Whats the difference between the DZ2400 and the XR9500PRW?
1360613
I'm not an expert on sewing machines so I can't answer if there's any type of major difference such as certain sewing patterns or button holes that one has that the other doesn't. I used youtube as my research guide and the DZ2400 beat out the XR9500PRW no problem. I'm not saying the DZ2400 was the top one all together but it was the one I liked best of the top 5 of 2014
1447681
I didn't see any difference. I am very happy with mine, it woulds like I believe it should. There was only one issue with the viewfinder which in my opinion become too easily detached, but I am sure that's only my model. I would say do more research on this 1d in comparison to others. You can always buy and return it to if you don't mind spending a few bucks on shipping it back if you don't like it.
1162549
Nothing except for the ds713+ is faster. Depends on what your going to be using it for if it's work the extra money on the d2713+.
1634372
I have them both in front of me for comparison:The 2000 has a slightly rougher surface than the 1000, which is probably what the "precision control" is referring to.The 2000 has a stitched edge, while the 1000 has a cut edge.If I tug at the corner of the pads, the 1000 seems to stretch more than the 2000.The 2000 has an extra "DX-2000" logo in the upper left corner, while the 1000 only has the Perixx logo in the lower right. The Perixx logo on the 2000 is a much brighter white and the logos seem to be layered on top of the fabric (if I rub my finger across the logo I can just barely feel the lettering, which has a rubbery texture), while the logo on the 1000 seems to be inked into the fabric. I have them both in front of me for comparison:The 2000 has a slightly rougher surface than the 1000, which is probably what the "precision control" is referring to.The 2000 has a stitched edge, while the 1000 has a cut edge.If I tug at the corner of the pads, the 1000 seems to stretch more than the 2000.The 2000 has an extra "DX-2000" logo in the upper left corner, while the 1000 only has the Perixx logo in the lower right. The Perixx logo on the 2000 is a much brighter white and the logos seem to be layered on top of the... » Read More I have them both in front of me for comparison:The 2000 has a slightly rougher surface than the 1000, which is probably what the "precision control" is referring to.The 2000 has a stitched edge, while the 1000 has a cut edge.If I tug at the corner of the pads, the 1000 seems to stretch more than the 2000.The 2000 has an extra "DX-2000" logo in the upper left corner, while the 1000 only has the Perixx logo in the lower right. The Perixx logo on the 2000 is a much brighter white and the logos seem to be layered on top of the fabric (if I rub my finger across the logo I can just barely feel the lettering, which has a rubbery texture), while the logo on the 1000 seems to be inked into the fabric. « Show Less
938250
the only difference between the systems is the color of the receiver. the reason why the 2300 has a higher retail price is because it came out a year earlier
1178666
Difference is cost and the XRP I believe gives you extra run time. As for the swapping of 18V's they have worked for me on the tools I have i.e. brad nailer and hand vac. Hope this helps.
845608
I just saw that the new model (pzd) is just 20 dollars more and its lighter. The old version is a great all around lens. I highly recommend it. Recently i bought the 17-50 2.8 VC which way sharper and brighter, but the zoom range of this one is amazing. Good luck
2024050
I have both. Very little difference. Both are excellent for a point and shoot!
784693
I have both so I show how both compare in a video I uploaded, hope this helps eveyone: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3H93U55IRPTZ4
925851
they both work. The only difference is the XR which means extended run time. The regular ones usually come with the tool, but the XR is preferable. They really do last longer and have more power. My favorite cordless drill is discontinued, and have worn out multiple batteries over the years, but drill is still going.
768293
Kind of hard to say considering I have not owned the XRS 9970G, I chose the SLR650G because of the digital display, and a lot of the reviews. The digital display is really nice because from a distance it looks more like a navigation GPS than a Radar Detector. Since if have got it, it has saved me numerous times in the Nashville Area.
85339
The biggest difference is the new X-Trans sensor which removes the optical low pass filter (OLPF)... making pics much sharper than they were in the x10. Here's more from dpreview's review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x20/): At first glance, the X20 looks just like its predecessor (the X10), although it's now available in a very pretty silver-and-black finish, alongside the conventional all-black. But inside it offers a couple of very significant differences. The first is a brand-new sensor, a 2/3" type 'X-Trans CMOS' design that uses the same novel color filter array as Fujifilm's recent APS-C cameras. This sensor also has phase detect autofocus built right into it - not new to Fuji cameras, but a change from the X10. The second big change is an updated 'Advanced Optical Viewfinder' that includes a detailed information overlay, showing key exposure data and focus confirmation. This isn't the same as the hybrid viewfinder found in the company's X100/X100S and X-Pro1 models - there's no electronic viewfinder - but it's never been done before on a compact camera. The X20 is available in silver/black and all-black bodies Aside from this, the X20 retains most of the same features that made the X10 so appealing. It uses the same fast zoom lens, with a 28-112mm equivalent angle of view and F2.0-2.8 maximum aperture, which is operated by a mechanically-coupled zoom ring that also retracts the lens and turns the camera on and off. It has plenty of external controls, including an exposure compensation dial and two rear dials, and a hot shoe for external flash. One feature notable by its absence is a direct movie record button - the X20 is clearly designed for still photography first, and video second.
2082186
I have both DSLR and this ZWO camera DSLR is better for more wide field long exposure targets and usually has larger chips ZWO is more commonly used for planets, sun, moon with many short "stack" images using avi sequenceZWO can do long exposures and it does come with a fish eye camera lens also ZWO is lighter than most dslrI have both and use both in different ways
2008660
The difference between the two models, the XRS 9965 and the XRS 9970G is that the latter includes GPS and can detect "RED LIGHT" camera zones and other speed traps, the "AURA" database is free to update for the lifetime of the unit. It's definitely worth the extra few bucks.
1634370
I have them both in front of me for comparison: The 2000 has a slightly rougher surface than the 1000, which is probably what the "precision control" is referring to. The 2000 has a stitched edge, while the 1000 has a cut edge. If I tug at the corner of the pads, the 1000 seems to stretch more than the 2000. The 2000 has an extra "DX-2000" logo in the upper left corner, while the 1000 only has the Perixx logo in the lower right. The Perixx logo on the 2000 is a much brighter white and the logos seem to be layered on top of the fabric (if I rub my finger across the logo I can just barely feel the lettering, which has a rubbery texture), while the logo on the 1000 seems to be inked into the fabric.
1929277
My understanding is that the FI9805W contains a greater number of IR sensors and, therefore, will provide a greater IR capability than the FI18904W. I also believe that the FI18904W is slightly smaller. This is my first experience with these cameras so I'm hardly an expert.
155370
From what I have read, the only difference is the zoom ability and a tripod. This is what I read on another website so I really don't have any conclusive information.