On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:43:57 +0000 (UTC), "Tim Dodd"
>Paul Rubin wrote:
>> If you want to take good stills, get a still digicam, not a camcorder.
>>
>> The better a camcorder is at taking stills, the worse it will be at
>> taking video. The best consumer camcorders (e.g. Sony VX2000) take
>> lousy stills. If you look at any really high-end camcorder (i.e.
>> professional models), they don't take stills at all.
>>
>> If you get a small digicam like a Canon S200, it will take better
>> stills than any camcorder ever made, and fit in your shirt pocket.
>> It's also capable of taking short, not-so-good video clips, but if
>> you want to shoot video, use your camcorder for that.
The VX2000 (and the 1-1.5 megapixel 1-chippers) take excellent stills - BUT only up to 640x480 (NTSC),
useless for prints, but good for web use (higher-resolution images
from video cameras are generally too noisy for serious use
for prints).
>Thanks for the reply. I had a quick look at the S200 and the specs do not seem
>too amazing to me. It has a 2Mpixel sensor and *only* a 2X optical zoom, plus a
>2.5X digital zoom.
The stills cameras produce higher-quality images compared
with video cameras of the same pixel count. Even our "old"
Kodak 1.2 megapixel digital makes good 6"x8" prints, which
are FAR better than those from my 1.2 megapixel PC100 or
1.5 megapixel TRV30...
[...]
>My friend wants to avoid having to swap between two bits of kit all the time,
>and have to wait for boot up/down times on each device. He also wants a small
>total weight/volume so that it can be carried in a pocket or handbag. Also, for
>travel you'd need two sets of batteries, two chargers, and you'd have two
>different layouts for controls etc. etc. He will be travelling *a lot* and will
>want to switch between stills and videos all the time at any one scene. Thus
>fiddling about turning things off and on, waiting for it to burst into life, and
>switching pockets blah blah blah is just going to be an annoyance.
Then the compromises will show in the results...
[...]