Digital Camera question

[wingfan]

I would like some feedback on this .. I would like to buy a digital camera which shoots HD video too. Something like this Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Digital Camera
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=19208

Reason being is that it states 720P (1280x720 .. 30fps) movie mode ... and pretty sure the camera itself takes great shots (close to being a DSLR).

I currently have a Canon miniDV DCR HC-21 .. would this PowerShot take better video than that?

And I have a Canon AS720 IS for pictures.. which Im sure this PowerShot is an upgrade to that.

I dont want to have to buy a HD camcorder and a new digital camera (for pictures) .. and if I can get the 2 in 1 kinda of camera for under $500 I would go for that. I know the HD video on this is not going to beat a regular HD camcorder, but will it come close? I guess that's my biggest concern.

[filmboss80]

It's really going to depend upon your end use. As far as direct, unaltered playback of your videos, it should be just fine. But if you intend to edit your videos and such, the highly-compressed consumer HD video formats will demand a lot in terms of CPU power, software compatibility, and hard-drive storage. When purchasing the types of cameras as the one you listed, a lot of people are unaware of the money they have to shell out on the back end for workable editing hardware and software.

[wingfan]

Yes I will be doing editing on the HD videos.. and im setup for that already with a Quad Core (4GB, 1TB drive, ATI Radeon 4870 1GB video card) and software wise Vista 64 and Sony Vegas 9 Pro 64bit installed.

My concern though with this is that its wrapped in Quicktime MOV format .. so not sure how "good" that is quality wise for editing. I saw some Youtube reviews on the HD video and looks pretty sharp i think definitely better than my current video camcorder miniDV that I own.. so it is an upgrade from that.

[lordsmurf]

The biggest affect on the quality of an image is the glass (the lens). A tiny P&S still camera simply is not going to shoot better video than a dedicated video camera. It's easy to see the softness and aberrations in the glass when viewing a video larger than a tiny 640x480 Youtube window.

You're falling into the marketing -- it's what Canon wants you to do. They're not exactly lying to you by suggesting the camera can replace separate cameras, but it's not exactly honest either. It's not the same.

The only reason a Nikon D3s or Canon 7D can take a great video is because it usually have $1,000 lens on it. Aside from that scenario, most still cameras take video about on par with good VHS. I've taken some quick videos with my Canon and Sony pocket cameras, but I won't waste time editing them into movies -- it's just "memories only" type quality, taken at unexpected times, or when a big video camera is not convenient to use.

Anything "looks sharp" when it's about 4-6 inches wide on a consumer computer monitor. Put it on a 30-60" TV screen and get back to me.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I have a Kodak digital camera that also shoots HD video at 720p, it actually does a decent job outdoors and it's compact. If all you're doing is YouTube videos then they work fine, if you are doing professional work then get a dedicated HDV camcorder.

[wingfan]

The biggest affect on the quality of an image is the glass (the lens). A tiny P&S still camera simply is not going to shoot better video than a dedicated video camera. It's easy to see the softness and aberrations in the glass when viewing a video larger than a tiny 640x480 Youtube window.

You're falling into the marketing -- it's what Canon wants you to do. They're not exactly lying to you by suggesting the camera can replace separate cameras, but it's not exactly honest either. It's not the same.

The only reason a Nikon D3s or Canon 7D can take a great video is because it usually have $1,000 lens on it. Aside from that scenario, most still cameras take video about on par with good VHS. I've taken some quick videos with my Canon and Sony pocket cameras, but I won't waste time editing them into movies -- it's just "memories only" type quality, taken at unexpected times, or when a big video camera is not convenient to use.

Anything "looks sharp" when it's about 4-6 inches wide on a consumer computer monitor. Put it on a 30-60" TV screen and get back to me.

I fully agree with you no doubt.