Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between CamCorder and DSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 17, 2005 12:26:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was at my granddaughters play recently. It was fairly dark. I used the
200ISO setting on my DSLR and had to have the lens quite wide to get
enough light w/o use of flash. This led to small depth of field.

The guy in front of me had a camcorder. He seemed to have lots of light
and wide depth of field.

How does the camcorder get more light and depth of field than a DSLR in
such a situation?
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:26:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> I was at my granddaughters play recently. It was fairly dark. I used the
> 200ISO setting on my DSLR and had to have the lens quite wide to get
> enough light w/o use of flash. This led to small depth of field.
>
> The guy in front of me had a camcorder. He seemed to have lots of light
> and wide depth of field.
>
> How does the camcorder get more light and depth of field than a DSLR in
> such a situation?
Different sensor, greatly reduced resolution.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:26:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> greatly reduced resolution.


Probably much bigger pixels.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Related resources
May 17, 2005 1:08:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <WbKdnWypMIrVpxTfRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, Ken
<kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote:

> I was at my granddaughters play recently. It was fairly dark. I used the
> 200ISO setting on my DSLR and had to have the lens quite wide to get
> enough light w/o use of flash. This led to small depth of field.

You don't say what camera but I usually use 800 or 1600 ISO at school
plays. That is with a Canon DSLR.

--
Charles
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:59:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken <kewaynco@comcast.net> writes:
> How does the camcorder get more light and depth of field than a DSLR
> in such a situation?

If you had an 0.25 megapixel DSLR (720x480 resolution like mini-DV), you
could do the same.
May 17, 2005 5:36:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The moving image disguises great defects in resolution and noise.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:21:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:51:37 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Paul Furman
<paul-@-edgehill.net> in <m_udnULXK8q20xTfRVn-hA@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>> greatly reduced resolution.
>
>
>Probably much bigger pixels.

That's the problem with men, always bragging about who has the biggest
pixels.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 7:21:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:51:37 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Paul Furman
> <paul-@-edgehill.net> in <m_udnULXK8q20xTfRVn-hA@speakeasy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>greatly reduced resolution.
>>
>>
>>Probably much bigger pixels.
>
>
> That's the problem with men, always bragging about who has the biggest
> pixels.


Or sensors.


: - )
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:11:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken" <kewaynco@comcast.net> wrote:

> I was at my granddaughters play recently. It was fairly dark. I used the
> 200ISO setting on my DSLR and had to have the lens quite wide to get
> enough light w/o use of flash. This led to small depth of field.
>
> The guy in front of me had a camcorder. He seemed to have lots of light
> and wide depth of field.
>
> How does the camcorder get more light and depth of field than a DSLR in
> such a situation?

Camcorder sensors are much lower resolution and much smaller than dSLR
sensors. The lower resolution means larger pixels for more sensitivity, and
the much smaller means much shorter focal lengths. Since depth of field is
inversely proportional to the _square_ of the focal length, the shorter
focal length means much more DOF. Also, the smaller size and lower
resolution means it's much easier to make very fast lenses with more than
adequate resolution for better low-light performance.

By the way, the lower DOF in dSLRs is usually seen as an advantage, since
that isolates the subject from the background. Also, with most dSLRs, you
can shoot at ISO 800 and still get great quality images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!