Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[DonBartholf AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/9/04 3:50:34 PM Central Standard Time, dmp31526 AT GlaxoWellcome.com writes:

Attention smart people, full of advice:

I really want a digital camera. I could also use a video camera. I'm
thinking I could get the best of both worlds with a digital video camera,
where I could take video of everything and if I want to send photos to
family I can just capture stills off the video.

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of digital video? How does a digital
video camera compare in quality to a still digital camera?

It depends on the cameras you are considering and why you would get one, either or both. In a nutshell, a digital video camera takes very low resolution pictures compared to a digital still camera, and we are talking very low here. Many digital cameras also have a 20 second movie, with no sound. I can't recommend either as a substitute for the other.  If you want a high quality image you need to get a device whose main function is to produce that image. I haven't taken the video digital leap yet as technology is still sorting itself out. I do have a digital camera which I think is wonderful. You get instant feedback on the picture and take as many as you wish with no cost. This is important as most photos really are not worth keeping.  With emulsion film, I would shoot 36 pictures and be happy if 3 were good. With digital, I just print the good ones. In truth, I don't erase any images. I dump them on my hard drive then archive them to CD. I've saved all my negatives too.

 

So back to what you are going to use either camera for?

 

Don