sport camcorder digital video camera image
pookiebear
I would like some basic info on digital cameras. I am looking for a camera that is sleek and thin, but at the same time high quality. My price range is $200 - $300. Are some brands better than others? Also, I would like to be able to take my memory card to a place to get the pics developed since I don't want to spend the money on a high quality printer right now.
Anything positive about the sony cyber shot?
Answer
I got a Sony Cyber-shot W55 for my trip to Hawaii last year. It takes GREAT pictures(to my standards) at 7.2MP.
It has some pretty good customers' reviews too. For under $200
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000M4J2LM?ie=UTF8&tag=marartpla-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000M4J2LM
Pros:
-Great pictures
-Fast loading
-2.5" LCD Screen
-Easy to use
-View Finder(if you wish to use it instead of the LCD)
-Different picture settings for different environments.(Like a beach setting, it brought out the beautiful blues of Waikiki Beach)
-MPEG video with audio
-Rechargeable battery with a good battery life(never had to charge it on a 5day vacation)
-The Legendary Carl Zeiss lens
Cons
-The people at Best Buy told me it came with an image stabilizer to take pictures of moving objects, but it doesn't. So if you plan on taking a lot of pictures of moving objects like a sporting events:biking, basketball, soccer, etc... or dancing and such forget about it.
-Cannot zoom in and out while filming video. Not to complain too much I mean its a digital camera not a digital camcorder. Other than that the video isn't bad.
-Most cameras use SD memory cards, but Sony uses Memory Stick for their products. Therefore SD cards can be used for multiple different camera (and other electronics) brands, while you pretty much can only use a Memory Stick for Sony's products(Cameras, Cell Phones, PDAs, PSP, PS3). But you still shouldn't have a problem taking the memory card out and taking them to get developed its just you wont have much use for the Memory Stick if you no longer use Sony's products.
I bought a 2GB SanDisk Memory Stick. I've been on vacation to Hawaii(taking pictures and videos), kickboxing (taking video several times), my sister has been on 2 weekend vacations(more pics), niece's birthday party(pics), and the cowboys packers game(pics) and STILL have room on it.
So all and all I love this camera my major complaint was no image stabilizer. Other than that a great buy in my opinion, then again my budget was under $200 yours is $300 so you can probably afford the T70 model:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000V5R9NA?ie=UTF8&tag=marartpla-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000V5R9NA
I know a lot of people who are very into cameras go for Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus or Cannon, and say Sony isn't quite on their level with picture quality. But these are people who pay attention GREATLY to details. I've had my Sony Cyber Shot for almost a year now and the pictures are amazing to me. The Cyber Shot also has a sleeker and appealing design.
So if you want somewhat better pictures but a little bulker go with a Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus or Cannon, if you don't have such a discriminatory eye for details(in the picture) but you want a camera with a better physical design go with the Sony. But once again I'll say I have no complaints about the quality of pictures my Cyber Shot takes(just the image stabilizer).
I got a Sony Cyber-shot W55 for my trip to Hawaii last year. It takes GREAT pictures(to my standards) at 7.2MP.
It has some pretty good customers' reviews too. For under $200
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000M4J2LM?ie=UTF8&tag=marartpla-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000M4J2LM
Pros:
-Great pictures
-Fast loading
-2.5" LCD Screen
-Easy to use
-View Finder(if you wish to use it instead of the LCD)
-Different picture settings for different environments.(Like a beach setting, it brought out the beautiful blues of Waikiki Beach)
-MPEG video with audio
-Rechargeable battery with a good battery life(never had to charge it on a 5day vacation)
-The Legendary Carl Zeiss lens
Cons
-The people at Best Buy told me it came with an image stabilizer to take pictures of moving objects, but it doesn't. So if you plan on taking a lot of pictures of moving objects like a sporting events:biking, basketball, soccer, etc... or dancing and such forget about it.
-Cannot zoom in and out while filming video. Not to complain too much I mean its a digital camera not a digital camcorder. Other than that the video isn't bad.
-Most cameras use SD memory cards, but Sony uses Memory Stick for their products. Therefore SD cards can be used for multiple different camera (and other electronics) brands, while you pretty much can only use a Memory Stick for Sony's products(Cameras, Cell Phones, PDAs, PSP, PS3). But you still shouldn't have a problem taking the memory card out and taking them to get developed its just you wont have much use for the Memory Stick if you no longer use Sony's products.
I bought a 2GB SanDisk Memory Stick. I've been on vacation to Hawaii(taking pictures and videos), kickboxing (taking video several times), my sister has been on 2 weekend vacations(more pics), niece's birthday party(pics), and the cowboys packers game(pics) and STILL have room on it.
So all and all I love this camera my major complaint was no image stabilizer. Other than that a great buy in my opinion, then again my budget was under $200 yours is $300 so you can probably afford the T70 model:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000V5R9NA?ie=UTF8&tag=marartpla-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000V5R9NA
I know a lot of people who are very into cameras go for Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus or Cannon, and say Sony isn't quite on their level with picture quality. But these are people who pay attention GREATLY to details. I've had my Sony Cyber Shot for almost a year now and the pictures are amazing to me. The Cyber Shot also has a sleeker and appealing design.
So if you want somewhat better pictures but a little bulker go with a Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus or Cannon, if you don't have such a discriminatory eye for details(in the picture) but you want a camera with a better physical design go with the Sony. But once again I'll say I have no complaints about the quality of pictures my Cyber Shot takes(just the image stabilizer).
Are videos on the Canon SX10 as good as the one on the Canon FS100 video camera?
jhoo828
I need a nice (not HD) video camera. I decided that an SD-based Canon FS100 would at least be close to the image quality on my old Sony TRV250 Hi-8 camcorder. Rather than pay for the FS100 alone, would the video quality on a new Canon SX10IS be about the same as well as giving me a nice still cam?
Answer
You can't quite get both in a single model, yet.
By spec, the Canon's movie mode is decent enough... it's recording at 640x480, which is a "square pixel" version of the standard 720x480 that pretty much all NTSC SD camcorders use... slighly lower pixel count, but it's not a huge issue. Canon still recording tends to be in same ballpark as lower cost video camera video... I have not used this particular model, but in general, I can state this. 30fps will be a bit more "movie like" than the 60i (interlaced) you would get with regular video. If you're making DVDs, you might notice this, particularly with sports and other fast moving things. If your goal is computer video, the non-interlaced video from the SX100 might actually be preferable (I don't know if the FS100 has a progressive mode... most of Canon's HD models do today).
So look at compression.. the SX10 can record 1 hr. 30 min on an 8GB flash card, while the FS100 at top quality can record 1hr. 50min.. That sounds like the SX10 is actually using less compression, but we have to check the format. The FS100 records in MPEG-2, as used on all DVDs. At that bitrate, the FS100 is slightly better than DVD quality.
Checking into the SX10, I find that, like most digital still cameras, the SX10 uses Motion-JPEG for video, which is very similar to the DV format. To DV and MJPEG are simpler compression schemes than MPEG-2, so you need more bits per second to get the same quality. DV camcorders use 25Mb/s, while the SX10 is recording around 11Mb/s here. So I would expect this video to be relatively low quality, compared to DVD or the FS100, at least in terms of digital noise (artifacts and other ugly bits due to compression). It might still look fine, but it's probably more like one of the FS100 "long play" modes rather than top quality.
Next is sound.. most digital still cameras have pretty evil microphones, in mono, and no way to add an external one. The SX10 is a bit better than this.. you can't add a mic, but at least it's recording in stereo. Also, the mics are apparently just above the lens housing, and thus less probe to being blocked by your hands (a real problem with many still cameras used for video).
Then there's "features while recording". Traditionally, most digital still cameras with video recording were not good camcorders, even given their limitations, because some features didn't work during recording. The first one I had with this mode, a Canon from the 90s, didn't even keep the viewscreen active. It's more common for autofocus, autoexposure, and/or zoom to not function while doing video. Some do it.. I have a Panasonic TZ5 which does keep everything active during video, and functions as a somewhat reasonable camcorder (with bad sound and too-high compression, but I have used it as a third video camera on shoots from time to time). So I looked it up, and while it's not easy to find, one review (included below) did find that auto-focus/exposure remain active during video, and you can zoom. In general, this camera is better designed for video than most.. for example, there's a separate video button which can be used in any photo mode -- most DSCs make you switch to a different "movie mode", which is a bit annoying (my Panny is like this).
So yeah, I would bet that the SX10 would deliver video comparable to the TRV250, if not quite on par with the FS100. And naturally, the stills will be dramatically better than using the FS100 as a still camera. You are limited to 4GB file sizes, which means you get about 40 minutes at top quality before you have to stop shooting, but you can start again right away if you have an 8GB memory card (my Panasonic is the same way... it's because they use the FAT32 file system on the SD card, which is limited to 4GB maximum). With some limitations, it's going to be decent for casual video use, much better at least than most digital still cameras.
You can't quite get both in a single model, yet.
By spec, the Canon's movie mode is decent enough... it's recording at 640x480, which is a "square pixel" version of the standard 720x480 that pretty much all NTSC SD camcorders use... slighly lower pixel count, but it's not a huge issue. Canon still recording tends to be in same ballpark as lower cost video camera video... I have not used this particular model, but in general, I can state this. 30fps will be a bit more "movie like" than the 60i (interlaced) you would get with regular video. If you're making DVDs, you might notice this, particularly with sports and other fast moving things. If your goal is computer video, the non-interlaced video from the SX100 might actually be preferable (I don't know if the FS100 has a progressive mode... most of Canon's HD models do today).
So look at compression.. the SX10 can record 1 hr. 30 min on an 8GB flash card, while the FS100 at top quality can record 1hr. 50min.. That sounds like the SX10 is actually using less compression, but we have to check the format. The FS100 records in MPEG-2, as used on all DVDs. At that bitrate, the FS100 is slightly better than DVD quality.
Checking into the SX10, I find that, like most digital still cameras, the SX10 uses Motion-JPEG for video, which is very similar to the DV format. To DV and MJPEG are simpler compression schemes than MPEG-2, so you need more bits per second to get the same quality. DV camcorders use 25Mb/s, while the SX10 is recording around 11Mb/s here. So I would expect this video to be relatively low quality, compared to DVD or the FS100, at least in terms of digital noise (artifacts and other ugly bits due to compression). It might still look fine, but it's probably more like one of the FS100 "long play" modes rather than top quality.
Next is sound.. most digital still cameras have pretty evil microphones, in mono, and no way to add an external one. The SX10 is a bit better than this.. you can't add a mic, but at least it's recording in stereo. Also, the mics are apparently just above the lens housing, and thus less probe to being blocked by your hands (a real problem with many still cameras used for video).
Then there's "features while recording". Traditionally, most digital still cameras with video recording were not good camcorders, even given their limitations, because some features didn't work during recording. The first one I had with this mode, a Canon from the 90s, didn't even keep the viewscreen active. It's more common for autofocus, autoexposure, and/or zoom to not function while doing video. Some do it.. I have a Panasonic TZ5 which does keep everything active during video, and functions as a somewhat reasonable camcorder (with bad sound and too-high compression, but I have used it as a third video camera on shoots from time to time). So I looked it up, and while it's not easy to find, one review (included below) did find that auto-focus/exposure remain active during video, and you can zoom. In general, this camera is better designed for video than most.. for example, there's a separate video button which can be used in any photo mode -- most DSCs make you switch to a different "movie mode", which is a bit annoying (my Panny is like this).
So yeah, I would bet that the SX10 would deliver video comparable to the TRV250, if not quite on par with the FS100. And naturally, the stills will be dramatically better than using the FS100 as a still camera. You are limited to 4GB file sizes, which means you get about 40 minutes at top quality before you have to stop shooting, but you can start again right away if you have an 8GB memory card (my Panasonic is the same way... it's because they use the FAT32 file system on the SD card, which is limited to 4GB maximum). With some limitations, it's going to be decent for casual video use, much better at least than most digital still cameras.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment