Camcorder versus Digital Camera
mcp6453
at my son's football games. There are some highly rated cameras with 10X
optical zoom. However, there are some DV camcorders that claim 20X
optical zoom. The camcorders are cheaper. Why should I purchase the 10X
camera versus the camcorder 20X when still shots can be captured with
the camcorder? There has to be a reason to prefer the camera, but I
don't know what it is.
David J Taylor
Are you trying to capture moving images at TV resolution or still images
at "photographic" resolution?
David
mcp6453
Still images at photographic resolution. I think you just answered my
question. The camcorder is lower resolution. How do you determine the
resolution of a still created by a DV camcorder?
David J Taylor
[]
>> Are you trying to capture moving images at TV resolution or still
>> images at "photographic" resolution?
>
> Still images at photographic resolution. I think you just answered my
> question. The camcorder is lower resolution. How do you determine the
> resolution of a still created by a DV camcorder?
Look in the specifications!
Some camcorders will do better than others, of course, and your choice of
final output medium - TV screen, Web image, computer display, print etc. -
will determine what resolution you actually need.
Cheers,
David
Kevin
Still shots captured by camcorders are pretty mediocre compared to what's
possible with a decent digital still camera. At those long zoom levels
though, it would be much more difficult to find a still camera (either one
with a very long zoom or one that supports external zoom lenses)
Good luck...
Paul Wantzelius
any camcorder.
PTRAVEL
"mcp6453" <mcp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:414EC7...@earthlink.net...
1. No camcorder is capable of still imaging comparable to a _good_ quality
digitial still camera.
2. A 20x lens on a camcorder is useless for a variety of reasons. First,
it can't be handheld (anything over 8x-10x is virtually impossible to
handhold). Second, consumer camcorder that tout large focal length zooms
use inferior optics that will produce a miserable image at their extremes.
3. Digital still cameras have a broader range of shutter speeds, which
allow selecting one appropriate for the depth of field you wish to achieve.
andre
> mcp6453 wrote:
>
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>>Are you trying to capture moving images at TV resolution or still images
>>>at "photographic" resolution?
>>
>>Still images at photographic resolution. I think you just answered my
>>question. The camcorder is lower resolution. How do you determine the
>>resolution of a still created by a DV camcorder?
>
>
> listed in the specs. You'll find the best you can get is around 1.6
> Megapixels and you'll pay dearly for the feature. This is only good
> for printing up to 5" X 7" .. Most lower end Camcorders only record
> 1 Megapixel or less. That limits you to 4" X 6"
>
> Consumer still cameras today average about 4 Megapixels and can easily
> print better than 8" x 10" Many do short movies.
>
> If you want great video and marginal stills, get the Camcorder. If
> you want great stills and the odd short video, then get a still
> camera.
>
> If you're most interested in bringing things in close, you'll find that
> Camcorders generally have better telephoto ability..
>
>
Besides the stated obvious (above) my Sony MiniDV camcorder takes rather
noisy pictures. I am rarely using it for anything but video.
--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Mark M
Video is recoreded at a TINY fraction of the resolution that still cameras
record.
Even video cameras that promote their "high resolution" sensors are woefully
LOW res in comparison with even the cheaper still cameras.
Sony has a video camera with a 2MP still capture.
Digitals still cameras are cheap at 4MP, and reasonable all the way up to
6MP.
If you want to print larger than 4x6, you'll be much happier with a still
camera.
hfs2
a vcam with 640x480 sensor at 20X. Can you image her son
as well with a common 3MP camera at 3 to 10X zoom as well as
the vcam at 20X? (let's pretend that the image sensors are
roughly equal - noise etc)
mcp6453 <mcp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<414EC7...@earthlink.net>...
Daniel Kelly (AKA Jack)
optical zoom as compared with the video camera, you'll be able to 'zoom' in
using your graphics software much more on the image taken with a stills
camera because it will be much higher resolution.
If money's no object then get a digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera.
For example, the Canon 300D is only 600 UK pounds. And then you can fit
whatever lens you want - and you can get some VERY long lenses nowadays.
Jack.
"mcp6453" <mcp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:414EC7...@earthlink.net...
Big Bill
Video cams do have an advantage that may transcend the lack of
resolution: they take, by design a lot of frames per second, for as
long as the tape lasts. Thus, you have many more frames to schoose
from for that one good album of shots.
Yes, poor resolution. But shots that wouldn't have been taken
otherwise.
Just something to consider.
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Mark M
"Big Bill" <bi...@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:on01l0hth4377jeo7...@4ax.com...
That's not completely correct.
While it may be true that you could make a still print from a frame of
video, you are talking only about VIDEO FRAME r**esolutions** at that point,
which is MUCH lower.
This is entirely different from their higher resolution "still-mode"
shooting capabilities of these video cameras.
When you buy a Sony video camera that says, "1MP still capture", this does
NOT mean that any frame from a moving video will produce an image with 1MP's
worth of resolution. It won't do this. You have to put the camera in
"still mode" which THEN utilizes the extra pixels. If you simply take a
frame from the video, you're going to have an image a FAR FAR lower
resolution than 1MP...one which is at VIDEO resolutions, which,
comparatively are extremely low.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
panaceia, the supposed ancient greek medicine that was meant to heal any
disease.Me, too.Why get the very expensive digital crap?To do what?
--
Dimitris Tzortzakakis,Iraklion Crete,Greece
major in electrical engineering
freelance electrician
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "mcp6453" <mcp...@earthlink.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:414EC7...@earthlink.net...
Tony Morgan
<dimtzort...@nospamotenet.gr> writes
>Everything digital is *supposed* to be the perfect solution.
I'd have to disagree - even today, with the very expensive really high
pixel CCD sensors. Top photographers shooting of Vogue covers still use
(and will continue to do so) high-end 5 x 4 film cameras and will shoot
on low-speed transparency film.
This year, for the first time, sales of digital cameras in the US have
outsold emulsion film cameras - but not hugely so.
I, like a lot of folk who are serious about their photographic hobby
will bring out their 35mm SLR for those shots where it's intended to
print to 14 x 12 (I still use my Pentax LX - and it's likely to be some
time before it's finally retired).
For the great "Joe Public" however, the improvements and falling costs
of digital cameras have put the potential advantages of digital into
their realm. And today more and more people are attracted to the ability
to have a camera that, with a footprint of maybe 5" x 4" x 1", can be
slipped into the pocket - yet produce good album sized prints very
easily in far more challenging lighting conditions than can be shot on
emulsion film.
Initially with digital cameras, potential users found the idea of being
to print their photos on their computer's inkjet printer appealing.
Most, however, later found that the high cost of photo-paper and ink
cartridges made the option unexpectedly expensive compared with the
film-emusion media photo-lab's costs. Today, with the increase in the
number of high-street photo-processing shops who do prints from digital
camera memory cards at more realistic costs, have improved matters.
>Like the panaceia, the supposed ancient greek medicine that was meant
>to heal any disease.Me, too.Why get the very expensive digital crap?
That, if I might say so, is a crap remark :-)
>To do what?
It entirely depends on the buyer's expectations.
For the guy who wants to shoot photos for inclusion in the family album
in far worse lighting conditions than would be possible with a film
camera - a low-end digital camera has much to be recommended, especially
with the month-on-month reduction in cameral cost.
Also, the increasing availability and reducing cost of (say) 5Mpx
"middle-range" but tiny "auto-with-manual-override" digitals introduces
more and more people to serious photography - which can't be a bad
thing. Their wife and friends can pick up and "point-and-shoot" this
digital camera, but allows them to explore the abilities to shoot in far
more exacting lighting conditions with manual overrides. And to learn
while doing so.
The of course there are the serious photographers who are likely to have
owned a quality film SLR (or 5 x 4) with maybe two or three lenses, and
are prepared to pay for the ability to do things more readily with the
expensive DSLR in more onerous lighting conditions - and to be able to
print large size "exhibition prints".
Lastly, there are the group who's hobby is not actually taking
photographs, but in owning (and talking about) the most expensive DSLRs.
From many of the posts here of "my digital's better than yours", this
group are quite thick on the ground here. Which is a shame really. I
suspect they spend far more time poring over camera specs and manuals
than they do in actually taking photographs. I have no objection to this
group, since with more and more people in this group buying the top-end
DSLRs the cost to the rest of us is bound to drop.
But whatever your bag, digital cameras can in no way be described as
"digital crap".
Having got all the above out of my system, I'd perhaps finally point out
the really great thing about digitals which many people ignore. That is
the ability of people to inexpensively develop their photographic skills
by "hands-on" because shots that are not the best can be analysed and
discarded - part of the learning/experience process - with no cost
whatsoever. Something that could not be done with film cameras. And to
widen the learning/experience of more and more people can only be a good
thing.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
Yehuda Paradise
it already turns out quite fuzzy. not so with a fairly decent still camera.
which should get you 8 by 10s easily. besides, you have much less control
over what your camcorder actually records.
"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <dimtzort...@nospamotenet.gr> wrote in
message news:cj0l12$jrv$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...