On 30 Aug 2001 15:13:46 -0700, maxx069@tbaytel.net (AJ) wrote:
>jrrcat@yahoo.es (JOANR) wrote in message
news:<3266770.0108300656.2e9e1d45@posting.google.com>...
>> hello

>> I was searching for a lightweight, good-quality video camera capable
>> to take still shots. For professional and personal use.
>>
>> I liked the Sony DCR PC110, however, the stillshot resolution is about
>> 1 megapixel. In the shop told me that mentioned resolution would be
>> not enough for my purpose. So they showed me the JVC GRDV2000E "with
>> similar or even better video quality than the Sony, and far better
>> quality for stills(2 megapixel)", the seller said.
>>
>> I took the JVC. It is nice, not very heavy, plenty of features. The
>> video quality is good indeed. But the quality of still pictures, is
>> far away of what I expected from declared 2 megapixel. In the PC
>> screen the pictures look quite good, but when printed they look
>> horrible. I tried everything: maximum resolution (the camera generates
>> about 700K JPEG files), laser color printer, inkjet high quality
>> printer with best quality paper, ... and the results are not good.
>>
>> In princip I tried to avoid to purchase (and carry on) 2 devices: the
>> video camara and the camera, so the (wrong, very wrong) decision to
>> take a combo.
>>
>> I considered to keep the JVC for video only and purchase a DSC85 sony
>> still camera. According to all the reports, it is excellent. But the
>> batteries, the battery charger, cables, software, memory (stick or
>> card)are different from Sony to JVC, and I'm not willing to carry so
>> many things whan travelling.
>>
>> So, why not take 2 cameras by using the same accesories/peripherals?
>>
>> Since I need both medium to good video quality and good picture
>> quality, I'm thinking in returning the JVC back to the store, and then
>> purchasing a Sony DCRPC110 for video and also a Sony DSC-85 (4.1
>> Megapixel).
>>
>> But I do not know if this a smart and convenient decision. I see
>> excellent opinions on both sony video and stillshot camera, but I´m
>> confused. Will I get noticeable better results than now with the JVC?
>>
>> According to the store, with the JVC GRDV2000 I have the best I can
>> find. But it does not satisfy me, after several weeks of use. Neither
>> I find users of the JVC to discuss results.
>>
>> I´m asking to any DCRPC110 user, or video/camera expert to help me, in
>> order to choose the good camera. It`s urgent.

>I have done some test photos with a Sony TRV30 and was disappointed
>with the high resolution stills (1360 x 1020) in comparison to a Kodak
>265. Noticeable problems at even 5x7 and not much better than the low
>res stills recorded to tape at 640 x480. Marginal at 8x10 with
>artefacts on some structures such as plant leaves.
>
>I don't understand why the 'megapixel' digital stills in camcorders
>are so poor in comparison to digital cameras.
>
>The low resolution stills were quite good and may be adequate for
>snaps. I plan on checking out the Panasonic 951 3ccd next. Anybody
>know where there are some test shots?. One option would be to buy a
>less expensive DV camera for video and snaps and bring 35 mm for rest.

If the captures ("MX2000") at
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
are a reasonable indicator, you will be disappointed in the
DV951, also... The best stills from video cameras I have
seen have all been from the megapixel Sony and the VX2000,
but ALL *only* at 640x480 resolution, too low for printing
but good for web work. Any good 3+ megapixel still digital
camera will produce FAR better 8x10s than any video camera.