Can DV camcorders take good stills yet?

[Rudyard]

About 5 years ago we bought a DV camcorder thinking (i didnt know much) that it would take still photos as good as a still camera and be 2 in 1 (video an d stills)

However in good light there were some good shots and in bad light some terrible shots. But even the good ones dont compare to my olympus still camera I now have, which takes awsome still shots.

Now we are going to buy a camera for my pregnant sister so she can film her baby when he is born.

We were wondering if when buying a DV camcorder, if the technology has progressed to the point were camcorders can take stills just like a still camera?

We are looking to spend $7-800 Aussie dollars on a camcorder. Is it possible or should we forget about stills with the camcorder? We dont want 'average' stills like our current minidv camcorder.

Thanks for your help.

[edDV]

Check the reviews at

www.camcorderinfo.com
http://www.dvspot.com/

and see if you like their test pictures.

[thecoalman]

We dont want 'average' stills like our current minidv camcorder.

You're not going to find a DV cam that takes pics comparable to a still 35mm. Even some of the lower-mid range digital cameras don't compare to a decent 35mm.

First thing is most DV cams have a a very limited MP for stills so if you want to blow it up to a 8x10 it's not going to be very detailed. I have a Canon GL2 that takes decent pictures but I wouldn't use it for that, nice feature to have to snap a couple of stills for later use like for maybe a DVD cover. I wouldn't use it just to take pictures though, the resolution is too small.

[Rudyard]

Thanks, thats what I thought but was unsure if new tech had made it possible to have a super res still from a camcorder.

[garman]

Lets do this backwards, how about a still camera that shoots video. The Canon S2 IS shoots excellect 5Mp images and the video is wonderfull too. I have the S1IS and very happy with it. Goto www.steves-digicams.com they have a review on the camera. Goodluck -garman

[thecoalman]

Thanks, thats what I thought but was unsure if new tech had made it possible to have a super res still from a camcorder.

I don't think it's a lack of technology but a lack of anything available, It's more of an add-on feature. Like I said I wouldn't use my DV cam just to take pics but they are pretty good, just that they have a low resolution. A digital camera would produce much better results. I'd imagine that if you compared the stills now to what your old cam took you'd see a vast improvement.

As for the cameras that take video that goes in the opposite direction, the video although nice isn't going to compare to what a DV can do especially if TV is your intended playback.

Keep in mind you have to compare evenly, what's avaialble in most DV cams is comparable to the lowest range of digital cameras.

In the end you buy whatever your primary focus is, do you want good video or good stills? If you want both buy seperate devices.

[mikesbytes]

The problem is that the DV camera is optimised for motion picture not still pictures. There has been the odd device that has 2 sets of lenses and ccd's, one for motion and one for still.

Depending on how important video is to you, it may be better to get a still camera that takes good video.

For me, I'll stick to having a video camera and a separate still camera.

[edDV]

General rule: A camcorder makes a poor still camera, a still camera makes a poor camcorder and a cell phone does poorly with both.

Choose your priority.

[takeshi]

Exactly. You'll have about as much finding a vehicle that works well as a motor cycle and works well as a pickup truck. Yes, they both have wheels, but both functions are completely different.

You might recall the old saying: "jack of all trades -- master of none"...