Video Camera Vs. Standard Digital Camera

[stevo]

I have a nice little digital camera which has the option of takin g video on it as well. I have considered buying an actual digital video camera for taking video in hopes that it will give even better quality in low light situations & possible higher resolution..

My question is for those of you who have played with both:

Is there a noticable difference between the quality of the 2 types of devices?

(I recently purchased a digital video camera for about 6,000 baht, but found the quality of my digital camer vid to be better..)

[Crossy]

Is there a noticable difference between the quality of the 2 types of devices?

(I recently purchased a digital video camera for about 6,000 baht, but found the quality of my digital camer vid to be better..)

If you buy a proper camcorder (which will cost considerably more than 6000 Baht) the video quality will be excellent and you will be able to record at least an hour at a time.

Please note, I don't recommend the DVD recording cameras yet, media is expensive and too short, and because they use a lossy compression (Mpeg 2) in order to cram the video onto the tiny disk space, video quality is ok but not great.

Get a tape based Mini-DV camcorder

[Tywais]

Is there a noticable difference between the quality of the 2 types of devices?

(I recently purchased a digital video camera for about 6,000 baht, but found the quality of my digital camer vid to be better..)

If you buy a proper camcorder (which will cost considerably more than 6000 Baht) the video quality will be excellent and you will be able to record at least an hour at a time.

Please note, I don't recommend the DVD recording cameras yet, media is expensive and too short, and because they use a lossy compression (Mpeg 2) in order to cram the video onto the tiny disk space, video quality is ok but not great.

Get a tape based Mini-DV camcorder

Fully agree with Crossy. 6000.00 Baht will probably not have good optics or sensor electronics. Also regarding the DVD where it's main advantage is record and play without having to edit/convert the video but is more expensive to operate.

My still camera actually does a pretty good job with video (up to 800x600) but my Mini-DV has much better color replication and less noise. You might let us know what the brand/model of both your still and video camera is for more informed comments.

[Firefoxx]

If you paid only 6,000 for a digital video camera, then you probably got something that's not much better than a toy. The cheapest true video camcorders go for 15k up, and they're the bottom of the line.

Yes, you can use your digicam to record video. But the quality will be worse, there will be artifacts, the video format will be weird, the recording time will be *extremely* short, the media will be expensive, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Get a tape-based miniDV camcorder. They're the best bet right now, and they can be had for pretty cheap. However, performance (low light and image quality) will not be incredible at that price bracket. If you want *good* video, you will have to pay.

[stevo]

If you paid only 6,000 for a digital video camera, then you probably got something that's not much better than a toy. The cheapest true video camcorders go for 15k up, and they're the bottom of the line.

Yes, you can use your digicam to record video. But the quality will be worse, there will be artifacts, the video format will be weird, the recording time will be *extremely* short, the media will be expensive, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Get a tape-based miniDV camcorder. They're the best bet right now, and they can be had for pretty cheap. However, performance (low light and image quality) will not be incredible at that price bracket. If you want *good* video, you will have to pay.

I have about an 11,000 baht digital camera 5 mega pixels.. When I first got it, I was impreassed with the video capability, which I never new about before.. I am just wondering if it's worth spending 11,000 - 15,000 baht again for an actual camcorder. My puropose is for making a little promo video. The quality would have have to be substantially noticably in order to justify spending more on a new one..

[Firefoxx]

With zero information on the actual make and model of the digicam you bought, we can't really say how much better a camcorder will be. But it *will* be better, in the areas that I mentioned above. How *much* better will depend on what your digicam can already do and how much you're willing to spend (if only 15k baht, then not by much, but you'll get a lot of recording time).

If you're just going to use it once for a video of just a minute or two, it's pretty pointless. If you really want quality, you can go rent a pro camera, but that would probably cost roughly the same as buying a cheap camcorder.

[astral]

It is horses for courses.

An all singing camera will probably underperform on both sides.

Certainly the video capacity will be severely limited in quality and time by the memory card.

On a video camera we are talking about 1 hour of good quality on one tape.

My Panasonic has 3 sensors, one for each colour, red - green - blue

which results in good quality even in low light.

It does take stills but only at 2Mpixels.

For stills I use my Canon 10D digital SLR. 6Mpixels, and old hat by the latest standards,

but way better than the video camera can manage.

[p_brownstone]

I have a point and shoot Digital Camera, a Canon PowerShot A610 - 5 Megapixels.

I can use this to take Video too and with a large capacity (2 Gb) Memory Card can record for nearly 20 minutes at 30fps and 640 x 480 resolution.

I am thinking of buying a dedicated Camcorder but the best I see only takes video at 4 Megapixels.

Am I wrong in concluding that the video picture quality I get using the Canon Still camera will be better than that obtained using a Video Camera?

Patrick

[stevo]

With zero information on the actual make and model of the digicam you bought, we can't really say how much better a camcorder will be.

I have the Pentax, "Optio" 5.0 megapix digital camera..

I just have a feeling that a camcorder would not offer much better video quality..

[Charma]

As astral eluded to, with video it is all down to the quality of the CCD and the optics. A digital camera will always be a compromise (at the moment anyway). Video cameras aimed at the "home" market vary tremendously in quality, from the cheap stuff you will get for 10-15,000 Bt up to many times that for the latest high definition models.

For things like a promo video, you would really be better using (hiring) a broadcast quality semi pro camera like from the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Canon. You would really notice the difference. They also have the ability to record in DVCAM format (mini DV tapes but running faster). It may seem like going over the top, but a badly shot promotion video can do a lot of harm to your image.

[paulsworld]

I think you'd be best hiring out a pro as others have said. I use 3CCD cameras which make for easier color correction...you're going to want at least that and you're not going to get into 3CCD stuff for 6000baht...there are folks renting out and hiring out video services in this range...I think if you're coming off of a digital camera you'd be best served by hiring someone who knows unless you've got a lot of dough to play with

Paul