On Mar 3, 11:12=A0am, "Trev" <trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM> wrote:
> James Varty wrote:
> > Just wondered if anyone could recommend a digital camera which also
> > has very good video capture capabilities (or visa versa)? I was just
> > about to purchase a digital camcorder when our digital camera broke.
> > Having something that can do both jobs would therefore be ideal.
> > Don't want to spend more than =A3300. Would a very small camcorder
that
> > takes good stills be the best way forward?
>
> > Any pointers appreciated
>
> > Cheers
>
> > James
>
> A =A3300 camcordor will take low res stills with lots of noise. A =A3300
s=
till
> will take only very short movie clips.
>
> --
> Trev
> You can always tell a York****re man,
> But you can't tell him much.
Take a look at the Canon Line of compact digitals. Several of them
take very good videos and also produce very good quality stills for
most consumer uses. How long your videos would be depends on the
memory card. I think you can find reviews of several of them on
www.dpreview.com including comparative opinions on the video quality
and some videos.
Whether these cameras would be an option will depend on your needs and
the compromises that you are willing to make. If your emphasis is
video, then a camcorder is better. Video, by it's very nature,
produces lower resolution images than a still camera, but the
camcorder will be optimized and feature rich in that direction. The
converse is true for a still camera with video capability.
Vance
|
