1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Camcorder or Camera?

Discussion in 'Camcorders, Action Cams & Video Editing Forum' started by Jon12345, Apr 3, 2003.

  1. Jon12345

    Jon12345
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    163
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +3
    I have neither a Camcorder or Camera at the moment. Well, not entirely true. I do have an old film based camera that way past its sell by date.

    Should I go for a Camcorder or Camera? I mean, is there any point in getting a Camera when a Camcorder can actually take several frames and you can pick the best one?

    I know very little about the new stuff so I am kinda guessing here.

    Any recommendations on a good value mid priced unit?

    Thanks,

    Jon
     
  2. lightningvictim

    lightningvictim
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    201
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Stonehaven, Kincardineshire, Scotland
    Ratings:
    +11
    I have a JVC GR-DVL 9500 - bought in 1999 - which has 380K pixel progressive scan CCD and when you capture images and print them they are very grainy but are ok for publishing on the web.
    I think current camcorders have about 1Million pixel progressive scan so things may be better these days but I would definitely get something that has a Memorystick or SmartMedia Slot as the download time from miniDV tape is quite slow as all I got was a serial cable and it is just as bad when you do it over the firewire connection that I have for Pinnacle video editing.

    I have a Fuji FinePix 6800 and the pictures on the medium setting come out at about 300-400k in size but are more than adequate for printing on any decent inkjet printer (upto 2400x2400dpi) for photo quality prints.
    The camera is very small and I find that this affects the quality you can get on the zoom modes as the images tend to blur very easily unless you apply very delicate pressure on the picture taking button.

    My brother-in-law has bought an SLR Digital camera and the quality is absolutely amazing - a 1488x2240 pixel picture comes in at about 500k and you can zoom in to about 800% before you see any form of pixelation - mind you he bought it through his business and it cost a fortune!!!!

    I'm sure somebody will have some moe uptodate infor for you
    Cheers
    Les
     
  3. MarkE19

    MarkE19
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    17,107
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Rainham Essex
    Ratings:
    +2,380
    The thing to consider is that most cameras can take video and most camcorders can take still images, but what do you want to do mostly.

    A camera is designed to take still, and will do this well, and can only do low quality video.
    A camcorder is designed to take video, and will do this well, and can only do relitively low quality stills.

    If you want to print out large photos then the quality from a camcorder will not great.
    The video from a camera will not be very good for viewing on a TV and will only be recordable in short sequences. Digicam media is very expensive to use if capturing a lot of video.
    A video camera (even the new small ones) tend to be a lot more bulky to carry around than a digicam.

    I have got both and use both. You need to decide which you want and then go for it. Which unit will you get the most use from?

    Mark.
     
  4. Ayrton

    Ayrton
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    617
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Ratings:
    +20
    When I bought a digital camera I found out several models offered the facility to take little snippets of video. I thought this sounded like a good idea so within my budget the choice came down to 2megapixels with video or 3 without.

    I got it wrong. The video quality is so poor you really can't do anything with it, the sound unlistenable. If I was choosing again I would go for the extra pixels.

    Subsequently I have purchased a digital camcorder (Sony TRV25 - very pleased with it, would recommend it). With camcorders it is not so much of a compromise because I think most of them can take stills. I do sometimes take still images with it but as the previous chap said they are best described as 'internet quality'. I don't know how other cameras do it but the Sony has a 'memory stick' which is quite handy for this.

    I reckon its like hi-fi separates, the less they do the better they are likely to be at doing it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...