«

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Racer X <> writes:
>
>>> Try using it for what it was designed for.
>
>> I did. It's designed for still *and* movies.
>
> It's generally agreed (if you bothered to read the photo and video
> newsgroups that you are now sending your complaints to) that most
> digital still cameras make poor movie cameras at best, and most movie
> cameras make poor still cameras at best.
>
> If you really insist on having a single camera for both purposes, you
> might have tried searching for discussion of that issue in these
> newsgroups. Various people recommended the Canon S2IS, among Canon
> cameras, as one whose video capabilities were pretty good. Nobody has
> recommended the A620 for its video as far as I can remember.
>
> I'll bet that you're spending more time now complaining about the A620
> than you ever spent researching cameras before you bought one. If so,
> doesn't that seem a bit strange?
>
> Dave
Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing
zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They
match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things
like this get better with time.

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing

my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it
excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD giving
a half hr of video.

OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality stills
including several different preset modes.

i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i
can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and
printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me.

> zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They
> match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things
> like this get better with time.

theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly
"do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from
the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket!

SoCalMike wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing
>
> my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it
> excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD giving
> a half hr of video.
>
> OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality stills
> including several different preset modes.
>
> i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i
> can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and
> printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me.
>
>> zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They
>> match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things
>> like this get better with time.
>
> theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly
> "do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from
> the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket!

Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much
more than merely adequate.

Ron Hunter <> writes:

>Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much
>more than merely adequate.

I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV
cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records
MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good
after all.

And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or
better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still
cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound
quality.

Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are
still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras.

Dave

Ron Hunter wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing
>>
>> my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it
>> excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD
>> giving a half hr of video.
>>
>> OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality
>> stills including several different preset modes.
>>
>> i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i
>> can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and
>> printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me.
>>
>>> zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They
>>> match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things
>>> like this get better with time.
>>
>> theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly
>> "do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from
>> the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket!
>
> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much
> more than merely adequate.

yeah. couldnt find anything pocket sized that ran on AAs though. that
was my trade-off. i find myself using this camera a lot more than my old
one, just by it being easy to slip in my pocket.

course, now youll post a link to one that does 640x480, is small, and
uses AAs just to make me feel bad

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <> writes:
>
>> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much
>> more than merely adequate.
>
> I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV
> cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records
> MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good
> after all.

thats kinda nit-picky, if youre worrying about compression in a still
camera that does movies. just my opinion.
>
> And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or
> better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still
> cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound
> quality.

yup
>
> Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are
> still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras.

id agree. tapes dead, anyway. next BIG things gonna be HDD based
cameras, with USB to put the video on a computer to burn to DVD. maybe
an SD slot for stills as well.
>
> Dave

Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <> writes:
>
>> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much
>> more than merely adequate.
>
> I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV
> cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records
> MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good
> after all.
>
> And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or
> better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still
> cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound
> quality.
>
> Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are
> still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras.
>
> Dave

Now you are on about sound. I was talking about video quality. Yes,
most aren't stereo, but then the idea of stereo from a home video camera
is rather laughable too. And the .mov compressed video on my camera is
quite good, even if I do have to use something from Apple to play it!

SoCalMike wrote:
> Dave Martindale wrote:
>> Ron Hunter <> writes:
>>
>>> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is
>>> much more than merely adequate.
>>
>> I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV
>> cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records
>> MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good
>> after all.
>
> thats kinda nit-picky, if youre worrying about compression in a still
> camera that does movies. just my opinion.
>>
>> And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or
>> better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still
>> cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound
>> quality.
>
> yup
>>
>> Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are
>> still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras.
>
> id agree. tapes dead, anyway. next BIG things gonna be HDD based
> cameras, with USB to put the video on a computer to burn to DVD. maybe
> an SD slot for stills as well.
>>
>> Dave

I am very surprised that DV cameras don't already HAVE HDs.
I haven't looked at that market segment in some years.

I have to agree, come on mate. Go to a shop to buy a video camera if
thats what you want. If your pretext for returning a stills camera is
that it is no good as a video camera then you are the one that made the
wrong purchase. Its like returning a ferrari because the stereo's not
good.

Also, I have a previous model, the A85. Im a professional photographer
and I think its pictures are very good. If you have bought a stills
camera for video purposes, and returned it, I would also suspect that
you have not read the instructions or given the device a fair crack.

Derek Fountain <> wrote in
news:43c2243d$0$68731$ reenews.net:

>> This camera initially seems novel because it allows
>> shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480
>> resolution, which might make you think that you could
>> buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake.
>> If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera
>> and not this $400 hunk of junk.
>
> Anyone who buys a digital stills camera because they think it will
> allow them to shoot a movie is starting with a deluded perspective. A
> movie mode is an add on, normally provided because "it can" and "it's
> fun," rather than because it's any good. The best digital cameras
> don't have movie mode at all.
>
> Just because one of the gimmicky features of the camera you've bought
> isn't up to standard, that doesn't mean the camera is a hunk of junk.
> Try using it for what it was designed for.
>

bloke <> wrote

> I have to agree,

More fool you.

> come on mate. Go to a shop to buy
> a video camera if thats what you want.

What he wants is a still camera with a viable video mode.

There are plenty of those around now.

> If your pretext for returning a stills camera
> is that it is no good as a video camera

No it isnt. His complaint is that the sound quality is completey unacceptible.

Its perfectly possible to have the audio much better
than the one he had in a still camera with video mode.

> then you are the one that made the wrong purchase.

Wrong, as always.

> Its like returning a ferrari because the stereo's not good.

Nothing like.

> Also, I have a previous model, the A85. Im a professional photographer
> and I think its pictures are very good. If you have bought a stills
> camera for video purposes, and returned it, I would also suspect that
> you have not read the instructions or given the device a fair crack.

Unlikely when even the store monkey realised the audio
had a problem when that was demonstrated properly.


> Derek Fountain <> wrote in
> news:43c2243d$0$68731$ reenews.net:
>
>>> This camera initially seems novel because it allows
>>> shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480
>>> resolution, which might make you think that you could
>>> buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake.
>>> If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera
>>> and not this $400 hunk of junk.
>>
>> Anyone who buys a digital stills camera because they think it will
>> allow them to shoot a movie is starting with a deluded perspective. A
>> movie mode is an add on, normally provided because "it can" and "it's
>> fun," rather than because it's any good. The best digital cameras
>> don't have movie mode at all.
>>
>> Just because one of the gimmicky features of the camera you've bought
>> isn't up to standard, that doesn't mean the camera is a hunk of junk.
>> Try using it for what it was designed for.