Jump to content

Digital Camera Vs Digital Camcorder


clearpath

Recommended Posts

Did a forum search on digital camcorders and not much showed up. So I thought it would be good idea to update the digital debate over camera vs camcorder. It now appears as if todays digital camcorders will do as much or more than digital cameras. Does anyone geocache with digital camcorders then edit the frames to capture a screenshot? If so, can you get as good an image quality using this method?

Link to comment

I don't use my camcorder for caching. But I'm fairly knowledgable when it comes to cameras, especially video cameras.

 

While most digital camcorders now a days can take still shots, it's a waste of $500 to buy a nice camcorder and then just use it for still shots. I mean, most of them don't take very good pictures, and you're better on spending that $500 on a digital camera..

 

And anyway, why would you want to carry around a camcorder, three to four times the size and weight of a normal digital still camera, when you could carry around the tiny little palmsized thing, and get pictures ten times clearer and ten times bigger...

 

So in my conclusion, I'd just like to state that you can buy a digital still camera for $150, that takes okay pictures and isn't that much of a loss if it's damaged. Or you can spend $500 or so dollars on a nice camcorder that takes below average-average still pictures and that would be a huge loss if you dropped it...

Link to comment
And anyway, why would you want to carry around a camcorder, three to four times the size and weight of a normal digital still camera, when you could carry around the tiny little palmsized thing, and get pictures ten times clearer and ten times bigger...
Just visited the local electronics store today and they had a Sony digital camcorder (not sure what model) that was the same size as most digital cameras.
I mean, most of them don't take very good pictures, and you're better on spending that $500 on a digital camera..
Yeah, but if the digital camcorder was the same size and had the same image quality as a digital camera, wouldn't it be worth considering?
Link to comment
:D I have a sony mavica digital camera, and a sony handycam video camera. Sometimes the pics from the camera come out fuzzy. the camcorder on the other hand, has a function for taking stills and the pics come out much clearer. They are also easier to edit when resizing and stuff.

<_< I also have a Sony Mavica (CD-400) camera. I love the pictures that it takes. They are usually sharp (except when I leave it in macro mode to shoot that landscape) It also uses mini CDs instead of a memory stick kind of thing. I haven't used the memory sticks before, but I am never sorry that I use the CD instead. The camera is a little bulkier than the palm sized ones, and a little more expensive. But I have always been happy with it. It does also take movies (MPGs) at what I would call "internet quality." I made the choice for a better still image than a better movie.

Link to comment

A field I have some input in.

 

As I tell my customers at work:

 

If you want to take stills, buy a digital camera. If you want to shoot video, buy a camcorder. If you buy one thing expecting it to do both well, you'll probably be disappointed.

 

That being said... for the purposes of geocaching, something that takes 1 to 1.3 megapixel stills is more than suitable for transferring the images to GC.com. I just can't see the deep need for a video camera while geocaching.

 

Well... maybe on those DNF hunts. I can go home and study the video the way conspiracy nuts pore over the Zapruder film :D

 

== The Cow Spots

Link to comment

Actually I'm quite happy approaching things from from the other direction. I've picked up a Canon PowerShot A70 Digital Camera, which also has the ability to shoot digital video. It's quite versatile with great camera effects. I can even get good moonlight shots w/ no flash, and with a 15 second exposure on max aperature it's the first digital camera that I've gotten a good picture of the milky way.

 

In regard to it's function as a camcorder, it will film a digital video with sound at 15 frames/sec at 640x480 (30 sec max), 320x240 (3 min max), 160x120 (3 min max). It works great for my purposes as I primarily wanted a camera but also liked the ability to shoot a movie of anything that can't be appropriately captured in a still shot. I think they run about $300+ now, and worth it IMHO.

Link to comment

Each have their pros and cons. For geocaching a camera is more appropriate as you can't upload video footage. And you probably never will as it takes too much server space.

 

Camcorders are heavier and more expensive. Probably the smallest camcorder is the JVC DVP9; it weighs 12 onces (the Canon A70 weighs 7.6oz) and can fit in a shirt pocket. But it only takes 1.33 megapixel stills and costs about $900 on the street.

 

Now if you already have a camcorder and it can take still pictures, why buy a camera?

Link to comment
Each have their pros and cons. For geocaching a camera is more appropriate as you can't upload video footage. And you probably never will as it takes too much server space.

 

Camcorders are heavier and more expensive. Probably the smallest camcorder is the JVC DVP9; it weighs 12 onces (the Canon A70 weighs 7.6oz) and can fit in a shirt pocket. But it only takes 1.33 megapixel stills and costs about $900 on the street.

 

Now if you already have a camcorder and it can take still pictures, why buy a camera?

My Clie takes only slightly better pictures than my camcorder. I took it out on a hunt with me one day for my first real go at paperless geocaching. While I was sitting on the ground signing a log, a deer walked up right behind me to see what I was doing. I was able to turn around, fire up the camera on the Clie and take her picture. It came out like this:

1238238_200.JPG

 

I really wish I would have had my real digital camera with me as I could have gotten a far better picture, and at 5 megapixels, I could have blown it up real big as well if I wanted to.

Link to comment
My Clie takes only slightly better pictures than my camcorder. I took it out on a hunt with me one day for my first real go at paperless geocaching. While I was sitting on the ground signing a log, a deer walked up right behind me to see what I was doing. I was able to turn around, fire up the camera on the Clie and take her picture. It came out like this:

1238238_200.JPG

 

I really wish I would have had my real digital camera with me as I could have gotten a far better picture, and at 5 megapixels, I could have blown it up real big as well if I wanted to.

So what is the megapixel of the deer picture?

Link to comment

My wife had talked about us getting a nice digital camcorder. I thought about it a bit and realized that it would probably sit too much. I have a Fujifilm Finepix 2800 which is a great little 2megapixel camera. It also has the ability to record a minute or two of video.

I love that little thing. It is easy to carry, takes great stills, and has the ability to do a video when I want it. The video is fairly small and being in .avi format, it's easy to edit and work with.

I mostly use it for stills, but when we get to ground zero, I will often hand it to my wife and have her take a little video of me digging out the cache container. We also use it to record the area round the cache which is usually very interesting.

So for me, a good digital camera with some video ability is a more desireable way to go than a digital camcorder with some still ability.

Link to comment

I've had a Sony DCR-TRV20 Digital Handycam for a few years. It takes great stills and great 60 minute digital video. It uses memory sticks and digital video tape. It has Night Shot and Super Night Shot (night vision). It's only a couple of pounds even with the largest battery you can get. It runs for about 4 hours per charge even using the LCD. I use both video and still regularly. I love it. It has three quality settings for taking stills. Below is a sample of the quality even at the lowest picture quality setting (standard setting).:D

 

2b213436-4006-4bf0-92e7-a87e3da7ed98.jpg

Link to comment

I also took the opposite approach. I bought a digi camera that will do limited video. I settled on the tiny and cheep Minolta Dimage x20.

 

The best thing about the bugger is that it used SD cards. Wouldn't ya know it? So does the Dell Axim X5 I use for paperless caching! Also, it uses 2 AA batteries; the smallest camera I could find that used AA. Since everything else I use is on AA bats, this was a natural choice (carry only one type of replacement).

 

We are getting there. The line between digital cameras and digital video is becoming more and more blurred. Being a professional on the bleeding edge of technology, I'd estimate we are 3-4 years away from a fully integrated digi still/video option that compromises on neither at a price point that makes sense, in a package that fits in your palm.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...