1. Join Now

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

Combo - Samsung VP-D6050i or what else?

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by Ak1s, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. Ak1s

    Ak1s
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hello there!
    I am looking for a combo video/still device that will perform satisfactorily on both tasks. I know that this may not be possible mainly due to different lenes required, but I saw this Samsung VP-D6050i, and I thought that perhaps it solves the problem, since it's got 2 lenses. I am very much interested in 16:9 though, and this one seems to only provide a 'hack' for it, not real 16:9.

    Has anyone seen/used the 6040i or the 6050i? If you've seen any reviews in magazines/online etc, can you please point me at the right direction? I haven't been able to find much on google.
    What do you think of latest Samsung camcorders in general?

    link (Samsung UK):
    http://***********/55f4f

    Any suggestions for digital still cameras that perhaps would be suitable to 'unlimited' video recording as well? I know that most are limited to 30 sec clips or similar, but there are some that will fill the whole of the memory card. With 1,2 or even 4 GB, I will be covering my requirements.

    I am also open to suggestions on other camcorders that will be suitable. I have seen the Panasonic GS400, but the 4Mpixels still pic are achieved through interpolation - not great.

    Thanks very much
    Akis
    :)
     
  2. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well the Canon S1 (which i have) is one of the best for films at 30 frames pers second recording and superfine mode at 640x 480. At that setting it would take up 1 gig in nine minutes, thats how good the quality is. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s1is.html

    It's a 3.2mp camera which would give u a 7x5 10 x 8 prints easy. It's also a zoom lens that you can still use on films rare for a digital camera becuse of it ultrasonic motor
     
  3. Ak1s

    Ak1s
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the reply!

    Problem is that this is not 16:9. The TV that this will be used is a 32" 16:9 Sony, and I don't want to use the 'black-bar-mode' or stupid 'smart' zooming to watch the video.
    Another problem is that 3.2 Megapixels seem too low for me. I bought a Fuji 3.1 Megapixels a good few years back, which was fine, but then I bought a Canon S45 4.0 Megapixels and the difference was visible, even at relatively small prints. We are closing on year 2005, if it wasn't for commercial strategy (example: Intel), we would have all got 14 Megapixels full-frame CCDs to our cameras by now, the science and manufacturing are there. That's what I consider digital photography!
    So something along the lines of 4-5 Megapixels I consider it minimum, since unfortunately that's what the corporates are letting me have at the moment.
    I am not a megapixel freak, but I've had a Sony PC110 for some time, and I took some stills of nice places I visited, which I regretted later, since they were only 1.1 Megapixel. So the more the better (of course quality is as important)
    :)
    Akis
     
  4. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well the thing is mate that all digital cameras films res is 640X480 (if you're lucky) so you stick that on a big screen and you're going to have trouble with quality.

    Cramming mps on a CCD is not a good idea. They're just too small.

    "The sensor sizes of digital SLRs are typically 40% to 100% of the surface of 35mm film. Digital compact cameras have substantially smaller sensors offering a similar number of pixels. As a consequence, the pixels are much smaller, which is a key reason for the image quality difference, especially in terms of noise and dynamic"

    .http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_Sizes_01.htm

    Mp is just one part that makes up camera
     
  5. Ak1s

    Ak1s
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the info, this is indeed important. Although I can live with the small CCD in a combo device, provided that the picture created has got enough information in it. 3.2 mps I just don't think it is enough.

    One question though, are we saying here that the compact cameras, with the small CCDs, are taking *worse* pictures as the mps increase, or that after some point it is not worth increasing the mps? These are two different things...Perhaps a compact camera with 8mps is not worth it, yes, but 4 or 5 I think it's common nowdays.
    :)
    Akis
     
  6. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    More mp does not mean more detail. It's really just resolution (printsize) CCD's use smaller pixels then that of DSLR's.

    To but it simply. If you print say a 7x5 from an S1 and 7X5 from the canon S70 which is a 7mp compact. there will not be any difference in quaility. Infact with the image stablizition feature on the S1 that cuts out a lot of noise you will often get better shots. You have to consider many other things when buying a camera, mp is just a part of that it really is not a sign of quailty in many cases
     
  7. MarkE19

    MarkE19
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    17,269
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Rainham Essex
    Ratings:
    +2,405
    Far more important in getting a good quality picture is the optics. A small lens will just not let in enough light to give a good depth of field etc and in lowish light will cause the picture to be grainy/noisy.
    You say you went from a Fuji 3mp to a Canon 4mp camera and got a large improvement in PQ. IMHO a large part of the improvement will be down to the fact that Canon make excellent lenses and not just the increase in pixels.

    Also (and as I also pointed out in your other very similar post in the camcorders forum) video and stills photography are very different in the technology they use. Therefore a camera that can do both stills and video will be a compromise for at least one format if not both.
    Also you say you want a 16:9 CCD. Well I think you are very unlikely to find any stills camera that will offer this as stills just don't get printed in this ratio. Therefore a large section of the rectangle CCD will be waisted for stills or the resolution will drop for video as part of the square CCD is unused to give the 16:9 ratio.

    The old saying of 'jack of all trades, master of none' springs to mind!
    You need to buy the correct tool for the job, anything else IMO will just be a compromise.

    Mark.
     
  8. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Got to say that the S1's video quality is as closer to cam qualtiy then (but no match for) anything i've seen, and like i've said it will use up 1 gig in 9 mins and stop recording even in a 4 gig microdrive.

    It does take great pictures to
     

Share This Page

Loading...