Camcorder or Camera is better to capture both video/photo ?

[SingSing]

We all don't want to carry too many widgets on vacation, because we want to spend time on enjoying our vacation than taking care of widgets.

I am stucked. If I want to go on a trip with one piece of easy to use equipment, to capture photo and video. What should I buy? Camcorder or DigiCam ? Both of them can do both!

Slide show and video on a DVD is the best way for vacation memories. In general, my folks like the photo slide show better than the camcorder video, because the visual are much clearer. Slide show and video on a DVD is the best.

Canon A620 or A700 can capture great pictures, and good video. The video need to be convert before I can put it on the DVD. The duration of video that camera can capture, I think can be overcome by a handful of those $39.00 1GB SD cards.

Panasonic 3CCD camcorders now come with flash light, and can capture decent photo. But how good is the pictures in low light ?

Point and shoot Digital Camera is easier to handle than any camcorder, but many of their zoom are disabled during video capturing.

There is also a question of how much zoom is really need in real life ? Is the 6x or 10x zoom good for 98% of all video/photo capture ?

[redwudz]

That can be a difficult choice. I prefer a digital still camera and taking lots of photos. But for viewing, videos are sometimes easier for displaying. Most people aren't that happy watching a slide show, but can sit through a video without getting bored.

And the subjects you are recording may determine your choice of equipment. Photos of a sporting event with a lot of action doesn't often come across well with photos, compared to video. For scenery or static subjects, a still camera may be better. A camcorder with still photo capability may not have near the resolution of a still camera.

So for myself, I would take a still camera with decent video capabilities. And a lot of flash cards and batteries. If you were to take a laptop also, you could dump the flash card data to the hard drive or a DVD data disc. I tend to take as many pictures as the card can hold, then sort out the junk later.

[yoda313]

Regardless of specs you're still better off using dedicated equipment. Both are so small these days they shouldn't be too much of a burden. Get a real dedicated digital still camera and look for a decent minidv camera. Then that way you won't be sorry you compromised on one or the other. It's amazing how much smaller both are compared to my cameras. I have sony 8mm analog camera vintage mid 90s. Its HUGE compared to a minidv camera. The quality is still decent for the amount of time I use it so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade just yet. And as for the digital cameras - they've REALLY shrunk compared to my old 2.1 mp sony.

[edDV]

I'll assume you have shot MiniDV quality video and you have taken 5 MegaPixel stills and evaluated your own work.

Which impresses you more? Photos or camcorder tapes?

The skill set and mindspace playing journalist differ. Which technology grabs you?

Are you a photoalbum person or a hometheater person? Are your critics more happy with your photography or your travel videos?

Bottomline: A camcorder makes a poor to mid still camera and a digital camera is still a toy for video.

Alternative? Go to the gym and pack light on clothes and use both.

[SingSing]

I have 3 digital camera, and 2 camcorders. I really dislike that I have deal with both of them plus the laptop on the road in vacation.

As they are getting better, I feel that it is close to that I can get comparable result, and not spending maintanence time on them. I do want the convergence to work for me.

I was watching clear video sample from A700, and also the diminishing price of SD memory. This is more promising then the SD-camcorder, that sanyo, samsung, panasonic that have tried for a few years now.

I still can't figure out why pansonic still stuck with their CMOS camera sensor, that are so noisy ?

[KBeee]

Just from personal experience, I used to carry a Panasonic GS400, plus a Nikon Coolpix stills camera, and now I just carry the GS400 to do it all. The saving in weight and cumbersomeness (is that a real word?), against the quality difference of the still pictures obtained didn't justify the extra weight for me.

[lordsmurf]

#1 - Video cameras take crappy stills.
#2 - Still cameras take crappy video.

Decide which one you want to do, and stick to that. If it's too much trouble, don't do either, do what my parents/grandparents did and rely on the old noggin for your vacation images.

A Canon Elph still P&S digital camera fits in pretty much any pocket in your shirt, coat, shorts or pants. Current consumer DV cameras are so small/lightweight you could wear it like a necklace. Or put it in a tiny purse-like camera bag and toss it over your shoulder. Millions of women do it daily, carry purses, cram it full of crap for any situation.

[edDV]

I decide each trip whether to take the Canon S60 and/or the large or small camcorder.

Also pack the laptop or just the Palm? Also the cellphone, chargers and GPS? hmm.

Full daytrip gear has Canon in left pocket, camcorder over right shoulder and cellphone on the belt. Fortunately batteries will now get me through the day.

[fjmr]

I think a minidv camcorder does a good job for both stills and film.
If you take a photo with 1.1megapixel that is more than enough to make a dvd slide show or film mixed with the film captured at minidv and music.
Forget about to carry two.
One is enough and inteligent way.
I insist 1 mpixel is very nice for still and you should enjoy watching the dvd film in a hometheater.
I cant understand why people blame so much the stills taken with the camcorder.
See annexed a photo taken with a sony cam.

[fjmr]

Some more examples photos taken with a sony hc 42 camcorder.

dsc02639.jpg

[fjmr]

one more still with camcorder

dsc02642.jpg

[edDV]

Some may have a higher goal for stills than a DVD slide show or a web page.

We made do with 1.2 Megapixel back in first generation digital cameras. But then we also needed to also carry a 35mm film camera for serious work. 2-3 Megapixels gets you a decent 5x7 print and an adequate 8x10.

[InXess]

I'd say camcorder would make a better still camera then still camera a camcorder. I've seen several good pictures taken with camcorders but never a good video taken with a still camera.
This is an old dilemma 'still' or video, no good answer.

[fjmr]

Who cares nowadays to print photos?
To print how?
In a home ink jet?
Remember we are talking about amateur.
1.2 mpixel for a dvd presentation is far enough, because if you go further you can get some flickering and cost benefit is no valuable.

[SingSing]

Some more examples photos taken with a sony

I post processed the picture you took, it looks better now, see :
dsc02639.jpg

Is there a review web site that I can look at 2 or 3 mega pixels picture from camcorder ?

[SingSing]

Still cameras take crappy video.

See this typical Canon camera video : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona700/page8.asp

I saw quite a few of these from friends' cameras, thus I take a stronger interest in camera video.

[edDV]

Who cares nowadays to print photos?
To print how?
In a home ink jet?
Remember we are talking about amateur.
1.2 mpixel for a dvd presentation is far enough, because if you go further you can get some flickering and cost benefit is no valuable.

Ink Jet is inferior and more expensive. Today you upload digital photos to the lab (pro quality) or to the corner store (1 hour service).

If you will never print then the camcorder may be good enough. I agree that camcorders do better with stills than still cams do with video. No contest there.

[thecoalman]

If given the choice I'd go with the video camera. My Canon takes OK stills. There's not a still camera on the market that takes OK video, at least if you want to put it on DVD for playback on a TV. It's highly compressed, sometimes at an odd frmaerate and completely unsuable resolution. Fine for computer playback but no good for DVD. Besides that you have the storage issue, most of those still cams can't record that much even with a very large card.

[SingSing]

The point and shoot digicam has typical zoom between 4x to 6x, panasonic has one up to 10x. miniDV camcorder is 10x to 20x.

How much miss opportunity does a small zoom really means ?

[ZAPPER]

There are gonna be two of you on vacation? One carry the still the other carry the vid! Man, it is tough being this clever. (JK)

You already know that you can't have the best of both in one unit, and I suspect that you already are leaning towards one or the other based on your personal prefferences and taste.

Some things that effect my choice, and may help you.

Subject matter: Is it an action shot or an inadimate object? For shooting my kids, its action all the way so the vid is the answer. For shooting flowers, landscapes, buildings and other stuff that doesn't move, stills are my choice.

Will you be taking a slow easy vacation or an action packed outing?

Editing/cropping: 60 seconds of video gives you alot of images to turn into a still. You can pick out the best frame, get rid of the eye blink frames and drill it down to just the right moment to save as a still. Where as a still is only one frame and all you will have to work with later is that one frame. Example, my kid is about to do his first dive off of the high board, I suspect that it will be a belly flop. I am not gonna risk missing the shot because of shutterlag or my own slow reflexes using a still cam. I want every possible image to sort through later and none of my kids shots are gonna end up on the cover of National Geographic so I can afford to lose some image quality.

On the other hand, the quest for the perfect nature shot of some wildflower requires top notch equipment and high resolution film or megapixles.

Light is also a huge factor. Do you live you life in daylight or in darkened nightclubs? The simple fact (or atleast my opinion) is that it is so much easier to take a good still in low light than it is to shoot good video in low light. A good flash is automatic and is over in a fraction of a second, where as a video light is a royal pain to use and a major annoyance to people being videotaped.


I read a good article once about taking pictures while on vacation once. The general thought was that it is a vacation for you, not a film assignment from the grandparents, live the expeirence first and then record it if you can.

[fjmr]

Look another still with a camcorder. Did you like it?

dsc00701.jpg

[ZAPPER]

Some more examples photos taken with a sony hc 42 camcorder.

dsc02639.jpg

I don't know what it is called, but it looks good! Did you bring enough to share?

[fjmr]

I have a Sony HC 42 Camcorder as I Have already explained.
It has only 500g and it is very small You can carry easily in you pocket and take marvelous still at the memory stick card as well as very impressed films with the minidv tape.
Go Ahead!

dsc00249.jpg

[fjmr]

Zapper
It is called Azores´s Island Shrimp and served at the Antonio´s Restaurant at Canasvieiras Beach, Florianópolis - Brazil land of the World famous Brazilian tennist Guga Kuerten.
Unfortunatelly It was gone!
It was delicious and promotes water at your mouth like we say here.
But back to the camcorder look a photo taken with it from Canas Beach.

[ZAPPER]

Eh, beach photo, big deal. Now back to the food!



Actually you are making a good point about the photos from a camcorder. If they are to be displayed on a monitor, then it is a good way to do it and also have the ability to shoot video. BTW nice shots.

[fjmr]

They are intended to do a film on a dvd and watch at a tv set or better on a hometheater projector.
Then the shrimp photo makes one to fill water at his mouth.

Back to stills see one photo taken with one still digi cam.

[guns1inger]

What's with all the ugly distortions and blurring in the panos ?

Look another still with a camcorder. Did you like it?

dsc00701.jpg

Er, no. Low resolution, grainy and pixelated - typical of a camcorder still or budget still camera.

Horses for course. If you want good quality video and good quality stills, take two good quality cameras. It's simple - you can bang a nail in with a screwdriver, and you can put a screw in with a hammer. But why would you ?

[SingSing]

I have a Sony HC 42 Camcorder as I Have already explained. It has only 500g and it is very small You can carry easily in you pocket and take marvelous still at the memory stick card as well as very impressed films with the minidv tape.
Go Ahead!

The Photo has quite a bit of grain noise and lack of sharpness, typically from a CMOS sensor like Pansonic. On a large screen and human faces, it most likely will be pretty sub-par. The good test of audio/video is human faces, human voices, piano, true black... the basis that we encountered daily.

Samsung has a duo-cam, from the test photo/video, it is okay on both missions, but it is bulky and expensive. Pansonic is still pushing a SD videocam/camera. But it has all the drawback of their noisy CMOS sensor.

[ktnwin]

I agree with SingSing about the burden to bring video/camera gears on the road.
I have done that a few times and that's quite a lot to carry. Not only that, it makes you standing out from the crowd (and that attracts pick pocket folks). I ran into them during my vacation trips in Paris, Rome, etc... It's very annoying.

Recently, I did myself a favor buying a small digital camera, 5 Megapix, 2 GB SD card (1250 photos or 58 mins video) and one 1 GB card (625 photos, 28 mins video). It fits in my pocket (nobody knows I have it), take great photos and the video quality is at 640x480 , 30 fps, compressed to MPEG-4 at 8500kbps and that's very decent DVD quality) . Flash memory are cheaper these days, I can bring a few if I want more video (but I doubt it). I made a few DVDs from this little camera, my friends can't believe they came from this little camera. Of course, I lost the ability to edit my video as with the DV camcorder I used to have (broken now).

Juggling the quality of photos / video is a difficult thing to do. Each of us has our own preferences. I am happy with my choice.

[tekkieman]

Recently, I did myself a favor buying a small digital camera, 5 Megapix, 2 GB SD card (1250 photos or 58 mins video) and one 1 GB card (625 photos, 28 mins video). It fits in my pocket (nobody knows I have it), take great photos and the video quality is at 640x480 , 30 fps, compressed to MPEG-4 at 8500kbps and that's very decent DVD quality) .

Can you clue us in on which one it is?