Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best digital camera for video?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 4:25:37 PM

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

What's the best digital camera for video clips? I've often seen posts
telling people to get a digital camcorder instead, but I'm not interested in
making long films. I just want to take short clips to document various
aspects of my daily life.
Video format is not important, but I'd rather have sharp video;
artifact-free that is, so I favor motion jpeg more than MPEG-1 or MPEG-4.
As for images I won't do any printing; I'll only be viewing them on a
monitor.
I was leaning towards the Canon PowerShot series, since I'd toyed with other
people's Canon digicams in the past. The SD200 through SD500 seem to have
similar specs on movies (1 min 320x240 60fps, 3 min 160x120, up till SD card
full 320x240/640x480 15fps/30fps).
Does anyone know if there is actual differences in video clip qualities
between the various powershot sd's? (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
get more megapixels for the buck)

Also what other cameras (of any brand) would fit the uses I described above?

More about : digital camera video

Anonymous
June 16, 2005 5:59:19 PM

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

John Smith wrote:
> What's the best digital camera for video clips? I've often seen posts
> telling people to get a digital camcorder instead, but I'm not interested in
> making long films. I just want to take short clips to document various
> aspects of my daily life.

You sound just like me, or maybe not, but anyhow, I started keeping a
video diary 3 years ago. Well, I don't these days, as I don't keep up
the habit, but I should. When I did I found it immensely useful, in
many ways!

Thanks for reminding me!

> Video format is not important, but I'd rather have sharp video;
> artifact-free that is, so I favor motion jpeg more than MPEG-1 or MPEG-4.

Forget MPEG-1.

> As for images I won't do any printing; I'll only be viewing them on a
> monitor.

Hmmmm, okay!

> I was leaning towards the Canon PowerShot series, since I'd toyed with other
> people's Canon digicams in the past. The SD200 through SD500 seem to have
> similar specs on movies (1 min 320x240 60fps, 3 min 160x120, up till SD card
> full 320x240/640x480 15fps/30fps).

Forget them!

> Does anyone know if there is actual differences in video clip qualities
> between the various powershot sd's? (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
> still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
> get more megapixels for the buck)
>
> Also what other cameras (of any brand) would fit the uses I described above?

If you simply want sharp, artifact-free video, buy a digital camcorder!


JVC budget range is getting good reviews for its price
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/jvc-gr-d33-camcord...

Though if you can afford it I'd go the the low-end panasonic 3ccd for
more *sharp, artifact free" video!

There are also digital camcorder that take still pics.

If on the other hand, if you want a digital still camera that also
outputs video, well, you'll have to give up that requirements for
"sharp, artifact free" video. Personally, if you just want 320x240
video then I suggest you get a logitech 550, which is perhaps the best
mpeg4 video I found, and on a 512mb SD card it records two and a half
hours, uninterrupted, or half that if you set it to a higher video
quality. It also uses AA batteries, so you can use NIMH rechargeables,
and it's very pocketable. It's quite cheap if you manage to find it, as
it's discontinued, but It's what I use and I have researched this very
well, and bought many cameras. It won't take stills though, but you can
buy another camera for that.

If they must be combined samsung makes some cameras that output mpeg4
video, and Olympus has one, and so does casio. What do you need in a
video camera? does it have to be pocketable? how long will the video
be? what will you be shooting? what budget? more details can help
narrow down.
June 16, 2005 6:30:24 PM

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

John Smith wrote:
> I just want to take short clips to document various
> aspects of my daily life.

It's hard to say because it all depends on what quality you expect. The
Canon SD series are acceptable because they can record at 640x480 @
30fps. Anything less is jerky and too small. There are still other
limitations, like you can't zoom while recording.

> (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
> still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
> get more megapixels for the buck)

Darn right $280 is outrageous, where did see it sold at that price? I
bought the SD200 the first few weeks it came out for $265 total at
Amazon. It's on sale at Best Buy (at least in my area) this week for
$200 (after rebates, before tax).

For the same camera line, you usually get the best value for the lowest
megapixel models. The Canon SD series are separated by almost $100 for
each model up!
Related resources
June 17, 2005 1:20:29 AM

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

Canon S1 IS or S2 IS.

"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:RJhse.332$Y8.147@fe67.usenetserver.com...
> What's the best digital camera for video clips? I've often seen posts
> telling people to get a digital camcorder instead, but I'm not interested in
> making long films. I just want to take short clips to document various
> aspects of my daily life.
> Video format is not important, but I'd rather have sharp video;
> artifact-free that is, so I favor motion jpeg more than MPEG-1 or MPEG-4.
> As for images I won't do any printing; I'll only be viewing them on a
> monitor.
> I was leaning towards the Canon PowerShot series, since I'd toyed with other
> people's Canon digicams in the past. The SD200 through SD500 seem to have
> similar specs on movies (1 min 320x240 60fps, 3 min 160x120, up till SD card
> full 320x240/640x480 15fps/30fps).
> Does anyone know if there is actual differences in video clip qualities
> between the various powershot sd's? (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
> still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
> get more megapixels for the buck)
>
> Also what other cameras (of any brand) would fit the uses I described above?
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:36:22 AM

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

<snipped>
> What do you need in a
> video camera? does it have to be pocketable?
Preferrably so. Anything I can stick in my pocket (even if it makes a big
bulge).
> how long will the video
> be?
No more than 5 min a piece.
what will you be shooting?
The first thing that comes to mind was my school (mostly inanimate things,
like structures, rooms, hallways, which have no meaning to anyone but me).
And 'locations' in general, like travelling and stuff.
what budget?
I'd rather something in the $200-$300 range, but if it's really good and can
last a long time I'm willing to go up to $500.

> more details can help
> narrow down.
It'll be like documentary stuff, or independent films. People tend to shoot
other people smiling gayly at the camera, but I won't be doing any of that.
It'll be more like the camera is the 'eye' walking through halls and rooms,
looking around, with my narrating voice in the background. Still photographs
are there to add (complement) detail that the video may miss.
I'm also thinking of carrying it around everywhere and if I see something
interesting I may grab a pic or a video.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 6:36:23 AM

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

"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
> It'll be like documentary stuff, or independent films. People tend to shoot
> other people smiling gayly at the camera, but I won't be doing any of that.
> It'll be more like the camera is the 'eye' walking through halls and rooms,
> looking around, with my narrating voice in the background. Still photographs
> are there to add (complement) detail that the video may miss.

Don't bother with a digicam, get a decent video camera if you're
trying to do anything like this. It will not fit in your pocket.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:30:01 AM

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

John Smith wrote:

I have to run now, while in the midst or writing a reply to your post,
but I'll finish and post it when I get back this evening. I'll have
good advice for you from my years of experience in this activity, with
many devices, and it'll save you a lot of needless hassle and
experimentation.

> <snipped>
> > What do you need in a
> > video camera? does it have to be pocketable?
> Preferrably so. Anything I can stick in my pocket (even if it makes a big
> bulge).
> > how long will the video
> > be?
> No more than 5 min a piece.
> what will you be shooting?
> The first thing that comes to mind was my school (mostly inanimate things,
> like structures, rooms, hallways, which have no meaning to anyone but me).
> And 'locations' in general, like travelling and stuff.
> what budget?
> I'd rather something in the $200-$300 range, but if it's really good and can
> last a long time I'm willing to go up to $500.
>
> > more details can help
> > narrow down.
> It'll be like documentary stuff, or independent films. People tend to shoot
> other people smiling gayly at the camera, but I won't be doing any of that.
> It'll be more like the camera is the 'eye' walking through halls and rooms,
> looking around, with my narrating voice in the background. Still photographs
> are there to add (complement) detail that the video may miss.
> I'm also thinking of carrying it around everywhere and if I see something
> interesting I may grab a pic or a video.
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:56:52 PM

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:25:37 -0400, "John Smith"
<someone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>What's the best digital camera for video clips? I've often seen posts
>telling people to get a digital camcorder instead, but I'm not interested in
>making long films. I just want to take short clips to document various
>aspects of my daily life.
>Video format is not important, but I'd rather have sharp video;
>artifact-free that is, so I favor motion jpeg more than MPEG-1 or MPEG-4.
>As for images I won't do any printing; I'll only be viewing them on a
>monitor.
>I was leaning towards the Canon PowerShot series, since I'd toyed with other
>people's Canon digicams in the past. The SD200 through SD500 seem to have
>similar specs on movies (1 min 320x240 60fps, 3 min 160x120, up till SD card
>full 320x240/640x480 15fps/30fps).
>Does anyone know if there is actual differences in video clip qualities
>between the various powershot sd's? (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
>still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
>get more megapixels for the buck)
>
>Also what other cameras (of any brand) would fit the uses I described above?

The Canon S2 IS takes the best quality video of any digicam, period.
640x480 M-JPEG, 30 fps, stereo 44.1Khz sound, 12x zoom (works while
recording). You can even shoot full-resolution (5 MP) stills while
recording (video slightly interrupted).

Sample:
http://dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s2-review...

The S2 IS is a big cam, tho - if portability is a concern.


DIZZLE
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 4:27:57 PM

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

John Smith wrote:
> <snipped>
> > What do you need in a
> > video camera? does it have to be pocketable?
> Preferrably so. Anything I can stick in my pocket (even if it makes a big
> bulge).

See below.

> > how long will the video
> > be?
> No more than 5 min a piece.

Yes, but you really don't want the camera to set the limits. You want
no such arbitrary limits. You want unlimited duration video until the
media fills up.

> what will you be shooting?
> The first thing that comes to mind was my school (mostly inanimate things,
> like structures, rooms, hallways, which have no meaning to anyone but me).
> And 'locations' in general, like travelling and stuff.

That's the first thing that comes to your mind, but once you shot
enough of that, there'll be *plenty* of other things you'd want to
shoot.

BTW, those "milestone" shoots - milestone as in life milestones - that
you'll do and may seem mundane on the occasion, may later feel like a
priceless treasure - sentimentally, not monetarily - and when you look
at them years later on you'll probably regret that you hadn't shot more
such footage. So don't worry about looking or sounding like a weirdo
doing such stuff, maybe you don't but I'm too socially-conscious and
always feel people are criticising whatever I do, but it's really worth
it. And even if you're socially-conscious like I am, seeing yourself on
video will help alleviate that as it'll incrase your knowledge and
decrease your uncertainty about how you look and act.



> what budget?
> I'd rather something in the $200-$300 range, but if it's really good and can
> last a long time I'm willing to go up to $500.
>

Get the best quality video you can for this price. Eight years later on
or more when viewing the footage you won't care what funky features and
geeky gimmicks the camera had, and the only thing that'll show is what
quality the video, which will only be as good as it originally was.

> > more details can help
> > narrow down.
> It'll be like documentary stuff, or independent films. People tend to shoot
> other people smiling gayly at the camera, but I won't be doing any of that.
> It'll be more like the camera is the 'eye' walking through halls and rooms,
> looking around, with my narrating voice in the background. Still photographs
> are there to add (complement) detail that the video may miss.
> I'm also thinking of carrying it around everywhere and if I see something
> interesting I may grab a pic or a video.

I searched for the pocketable-all-in-one and eventually accepted that
carrying a small bag may actually be a *much* better option. Girls
carry bags all the time wherever they go, so why not me. A lightweight
one of neutral looks, perhaps all black, with no conspicuous branding
or style, will fit all occasions and clothing. It doesn't need to be
expensive or have padding; just a simple black bag with a strap, you
probably already have one.

Forget about carrying things in your pocket. It's a headache. You'll
pay a steep premium for the pocketability at the expense of other more
worthy considerations, like video quality. And even if you get a
pocketable thing, you'll still have the headache of too many pocketable
things to carry, such as a wallet, PDA, keyring, and so on. Just get a
suitable bag, and put it all in the bag, and take the bag with you. It
really is the easiest.

I suggest you get a digital camcorder with the best video quality for
your money. Simply that. A miniDV model. JVC makes the best budget
digital camcorders for video quality. They're small too. Sony makes
overpriced gimmicks, so avoid them.

With the camcorder get a fitting lowepro digicam bag, and put the
camera in the lowepro bag, and put the lowepro bag in your city bag or
rucksack, and you're set to go.

If this reply doesn't answer your needs, lemme know.
June 17, 2005 6:39:46 PM

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

John Smith wrote:
> No more than 5 min a piece.

I think the types of things you're shooting are fine for digital camera
(like structures, rooms, narration). But 5 minutes is pretty long for a
digital camera. I hope you mean 5 min per day.

There's no limit on the length of a video except your flash card
memory. At 640x480 @ 30fps, it needs 2MB/s. (You won't want to take
video at less than that. 320x240 is tiny. 15 fps is jerky.) So for 5
minutes, it'll take up to 600MB. You'll want to factor the SD card
costs in. And make sure the SD card can handle 2MB/s.
August 22, 2011 6:21:50 AM

I came across a camera that does sharp HD video and even slow motion video at this
site
The Best digital Camera with HD video Recording


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

What's the best digital camera for video clips? I've often seen posts
telling people to get a digital camcorder instead, but I'm not interested in
making long films. I just want to take short clips to document various
aspects of my daily life.
Video format is not important, but I'd rather have sharp video;
artifact-free that is, so I favor motion jpeg more than MPEG-1 or MPEG-4.
As for images I won't do any printing; I'll only be viewing them on a
monitor.
I was leaning towards the Canon PowerShot series, since I'd toyed with other
people's Canon digicams in the past. The SD200 through SD500 seem to have
similar specs on movies (1 min 320x240 60fps, 3 min 160x120, up till SD card
full 320x240/640x480 15fps/30fps).
Does anyone know if there is actual differences in video clip qualities
between the various powershot sd's? (I think it's outrageous that the SD200
still costs around $280 given how old it is - makes me wonder if I should
get more megapixels for the buck)

Also what other cameras (of any brand) would fit the uses I described above?

!