On 19 Mar 2001 15:13:14 GMT, dexx@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Thomas Steven Wright) wrote:

>I heading out on a major vacation in about two weeks (Ireland for two
>weeks) and want to have some memories of the event in pictures. What I'm
>looking for is recommendations on Digital Camera and Video Cameras

Whew - I suppose I shouldn't point out the tardiness of
this effort to select gear....! ;-)

>I have a Sony Mavica FD-88 Digital camera. It was the high-end of the
>first serious consumer-grade Sony line. 1.3 Megapixels, writes the images
>to floppy disks, etc., and I'm wondering about opinions on quality for the
>camera and other options for a different purchase. I see cameras on the
>market now days with 3+ megapixels, and I'm wondering about a realistic
>comparison.

Some Mini-DV (even tiny ones, like the Sony PC-100/110 or
TRV20 will take stills that are megapixel resolution (low
for prints, but OK for small prints with the best printers
[Epson-photo]), and shoot decent video, too...).
The tiny Nikon Coolpix 880 will do 3+ megapixel stills, but
the batteries are a problem (the larger and more expensive
990 takes AAs, though). But then you must carry gear to
download the digital images for saving. Maybe a small
35mm or APS film-camera makes more sense for storage
reasons, unless you will carry a laptop computer anyway...

>What I'd like to do is take the camera and plug it into a laptop to save
>the images, but the Mavica has no direct transfer capabilities that I can
>determine. If anyone knows different, I'd love to hear about it. Or if
>there's some kind of floppy disk to USB or Firewire converter that'd work
>great too, I could keep the Mavica instead of having a new purchase to
>deal with.

The newer digital cameras have USB ports, making transfers
easy.

>Or would a standard 35mm be my best bet? I can always develop the
>pictures
>and transfer them to digital copies at the same time or at a later date.

And have the higher resolution and greater security
of film (it is too easy to lose digital images...).

>The other question is on video cameras, basically what is my best bet?
>I don't have one or any experience with them, and I know the digital
>camcorders are reasonably new to the market as far as technology goes,

One of the best Mini-DV camcorders (the Sony VX-1000)
appeared on the market several years ago, and has held its
value well even though it was recently replaced... The
details of the medium are fixed, with only the
implementation *sometimes* improving a bit...

>so I don't want to spend mega-$$ on something that will be coming down
>in price significantly because they're new consumer technology.
>
>Last I was involved with buying a camcorder, you had two or three large
>things to carry around for the recording unit, battery pack, etc. I've
>been
>told VHS-C may be my best bet now days if I may want to convert the
>tapes to MPEG files later on with a video-capture card or USB input device
>and software...

Old info - buy Mini-DV... Since you are used to weight,
and storage may be a concern, look at the TRV-900 Sony.
It has excellent video quality, and has a floppy-drive
attachment for storage of stills (cheap medium). Stills
are limited to a modest 640x480. Or the PC100, PC110,
or TRV-20 mentioned above (video less good, but with
better-quality stills - see www.sony.com for details).
The TRV-900 is reviewed at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
and there is a lot of info on it at:
www.bealecorner.com

>Is there any format of video that will allow a clean capture of an
>individual frame for printing as a photo?

The Mini-DV cameras mentioned above can be used as
still cameras (stop taping video, select still-mode
[for optimization for stills], and snap away - then
easily return to video mode...). The TRV-900, BTW,
can accept a PCMCIA/Compact-Flash card adapter,
if you prefer not dealing with the awkward floppy drive...
At this late date, I would buy anything only from
a known, reputable dealer (bhphotovideo.com,
cameraworld.com, some others...).