Camera or video

[250BOB]

Hi All,

 

Perhaps you can help me make my mind up here. I have slipped behind with the current Digital photgraphy age......I used to be quite good with my Olympus OM10 years ago, but only have a small digital camera these days, and also my 15/20 yr old 8mm camcorder.

Time for me to move on.......but I cant make my mind up as to whether its a much better digital camera or a digital video recorder that I want. Any advice.? What questions do I need to ask myself.?

 

Thanks.......................Bob

[Arthur]

I'm not sure that these days it's a case of one or the other. I've a Sony digital handycam which takes pretty good stills and I believe that some of the newer 35mm digital SLRs take video footage. I'm not well versed enough in the latest kit to make any suggestions but it's something worth thinking about.

 

Arthur

 

 

[Kris]

Video on most digital stills cameras has come on a huge amount and is in my opinion better than the stills taken by video cameras but most still cameras cope very badly with changes in focal point / distance during filming.

[Oldddudders]

I used to be quite good with my Olympus OM10 years ago, but only have a small digital camera these days, and also my 15/20 yr old 8mm camcorder.

I'm not clear what you're real interest is here, Bob. If you will predominantly take video, then no question, a dedicated videocam is your choice. DSLRs now often have video - but it has many limitations, including lack of autofocus while filming. If, on the other hand, you want to relive your OM10 days with the convenience of digital, and the video is a side-show, Canon, Nikon, Sony (was Minolta), Pentax, Olympus etc etc await your pleasure.

 

Dutch Master's point about quality with DSLRs is true, they do provide more than most of us need most of the time, but they can do other tricks that compacts and probably videocams cannot - like firing milliseconds after you press the shutter, like your OM10 did. And even a cheap DSLR can pump out several high-quality images per second if you mash the shutter button, which can be a joy even snapping passing trains.

[Mike G]

Hi

Just bought a Canon EOS 500d, I will not be needing my camcorder again. Records video in 1080 Hd, awesome quality pictures even in fully auto.

 

Mike

[beast66606]

Bob,

 

The first question is "How much am I prepared to spend ?" - anything else at this stage is irrelevant.

[coachmann]

A senario from my own experience.......I took photos to be published and that was often the sole reason for going trackside. Then I bought a video camcorder in 1989 and did both. But gradually the reason for going out was due to the camcorder. Instead of capturing a moment at 500th of a second, I could film a whole sequence and re-live the day whenever I wanted at home. Today I only watch my vidoes while the negs and slides might as well be bonfired.

 

I was an early entrant into digital cameras as the potential even on the low megapixel point & shoots was there for all to see. But I never went beyond Hi8 with a camcorder. Having seen material off digital camcorders, I only wish we had such quality back in 1989.

 

So my advice is buy a camcorder and watch living moving soundtrack movies.......far better than any amount of still photos.

[Kenton]

The second question is what type of photos and is video or still more important.

 

I have a Sony HD camcorder - I'm pretty happy with it for video and it does take stills - and lots of them. In fact I rarely take video and now believe I made a big mistake. I want a camera to take close up photos of models etc and long distance high zoom of landscapes etc - The digicam just cannot handle either to any degree of satisfaction.

 

You also need to ask yourself what photographic skills/techie knowledge you have/wish to acquire

For me I just want to point and click - none of this f2/f32. soft focus, optical/digital detail.

[beast66606]

If he spends enough he can get both, if he spends too little he gets neither, and the middle has all sorts of possibilities, the budget is key

[Coombe Barton]

The one thing that influences the quality of the finished product is the bit of glass, the lens. Stills cameras, IMHO, are better in this department. If you're happpy with limited stills controls then go movie, but in all those I:ve had a chance to handle (and I vid for work) they're just not up to the quality I demand.

[bluebottle]

I'm not clear what you're real interest is here, Bob. If you will predominantly take video, then no question, a dedicated videocam is your choice. DSLRs now often have video - but it has many limitations, including lack of autofocus while filming. If, on the other hand, you want to relive your OM10 days with the convenience of digital, and the video is a side-show, Canon, Nikon, Sony (was Minolta), Pentax, Olympus etc etc await your pleasure.

 

Dutch Master's point about quality with DSLRs is true, they do provide more than most of us need most of the time, but they can do other tricks that compacts and probably videocams cannot - like firing milliseconds after you press the shutter, like your OM10 did. And even a cheap DSLR can pump out several high-quality images per second if you mash the shutter button, which can be a joy even snapping passing trains.

Good advice from Oldddudders, though the new Sony A33 and A55 SLT cameras are exceptions to the generalisation about lack of autofocus while filming. I'd suggest that you make as detailed a list as possible of exactly what you want to do, then seek advice from a reputable dealer such as Jessops or Jacobs of Leicester. You can get reviews with (very) detailed specifications of current camera models at http://dpreview.com

[Oldddudders]

The one thing that influences the quality of the finished product is the bit of glass, the lens. Stills cameras, IMHO, are better in this department. If you're happpy with limited stills controls then go movie, but in all those I:ve had a chance to handle (and I vid for work) they're just not up to the quality I demand.

The lens is a great start, but the size of the sensor (as distinct from the number of pixels) on a DSLR is typically much bigger than that on a compact (obviously) or videocam, so in terms of quality a DSLR with video ought to win. But, significantly, DSLRs almost universally take interchangeable lenses, so while lacking the 15 or 20:1 zoom of the compact, their (much more expensive, of course) lenses can also meet Coombe Barton's spec of much higher quality. But - excepting the models listed by Bluebottle - the lack of effective autofocus during filming hampers them, unless you have them on a tripod with a "focus puller" assistant to adjust things as the action unfolds. They are therefore a disappointment when put to the acid test of capturing the bambini haring round the garden, while a medium priced compact might seem to do a better job, and a videocam would feel in its element.

 

Coachmann's point is central to all of this. We live in an age of moving images. Each of us has to decide whether superb quality stills outweigh a so-so moving picture. Larry has told us his view, and the OP needs to make just such a choice. Oddly, though, it is elderly still pics that help modellers like Larry achieve fidelity in their superb miniatures, while I've never found stopped video much cop in that area. Another consideration, perhaps?

[noiseboy72]

Even if you buy a top line DSLR to take video with , the lens will be a telephoto, not a zoom. The difference is that you cannot zoom without adjusting the focus. To be fair, most camcorders also do not have true zoom lenses, but utilise automatic focus correction as you "zoom".

 

If video is secondary, I would buy a DSLR. A lot of films that used to be shot on 16mm are now being shot on mildly modified versions fitted with prime lenses The RED and ARRI cameras that are slowly replacing 35mm use the same sensor technology, albeit with somewhat more expensive glass... As a stills camera, the standard lens will be excellent and as a video camera, more than acceptable so long as you do not need to zoom during the shot, or are too worried about sound.

 

If video is primary, the Canon, Panasonic and Sony camcorders with SD card or HDD recording are excellent. Buy a true 1080p 25FPS, not one of those 720p 30FPS "toys" like the Flip HD. These look fine on a PC screen, but awful as soon as you put them on a DVD or big TV, with frame rate conversions and poor colorimitry. Panasonic now also make a camcorder with optional 3D lens. Stunning results IMHO, and removable for everyday use. A "Beech Box" will give better input connections should you want to use better mics, but the range with mini jacks already fitted is already fairly wide. Battery life is usually superior to DSLRs in video mode.

 

I would avoid any of the compact super zooms. Sensor size of 1/6" or smaller makes them very noisey at high ISOs and depth of field is very poor.

 

Other things to consider:

Most newer cameras and camcorders use CMOS rather than CCD sensors. These offer lower smear and better low light and noise floor, but due to the way the image is read, when used for video, fast moving scenes tend to distort - Think a sort of cartoon horizontal stretch. I even have a plug in for my edit suite at work to try to correct for this, but for automotive work, we favour CCD cameras.

 

How are you going to hold or support the camera ? The way you hold a video camera is different to a stills, and I have yet to find one that offers the best of both worlds.

[250BOB]

Hi Guys,

Many thanks for your replies so far.......you are certainly giving me some questions to ask myself, but thats what I needed.

 

The cost......fortunately is not the issue for me. However, photography is not a major past time for me, but I would like to take relatively decent video and pictures of my model railway and real railways. Thats my main interest other than the usual family/grandkids pics etc.,

 

All that said.......I suppose I do have to come up with a figure that I could justify to myself.

So.......if I said £200 to £300 would be what I had in mind........BUT, if you all came back and said, if I spend £500 I could be in another league, then that would be ok. But anything in excess of £500 I could not justify in my own mind, as what I want to do is not that critical.

 

Does that help in giving you a target for what I'm looking for.

 

Probably my desire is for better quality video than I'm currently achieving with my 8mm Camcorder, and also my relatively cheap Digital Camera, a Samsung Digimax D73 which cost about £100 five years ago.

 

Bob

[coachmann]

My Camcorders had manual focus and manual exposure. I used them because it is necessary when filming trains. You don't want the focus hunting in and out, and you don't want the exposure to be influenced by a larger sky area as you slowly zoom back.

[Oldddudders]

A bit tangential to the thrust of the OP's enquiry - although he has now set a budget that some will help him meet, I'm sure - but I now see why the two DSLRs quoted by Bluebottle do what others can't, focus while filming. They are only faux-DSLR in design. An SLR, and hence a true DSLR, allows the photographer to look through the lens, with a rather quick mirror lifting and then dropping while the pic is actually taken. The Sony alphas 33 and 55 are actually EVIL - not a comment, but an acronym for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. The electronic viewfinder - just like a Videocam - works rather well in subdued lighting, but is inferior to an optical viewing system otherwise. Sony do know how to make good optical viewfinders - their alpha 850 has one of the very best of any on the market.

 

EVIL is set to be the next "big thing" in consumer photography, although most cameras won't look like a DSLR, but be more compact, and lighter.

[beast66606]

Bob,

 

My advice

[shortliner]

a possibility - I have one of their earlier pistol grip versions and am very happy with it

http://sanyo.com/xac..._gh3/index.html

 

http://sanyo.com/xacti/english/

[beast66606]

Bob,

 

As it happens What Digital Camera ? arrived today, I will post some of their comments tomorrow, once I've

 

i woken up

ii taken some photos and videos of my own

iii seen if anyone else has beaten me to it.

 

All the best for 2011 matey B)

[coachmann]

You will find this link useful if you're interested in digital still-cameras..............

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

[bluebottle]

A bit tangential to the thrust of the OP's enquiry - although he has now set a budget that some will help him meet, I'm sure - but I now see why the two DSLRs quoted by Bluebottle do what others can't, focus while filming. They are only faux-DSLR in design. An SLR, and hence a true DSLR, allows the photographer to look through the lens, with a rather quick mirror lifting and then dropping while the pic is actually taken. The Sony alphas 33 and 55 are actually EVIL - not a comment, but an acronym for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens. The electronic viewfinder - just like a Videocam - works rather well in subdued lighting, but is inferior to an optical viewing system otherwise. Sony do know how to make good optical viewfinders - their alpha 850 has one of the very best of any on the market.

 

EVIL is set to be the next "big thing" in consumer photography, although most cameras won't look like a DSLR, but be more compact, and lighter.

As Oldddudders says, the Sony A33 and A55 have electronic rather than optical viewfinders; this is a feature causing some debate over a controversial design. I did recently buy an A55 - though when I wanted a DSLR replacement for my Canon SLR I had intended to stay with the Canon brand. I followed my own advice, going to the large Leicester branches of both Jacobs and Jessops for information and to handle the cameras. I described my interests - railway architecture, track/cross-country running (some semi-pro work) and landscape, and discussed merits and drawbacks with the salesman. The Sony appealed to me because of its smallness (small hands) and I was surprised by the brightness and size of the viewfinder. I went home and read all I could find on the internet - and some of the argument between fans of rival camera brands can only be described as vicious - before going back to try out the cameras again. Without going into what could be great detail, the balance - for me - narrowly fell on the side of the Sony. That's not to say that the that the outcome would not have been different for anybody else, my point is that I thought long and hard about my own requirements (and about the advisability of buying into new technology) before making what was for me an important - and expensive - purchase.

[coachmann]

An optical viewfinder is always there and you can look though it at any time while composing a shot without having to switch the camera on. An electronic viewfinder is like a small TV screen and has to be swiched on before it can be used therebye wasting time and battery. And believe me, battery life is the biggy with electronic cameras..........Those electronic viewfinders help drink juice! If you are shooting trains on the mainline, the SLR with optical viewfinder is your best bet by a good margin. They stood the test of time from when SLR's were mechanical.

[Coombe Barton]

I don't use a DSLR but a (as it was four years ago) top end bridge camera from Fuji. The reason being that lens changing in dusty environments is asking for trouble, and I'm outdoors,in mines, in adverse weather conditions, as well as in my office studio. My Fuji S9500 goes from 28mm-310mm (35mm equiv) and doun to 1cm for closeups. I know thwat it's been superceded in spec, but it still works. It also takes movies, but I have different cameras for that.

 

Videlk cams take videos, still cams take still pix. Horses for courses.

 

However my iPhone takes great stills and movies, but I know which I show full screen.

[250BOB]

Guys,

Thankyou all for taking the time and trouble to give me your thoughts and advice on this camera topic. I am now far better informed as a result, but at the same time, still not able to make up my mind which direction to go in.

 

My feeling is that I really want to do the video thing more so than the stills........so I am probably answering my own original question right there.

 

Its now up to me to get off my backside and dig deeper into whats available.

 

But...if it is video I decide on.........what would be your advice in that area. The prices vary wildly from about £100 to over £1000, and I suppose a price of £250 to £500 would be something I could justify to myself.....this is not my main hobby, and I just wouldnt want to spend a lot more than those figures.

 

Thanks again for all your valuable advice and help.

Bob

[beast66606]

Bob,

 

for video only I've used Panasonic for years, they have excellent quality Lenses (Leica) and the results can be seen on my YouTube.

 

A good choice