Jack M Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Shred Gruumer asked me for a recommendation for a compact digital camera that could double as a video camera. I ended up writing him a pretty long letter, so I thought I would share it, in case there's some useful information here... > so in layman's terms,, if I want a camera > that can double as a video camera what do I get? Or should I do the > opposite.. I know the best option would be to get both.. but that's not an > option! Well, that depends on your priority. If you want to shoot a lot of video, get a camcorder. However I don't know if there are any video cameras out there that do a good job of doubling as a still-camera, that you would want to carry around with you that often for taking snapshots and candids. I loathe the idea of carrying a camera bag, I love being able to stick my camera in my pocket and go. Again, I'm not much of a camcorder guy. Check out www.camcorderinfo.com if taking tons of video footage is your priority. I just took a quick look, this cam looks interesting: http://www.jvc.com/presentations/everio/style/index.html On to cameras... Personally, I like to take a lot of stills, and with a camera I can fit in my pants pocket that I can take everywhere. If it were my decision, I would go for a compact camera that can double as a video cam. I'll suggest two cameras that I think should be top contenders, but that's not to say there is nothing else out there. Canon SD300 and Sony DSC-W1 (W1 for short). Both will do TV quality video with sound. That is 640x480, 30 frames per second. Any camera that advertises less is not capable of TV quality, and should be disregarded if you want a camera that doubles as a video cam. The Canon is a little more compact, but the Sony has a ginormous 2.5" LCD, which would be nice for viewing and sharing pics/video with people around you after you take them. The Canon's is 2.0", which is a pretty good size, larger than average. The Sony takes AA batteries, which obviously you can buy anywhere if you run out of juice unexpectedly. I believe a set of rechargeable AA's and a charger are included with the camera. The Canon uses a proprietary rechargeable, which is included with the camera along with a charger. Many people swear by AA's, but I've never felt crippled by my proprietary rechargeable. Maybe I don't know what I'm missing. Ultimate still-photo quality might tip slightly to the Canon, but I've never tried either camera. That's just a general statement of Canon vs. Sony, although Sony is a serious competitor in digital cameras. The Sony is a 5 megapixel, the Canon is 4mp. 4mp is plenty big though. The Sony only falls significantly short of the Canon in just one regard, continuous drive shooting. The Canon has a 2.4 frames per second continuous burst, for an unlimited number of shots, at full resolution. The Sony's is 1.7fps, limited to 4 shots at full resolution, 7 shots at reduced resolution. I'll send a 4-shot sequence in the following email that I took of you at Sugarloaf 2 years ago. My camera does 2.5fps, so you can see how far apart the shots are. Here is what you should do. Buy both cameras locally from a place that has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. Try them both out for a week or two (the longer you keep them the greater the chance you'll scratch one or something to render it unreturnable). Get some prints made from both. See which one you enjoy using/holding/operating more. Return one. Sure, you might save $50 online, but over the life of the camera (several years) that's nothing. It's much better to be able to walk in to a store and deal with a person who has some accountability to you, and who you can reason with face to face. Whichever camera you get, in order to have it double as a video camera, you'll need to buy the largest memory card you can afford, and preferably more than one of them. Consider that a one-hour cassette-tape for a digital video camera is about 12 gigabytes. Cards have much less capacity, so you'll need as much as you can get. Canon SD300: http://tinyurl.com/6b9ox Sony W1: http://tinyurl.com/6k3k5 <b>BOTTOM LINE:</b> I'd have to try both cameras, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Sony came out on top. Then again, the Canon might win too! I am attracted to the idea of the huge 2.5" lcd on the Sony, and I'm a little skeptical of the tiny lens on the Canon, although they've invented new lens technology for these cameras that they claim allows smaller lenses to behave like bigger ones. -Jack ps - there is scads of digicam info on www.dpreview.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 ...my 2 cents: Video camera that also do stills: I bought one of those a few years back. I barely ever used the still image feature. Instead I bought a compact digital still camera a year later. I guess ergonomics and also technology are too different to make a good video camera that also does stills. Most better point and shoot digital cameras now also do video - and those videos are not too bad. If you mainly intend to use that to share videos on the web then that's probably the way to go. Also Olympus makes a few point and shoots that are sealed to be somewhat waterproof - might be a good idea to get one of those if you want to use it on the slopes... But if you are serious about video and still image quality you don't really have a choice these days - you'll need two cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derf Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 You may want to check out the Pentax OptioMX series. I saw it in a store flyer. Looks like what Shred wants, but I'm not sure if it is good or reliable, you may want to investigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishrising Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I bought the DSC-W1, 2 months ago! Pics are excellent, and the video is great for a still camera. I am very happy with this camera! I'll post some samples in a couple of minutes...plus my Sony Handtcam DCR-PC330 lenses fit it with a $19 Ebay adapter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomc Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Hello, There is a Compatibility list on this site: www.hoyttech.com I found it helpful for selecting the right camera for my helmet cam. Just thought I would add this to your posting Thanks for the great letter TomC www.sitski.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 He said he wanted compact, but at least one manufacturer provides a dual-lens job that supposedly offers good performance in both modes. See Samsung duocam. Caveat - I know nothing about this thing other than having it catch my eye in a flyer. The Sony W1 would be what I would buy I think - I was gonna get one, and then my wife got me a Canon A75 for my birthday that I like a lot. It'll do TV quality video too but only 30 seconds at a time, whereas the Sony will go for as long as you've got card space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johann Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 the d-snaps from panasonic make pretty sweet videos. http://tinyurl.com/4zjhs some friends and I have been playing around with them. Not only are they super tiny video camera's, but they record video, and digital. horray for home editing. We've also been experimenting with helmet cameras. A small dv camera like the panasonic mixes great with a helmet adaptor. totally fits into a camelpac for those fun downhill shots. we've actually some footage from mountain creek this summer. unfortunatly its all mpeg-4, so its huge, otherwise i would post it. dunno how its' still pictures are though. [edit: wrong url and spelling] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishrising Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Do a right click and save as for these links, as they are uncompressed and unaltered...if you don't the video will be choppy... Pics: DSC00318.JPG - Pic of daughter, indoors, with flash 2093kb, 2592x1944, 72dpi DSC00172.JPG - Pic of Sammy training on birds, outdoors, partly sunny, 2148kb, 2592x1944, 72dpi Video: MOV00093.MPG - Sammy with trainer, outdoors, cloudy, 38.6Mb, 30 seconds, 640x480, 30fps, mono sound MOV00211.MPG - Daughter, indoors, typical indoor light, 81.3Mb, 65 seconds, 640x480, 30fps, mono sound (and don't laugh too hard at Dad (me) doing the gaga and googooing...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomc Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I posted some video I made most are in wmv format some avi posted here: www.sitski.com/2004/video and other here: www.sitski.com/media.htm these were edited and produces using pinnacle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patmoore Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I've owned five digital cameras and three camcorders and have tried both approaches - taking stills with the camcorder and movies with the still camera. There are shortcomings to both approaches so I frequently carry both. At Telluride last year I alternated shooting video one day and stills the next. The stills you can take with most camcorders aren't the best quality and the movies with digital stills will usually diplay some "jerkiness". Having said that, I've found that JVC makes a compact DV Camcorder that can be worn on a strap around your neck and sit inside a large pocket in your parka. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the graphic after accessing this short video I shot of a skiercross race last winter with the camcorder. The next video is shot in a Quicktime format using an old Olympus D-490 still camera with no sound. Take a look at the quality of the stills while on that page. My new Olympus D-770 takes sharp movies with sound and takes exceptionally good stills but has one annoying feature. I like to take sequential shots at two frames a second. The D-770 viewfinder is actually through-the-lens and the view is blocked briefly while processing is going on. As a result, you can't follow the action. For sequentials, I still use the older D-490. pcworld.com is a good resource for recommendations on cameras but I'm partial to Olympus because of the superior lenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishrising Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 The DSC-W1 was $349 at Sears, I used my Sears charge card and got 10% off electronics over $299 using it, and then I also got a coupon with my new card (it came 2 days before I bought the camera) to save $20 off off $300 or more. So, I ended up paying $294 + tax... Remember the DSC-W1 requires MediaStick PRO to record video at 640x480 30fps "fine" mode. Normal MediaStick media will record video, but not in the "fine" mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joecarve Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 very nice site for digital still camera comparisons: dpreview.com joe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishrising Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 As is http://www.steves-digicams.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishrising Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 you could get something like the Sony DCR-PC330 or the newer DCR-PC350, excellent video with 3.1mp digital capability. There is also the Samsung SC-D6040. It is a camera that has both a minidv camcorder and a 4mp still camera. Each using it's own lense barrels. It is literally 2 cameras in one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonerider Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by fishrising As is http://www.steves-digicams.com/ There are basically three tiers of camera review sites. Steve's digicams is the most basic and just kind of shows you how the camera works and give you some nice sample shots to compare. It reviews virtually all digicams (breadth) Next are places like www.imaging-resource.com and dcresource.com that give slightly more detailed reviewed including battery life testing, resolution charts, autofocus testing. imaging-resource.com also has a image comparometer that allows you to compare cameras by giving you a set of "standard" photos shot in similar shooting conditions (same subject, distance, lighting, etc). These sites review slightly less cameras than steve's. Finally the great-daddy of review sites is Phil's dpreview, which are extremely, extremely details reviews. He covers everything you can think of and more. However, Phil only tends to cover the high-end stuff and so there are several cameras that are unreviewed (depth). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted December 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill The Sony W1 would be what I would buy I think - I was gonna get one, and then my wife got me a Canon A75 for my birthday that I like a lot. It'll do TV quality video too but only 30 seconds at a time, whereas the Sony will go for as long as you've got card space. Pretty sure the A75 only does 15fps video, whereas the W1 and SD300 do 30fps, which is TV quality. 640x480 is TV size, but you need 30fps to be smooth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagen Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 ...about TV quality - to make it look good on an actual TV it should also record interlaced video (i.e. 60 half frames per second). Otherwise you will see artifacts on fast action in the video. As far as I know only video cameras do that. So if you want your video to look good on a TV you are stuck with a video camera. I guess the Samsung Camcorder that Ben mentioned has the best of both worlds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Gendzwill Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Michaud Pretty sure the A75 only does 15fps video, whereas the W1 and SD300 do 30fps, which is TV quality. 640x480 is TV size, but you need 30fps to be smooth. Yup, you're right - I just checked the manual. It's still a great camera for the price, nothing else in that price range has all the manual overrides. I've got an analog video camera anyways so having the video mode wasn't important enough to me to exchange it. I'm not good enough/enthusiastic enough to warrant the extra features and $$$ of the W1 anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpalka Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Just to add my two cents -- I used the Pentax Optio 33WR for almost a year, and was quite happy with it. It supported 320x160 15fps movies, which was reasonable in terms of size -- I could fit 22+ minutes of video on a single 512M card. For me, that was sufficient and the quality was OK. Recently I upgraded to the Optio 43WR, which has the 640x320 30fps support -- much nicer :) What I like about it is that it's waterproof, very compact, easy to explain to other people how to use, and it's cheap -- under $300. For some samples, check my web site (http://www.slackerdom.com/video.html), or see a jittery-ish video from my season's first day on the snow, yesterday: http://www.slackerdom.com/2004/12_first_boarding/index.html All the images are stills extracted from the 320x160 15fps Quicktime movie... tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.