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:
    17,437
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Rainham Essex
    Ratings:
    +2,470
    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...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice