Debating Sony TRV240 and TRV340

More thanks for the information. I will be getting the TRV240 this
weekend. I don't see the need for the 2 things the 340 adds,
especially since I will be getting a Digital camera within the month
as well.

One note, the 240 does not have a memory card. At least none of the
docs and reviews I have been reading say.

Steve you mentioned that these do not have the superior quality
Megapixels for decent stills. The video will still be of good quality
correct? At least for what we plan to use it for. Documenting our
upcoming baby, and getting plenty of blackmail for later on in life ;)

I would love to go with the 740+ models, but I can't justify spending
the extra few hundred for these. At least during the holidays. The
240 will set us back enough as it is =)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. Really
helped with all this alien-to-me digital camcorder stuff.

I have bougth 340 and after 6 months I admit that the feature of
recording mpeg films on memory stick is pretty useless for me.

Note: European version 240E/340E have dv-in disabled it can not be
enabled by software (as far as I know).

RobTM:)
--
** - Why a bike cannot stand up by itself?
** - Because it is two-tyred!
-- # --

The TRV240 can play back analog 8mm and Hi-8 pre-recorded tapes. It
has analog inputs, a memory card and a 25X zoom lens. The TRV140 has
none of these. Since the non-MegaPixel Sony Digital8 models (any one
with a number lower than TRV730) have only 290,000 active pixels for
both video or still pictures, the quality of stills from the 240 will be
poor. This low quality occurs whether they are directly stored on the
memory card, transferred there from the tape or captured directly from
tape to an external device. However, the current series of these
camcorders, that have a number ending in 40, have no limit on the length
of the M-PEG movies you can store, other than the capacity of the memory
card. Previous models had a time limit on the M-PEGs. I always advise
potential buyers of Digital8 camcorders to consider paying more money
for a MegaPixel model, currently the TRV740 and TRV840, as they give
much better image performance in all modes.

Steve McDonald

...

Analog inputs are important, and something I should have put on the
"valuable features" list, as they allow you to digitize analoge sources
without having to get a seperate card.

A light, however, is really something you don't need. On-camera lights
don't have enough power to provide any signficant illumination, and eat up
battery life. If you REALLY must have a light for some reason, see if you
can find the Sony 20/30w dual light. It uses separate (and commonly
available) batteries, though you'll have to get a charger for them (unles
the 240 uses L-series InfoLithium -- does it? It might.) It can mount in
the on-camera accessory shoe, but it will also work off camera because of
the separate battery power -- it's brighter and more versatile.

Thanks Paul,

I was unsure if these features were important enough to upgrade. I
wish I had the cash to get a really REALLY nice upper end CCD model,
but that isn't gonna happen. Gotta get things ready for our newbord
:) I think I will end up going with the TRV240. I woulda gone with
the 140 but I really want Analog inputs and ability to read plan 8mm
tapes. Seems kinda silly not to have that. From what I have read the
Sonys are nice and have a good feature set. Though, I am kinda peeved
the 240 doesn't have a light. The lower end has that. Another head
scratcher. Plus, getting the 240 I can spend a lil more on
accessories which will eat up some more cash.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Shawn

...

I'm not familiar with either of these cameras. However, the ability to
create short MPEG1 clips on a memory card is about the most useless feature
I can possibly imagine. The quality is unacceptably poor, the time limit,
usually measured in seconds, makes the feature useless for anything other a
kid saying, "Hi, grandma!" or something like that.

IMHO, the following "features," which add cost and complexity, should be
avoided:

-still imaging (the best still-imaging camcorder won't do as well as a
medicore digital still camera, and the increased pixel density required for
still imaging hurts low light performance and can cause increased digital
artifacting).

- digital zoom (digital zoom degrades the image. Besides, you can't hand
hold extreme focal length zooms, anyway)

- Blue Tooth (why in the world would anyone need this? 1394/Fireware is the
standard for transfering video to a computer)

- Night Shot (of value _only_ if your camera has poor low light performance,
or you're trying to catch a burglar, videotape wildlife at night using
special infrared lights, etc.)

- in-camera digital effects, e.g. sepia, dissolves, wipes, mosaic, etc.
(Perhaps these had some value when computers capable of editing video were
costly. Now, however, virtually any computer can become an editing station
by adding a $20 1394/Firewire card. The meanest editing program can
duplicate and easily exceed any built-in effect; really good editing
programs, e.g. Pinnacle Studio 7/8 are available in the $50-100 range.)

Features which add value (and, unfortunately, cost):

-3ccd vs. 1ccd (With some exceptions, better low light performance,
frequently MUCH better, and, generally, better resolution, color saturation,
less noise, etc.)

-Good glass. (The better the lens, the better image.)

- Hi-pixel-density viewfinder and/or swing-out LCD screen (The more pixels,
the easier it is to focus).

- Manual over ride for everything! (You'll be happy when you can get that
"impossible" shot by overriding the camera's exposure settings)

- Big ccds (Generally, the bigger the CCD, the better the low light
performance. Smaller CCDs may mean smaller cameras, but they also mean less
sensitivity to light).

- HAD CCDs (These are Sony-only devices, but they tend to be more light
sensitive than standard CCDs, at the cost of a tendency to smear pinpoint
light sources in the vertical direction).