Discussion in 'Digital Cameras, Webcams and Scanners' started by Laptop, Apr 28, 2008.
Digital camera or Camcorder?
Which one do u think is the best and why?
digital camera...they can capture still images and video at a more effective cost than camcorders can. also, some cameras have special shooting modes, like Fireworks and Red Eye Removal.
but the digitla camera wont record videos as much as a video camera rite? That is where i have confused..wen i go to birtheday parties it is important to take videos... in it? So for that kind of situation a video cameara would be suitable rite?
They are two different things.
A digital camera is made to take pictures and low quality movies (optionally).
A camcorder is made to make movies and take low quality pictures (optionally).
Yup, both have their pros and cons. It just depends what you do more of: video or photo.
It's just as Punk said, but if you were asking me to choose between a D-SLR (Pro) camera and a pro camcorder I would DEFINITELY choose the D-SLR camera.
Some video cameras do support 8MP still photos.
This isn't a question that has a correct answer. For me, I take many more photos then I do videos, however others may take more videos.
If all you do is take a few short videos, then get a digital camera that can record videos at 640x480 @ 30FPS.
I'd get a good camera.
Thank you guys..thanks a lot for your tips..I am hoping to get more results....
As YOU have said, I understand that wether buying a digital caemra or camcorder is dpened on my need. Well, I am a person who dont really go for outing..I go to holiday like once in 3 years...I dont go to parties or anything like that...so from that I think a digital camera is best rite?
Please talk more aobut it and i love to hear it..Thank you
I prefer digital cameras because theres more you can do with them, if you go out for a scenic drive you can snap some photos along the way, and then either print them out, set them as a wallpaper/screensaver, or just show some friends. Video cameras are great for recording family outings and sporting events, but they aren't practical if you want to record some scenes of nature, as most people won't want to watch a full movie, they would rather look at a few pictures.
THAT is a very very good idead man...thanks for that.
If you've got an unlimited budget, you can do both with some fancy camera syncing
I've had the opportunity to play with the 1Ds (Mk1, Mk2 -- still waiting on the Mk3) ... it's a hell of a beast heh.
These cameras are for professionals... It's not easy to carry them anywhere you go, they're huge!
My DSR camera is already big and I have to carry two lenses, so imgaine with that camera...
Hehe ya know, it was most of a food-for-thought post rather than a litteral suggestion
Hehe, Aren't we trying to discuss a solution for his problem?
It's technically a valid solution (and far superior to virtually any digicam solution available).
To address the original problem, I think a ultra slim pocket camera would probably quite suitable -- they're more than capable of capturing quick little clips -- it's a vacation we're capturing here, not a wedding so it WILL be relatively shorter clips and the small size lets you bring it whereever.
Yes a good digital camera should do it.
You can find good 8 to 10 MP cameras for around 200 to 300$ now, and they can also take some ok movies
I know that...i am luking different pinion about people who think which one is better...
also note the point that i am in uk. so $ will not help me. only £
Separate names with a comma.