected how unreliable a PC could be when they shaved literally the last nickels and dimes out of production costs. Fewer realized that the repair parts we sent out... were taken from the repair parts that came in. I was impressed that the machines had Western Digital Caviar hard drives... then one of our crew discovered that they were all coded as WD rejects. Funny how many of those failed!
I take it that getting a cheap cam to use as a deck is also excess for my use.

thanks folks... I see you put many hours into this board

Larry

TRV900 :interesting problem, advice needed
 

On filming the emulsion of a super 8 mm film moving at 16 fps in my projector ( projection lens removed) I got wild flickering in the interlace recording mode but near perfect video recording using the progressive scan ( frame) mode. I set the camera in both cases to shutter priority mode at 60/sec. Why the difference in results? I have calculated (from the time line) that although 15 frames of movie film pass through per second, each frame of the movie is seen three times ( this is a revolving shutter with three openings per revolution) thus giving a total of 45 images per second that the video camera can actually have a chance to image. Can anyone tell me what camera settings in terms of shutter speed etc I should use to get the best possible transfer of my movie to a DV format? Thanks.

TRV900 Usage Meter
 

Greeting,

Is there a meter that tells how many hours I used my TRV900? My DSR-PD150 has that in LCD menu.

Thanks

I seem to recall something about this topic at:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/

I think this is what recall. Probably not very helpful, as people have reported elsewhere that the RM-95 is no longer listed on Sony's site.

TRV900 or PDX10?
 

If you could choose between a TRV900 or a PDX10 what would you pick? Given the PDX10 has better 16x9 and the TRV900 has better low light capabilities. I'm looking for something to travel with and don't want to use my PD170 since its a little big. I like the fact that you can take off the XLR connector on the PDX10 and it looks basically like a TRV900/950. Suggestions?

My opinion, the TRV900---if you don't mind lower resolution, no XLRs and no superior widescreen.

Frank,

Why is it that you prefer the 900 over the PDX10? Any specific reason?

There is a comparison of the 900 and 950 at Bealecorner which you might find interesting. Of course the 950 doesn't have the XLR block, BW viewfiinder, DVCAM recording or high res 16:9 mode of the PDX-10.

The 900 is getting somewhat old now so you will also need to consider the life expectancy of a used camera vs a new one.

Boyd,

I understand your point. The 900, as I understand, has better low light capabilities (4 lux) vs. the 950/PDX10 (7 lux). Would this make a big difference in real world situations? Also the 900 takes the "L" series Lithium batteries that my 170 takes so I wouldn't have to invest in different batteries that the 950/PDX10 takes "M" series.

I already have a 900 but was thinking about upgrading and either selling it or giving it away to a family member. I love the PDX10's capabilities but am wondering if I'd be giving up too much for the different batteries and low light capabilities.

> I already have a 900 but was thinking about upgrading
> and either selling it or giving it away to a family member.
> I love the PDX10's capabilities but am wondering if I'd be
> giving up too much for the different batteries and
> low light capabilities.

I adore my PDX10, but before buying it I suggest you check out the new Panny '30.

I too read bealecorner and have followed Tom Hardwick's comparisons here. I've never used a TRV900 but have played with one and shot many hours with the PD100A. The both have their pro's and cons.

I also adore my PDX10, both of them, in fact, and think that it would make a fine replacement/upgrade to your 900, as well as a complement to your 170, as it is for mine. Beyond your traveling, you will have another cam with good sound and sound inputs, and the 16:9 is fantastic to have around. You will, however, be giving up some of the manual control that you have with your 900.