I was an absolute novice when I was introduced to this camcorder at my job as Tech Teacher in a K-8 school. The last time I had filmed anything was with a super 8mm recorder back in the 70's!

You know what I hear from my colleagues and parents? "Wow, those are great videos!" ""The quality is amazing." "I wish I could have my videos turn out like yours."

Trust me, folks. It's not me. It's this camcorder. The quality of the image, the steadycam compensation for the less than steady hand, the prompts to turn on a light filter in glaring outdoor lighting environments, and the richness and depth of color, even (and especially) under low light conditions is nothing short of beautiful.

I imagine that I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what this camcorder can do. With my use of digital editing software, I probably won't use many of the camcorders built-in editing features like titling and fades/dissolves. I am resolved to try out it's time-lapse feature soon, however.

The transfer to/from a computer via firewire is effortless with common video editing programs like Pinnacle Studio or Adobe Premiere. Having a second hard disk devoted solely to video editing and storage is recommended.

The built-in mic is more than adequate for most situations, and the Intelligent Accessory Shoe allows other mics to be used. Be aware, though, that because this unit is "old" by the blurred time standard of modern technology, some newer Sony mics aren't compatible with this cams Intelligent Accessory Shoe.

This camcorder is not mini or lightweight. It may not be for you if you want to travel lightly. I learned the hard way when I filmed about 40 mins of a basketball game without a tripod. I could barely use my arm the following day! Buy a tripod already!

With that in mind, if you really want rich memories preserved during that 3 candle birthday party, or just about any ligting situation, you must have this camcorder.

I know this camera is a favorite of most people out there, but I have used this camera and was not super impressed. It is a pretty damn good camera, don't get me wrong, and for the price, it is very competitive. Price aside, I would recommend either the Canon XL1 or the Panasonic DVX-100 over this camera. I have been on set with all three cameras many times and have found that the DVX has produced the most pleasing results and has the most amount of useful features for true cinematography.

On the up side, this is the camera that has been used for some movies released that are a little lower budget. This camera has been around long enough now that it is beginning to become noticeably outdated, so unless the price is right, try something else.

i am a producer/camera operater and this is one of my favern cameras in the studio i would love to have one for my home. i felm sports, in studio tack shows movies and other things for tv brodcast it has great pixlization and i love it.

I've had a Sony TRV-27 for about a year and a half now. It a good general purpose miniDV camera; however, low-light performance is not its forte (even with a video light). I shoot mostly home (family) video - much of it indoors and often after the sun goes down. By most accounts, the VX-2000 has very good low light capabilities; however, I was on the fence for quite some time because of the size and weight of the unit (roughly twice the size and weight of my TRV-27). After owning my VX-2000 for a couple of months now, I can only say I wish I'd bought one sooner. Yes it is heavier and bulkier than the TRV-27 but I don't find it unmanageable. As I generally try to keep video clips under 5 minutes, I have not had any problems. If I plan to shoot anything longer, I generally use a tripod anyway (same goes for the TRV-27). The picture quality is outstanding - even my wife who was VERY skeptical about this purchase was blown away when she saw some video taken indoors with very dim lighting. For the record, the VX-2000 also takes great video outdoors and in good lighting conditions. Overkill for home videos? Maybe - but it's tough to put a price on precious family memories. With the VX-2100 now available (which offers very, very little in the way of additional performance/capability), now might be the time to pickup a VX-2000 while you still can. Highly recommended.

Another reviewer here with his facts mixed up about this cam's preformance , said the Blair Witch was shot with the VX1000(almost same ability as vx2000)and that it has edge bleeding problems. Blair Witch was shot with a Hi-8 camcorder (with some 16mm shots). Not with the Sony vx1000 or with any DV camera.

Some claim the VX2000 is dated (like sales people and others inexperienced types). While that may be partially true
for videographers, this is far from the truth for filmmakers. I own the newer Sony PDX10, the best widescreen resolution than any other cam under 10 grand. But the VX2000 is Fantastic for low-light shooting(2lux!)

while the new trv950 and pdx10 have over 1 megapixel per chip (3 times more than the VX), VX2000's color performandce is virtually the same.

The PDX10 and TRV950 are great for outdoor and well-lit shots. But neither come even close to the VX2000 for "low-light performance", which is the most important feature for moody, cinematography-style lighting. It get's down to VX's larger 1/3 chips.

For serious indoor filmmaking and if you're set on using a 3ccd cam, then only consider a Canon XL1 or a VX2000 and nothing else. And forget the dvx100 in my opinion. It doesnt shoot widescreen at all. The DVX shoots in 24p for going out to film but with 25% less resolution than xl1 or vx2k because it does not pick up any extra pixels in widescreen mode.

If you need an interchangeable lens unit, go with the XL1. But if not, you'll save $$$ with the vx2000. The VX2000 is still the best DV filmmaking prosumer machine out of the box.