videobear
Veteran
Mar 29, 2005, 9:34 AM
Post #2 of 3
(508 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [Gardell] Elura 90 or HC42, or something else?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Daniel,
No camcorder, even the ones that take still images, is as good at still photographs as an actual digital camera...and conversely, still cameras that also record video clips don't do a real good job as video camcorders.
These single-CCD camcorders can take a still of about 1 to 1.3 megapixels, and the images will look great on a computer monitor or a TV. But to have enough resolution to blow the image up into an 8x10 print size, you need at least 5 or 6 MP, and current cameras are offering as high as 8 MP.
Secondly, these very small camcorders have portability as their greatest feature. The advantage is that you can take them everywhere, so you'll never miss a picture opportunity. They are the modern equivalent of the Pocket Instamatic camera. They also have the same sort of limitations. If you intend the unit for personal use, then either one should do a good job for you. But if you are planning on doing professional video or still photography, you need a considerably more capable piece of equipment.
For photography, a lot of users here seem to like the Canon 20D, or its less expensive brother, the Digital Rebel XT. For video, you need a 3-CCD camcorder, such as the Sony VX-2100 or the Canon GL-2. Any of these items will run you $1,000 to $2,500, well above your stated budget.
Regards,
Doug Graham
Panda Productions
|
I'm looking for a digital camrecorder. 
