Using a camcorder as a digital camera

Theodoric · 16-09-2005, 20:10

Yes, I'll do my homework on the Internet, but I thought I'd start with the CF experts.

I'm probably going to need a new digital camera. Also, I've always fancied having a camcorder. So, the question occurred to me: would a camcorder double up as an acceptable digital camera. Offhand, the specific questions that occur to me are:

1) Price. Is a cheap camcorder still significantly more expensive than a reasonable quality digital camera.

2) Size. Camcorders seem to get smaller and smaller, but how do the smallest now compare in size with a medium sized digital camera.

3) Probably the most important. How does the quality of a camcorder digital image compare with that from a digital camera. I understand that what may seem like good quality whilst you're watching a video will be found to be markedly inferior when you extract a single image. I've noticed this on the odd occasion when I've attempted to extract a single picture from a video clip produced by my digital camera.

The question could also be put in reverse. Would the quality of the video clips produced by a reasonably expensive digital camera be better than those produced from a cheap camcorder? I'm really only after clips of the grandchildren etc, so I don't really need any complicated techniques.

Angua · 16-09-2005, 20:19

I have been doing some mini vids of my children with the Digital Camera. As primarily a still photographer (never got in to videos much) it works well enough for me. BTW I have a Kodak C340.

Stuart · 16-09-2005, 20:25

1) Not so much now (although they are more expensive.

2) Depends. A decent, medium sized digital camera will probably have a better lens, optics & CCD (the device the actually records the image - similar to film) than a small camcorder. The CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) will also be optimised for still images. A CCD designed for video will be optimised for speed rather than image resolution. Admittedly, this last bit is not as important now (it's cheaper to manufacture one type of CCD than two).

3) As you have found out, an image from a digital camcorder is worse than than that from a still camera. The main reson is the resolution. Digital camcorders typically operate at 720x576 (about .5 megapixel) pixels. Newer camcorders can go up to about 2 Megapixels for stills, where as reasonable Digital Still cameras start at 3 Megapixels and go up to about 7.

Although, TBH, if you are just taking snaps (family holidays, that sort of thing), a camcorder with 2 Megapixel still photos should be more than good enough.

16-09-2005, 21:00

Reviews here:

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/camcorders...29964,4,00.htm

Mike · 16-09-2005, 21:37

I have a Panasonic cam about 4 years ago and what you can do is just take a frame of video (25 frames per second) and save as a jpeg. Attached are a couple of pictures taken in 2001 !

Mike

Graham · 17-09-2005, 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theodoric

I'm probably going to need a new digital camera. Also, I've always fancied having a camcorder. So, the question occurred to me: would a camcorder double up as an acceptable digital camera.

Alternatively, the Nikon D70s I've just bought is a 6.1MP digital camera, but it also has the ability to do Video output.

I'm not sure what the resolution is, and it's a fair bit of money (ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£700 or so) but it's an option you might want to think about.

andygrif · 17-09-2005, 10:53

Not that I have been looking that hard, but I have never discovered a consumer camcorder that can take stills nearly as well as even a mid-low-end digital compact camera.

You'd be better off carrying two gadgets IMHO.

SMHarman · 19-09-2005, 01:09

No,

Even the highest resolution camcorder is about 2mp, wheras the cheapest camera is 3mp.

Also the capture approach is different, a camcorder is capturing a continuous image and optimised as such, a camera is designed to capture a moment.

You need both.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Although, TBH, if you are just taking snaps (family holidays, that sort of thing), a camcorder with 2 Megapixel still photos should be more than good enough.

As would a SonyErricson K750i cameraphone, and be a lot smaller.

Theodoric · 19-09-2005, 21:58

Thanks for all the replies. After reading them, I think I'll stick to the digital camera route. Now that Xmas is approaching, camera magazines with lots of reviews should start appearing. In the meantime, are there any suggestions for the best Internet site for reviews of digital cameras.

19-09-2005, 22:44

You could try these:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx

http://www.photo.net/

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/ph...amera-reviews/

http://www.photoxels.com/

http://www3.interactivereviews.com/b...photo/499052/1

SMHarman · 20-09-2005, 10:42

Just remember - If anyone can Canon can. A few of us are a bit evangalistic about the abilities of their wet and digital cameras of all abilities from the A series, G series and EOS range.

Theodoric · 20-09-2005, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlantis

You could try these:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx

http://www.photo.net/

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/ph...amera-reviews/

http://www.photoxels.com/

http://www3.interactivereviews.com/b...photo/499052/1

Thanks, I'll bookmark them. I've seen the steves-digicam site being mentioned with approval in the past. Now, all I need is the will power to to start a systematic search.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Just remember - If anyone can Canon can. A few of us are a bit evangalistic about the abilities of their wet and digital cameras of all abilities from the A series, G series and EOS range.

I'll bear it in mind. Wet cameras - as someone who many years ago actually developed B&W films, I like the term. It was with a tank, of course; I don't go as far back as holding the film in a 'U' and feeding it back and forth through a dish of developer.

andygrif · 21-09-2005, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Just remember - If anyone can Canon can. A few of us are a bit evangalistic about the abilities of their wet and digital cameras of all abilities from the A series, G series and EOS range.

Amen. In fact I'm planning my purchase of a 20D right now!

SMHarman · 21-09-2005, 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Wet cameras - as someone who many years ago actually developed B&W films, I like the term. It was with a tank, of course; I don't go as far back as holding the film in a 'U' and feeding it back and forth through a dish of developer.

Oh the joys of fumbling around in a darkroom trying to crack open the film cassette to feed into the tanks teeth and wind it in.

Theodoric · 21-09-2005, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Oh the joys of fumbling around in a darkroom trying to crack open the film cassette to feed into the tanks teeth and wind it in.

If I remember correctly, the important thing was to have the tank dry. (Or was it the opposite?

)