What is the difference between digital cameras & camcorder.?
Question: what i know is digital cameras are for still pictures & camcorders for both still pictures & videos.But i find that u can get video functions also with digital cameras. so now whats the difference. pl. clarify. because i want to buy one so what shd. i buy?
Answers: Video-capture capability is now available in selected models of cellphones, digicams, and other portable consumer electronic devices such as media players. Typically only digital cameras offer videos that are of useful quality for anything other than a novelty. The marketing approach is to claim 320 X 240 video is VHS quality, and 640 X 480 video is DVD quality. A few cameras can offer 800 X 600 resolution, and a recent development is High Definition (720p) in cameras such as the Sanyo Xacti HD1.
All are limited somewhat by having to serve as both cameras and camcorders. Compared to a dedicated camcorder they have poor low light performance, limited options, and many do not offer zoom during filming. (This is because the noise from the zooming motor is heard on the clip, only a few digicams have a manual zoom.) Many either have fixed focus lenses, or autofocus lenses that are sluggish and noisy compared to a camcorder.
The quality varies widely depending on the compression format used and the type of device. Frame rates can range from 30 FPS down to 10 FPS, or can be variable, slowing down in dark settings. The length of clips can also vary from unlimited (up to the capacity of the storage media) down to a few minutes.
I have a digital camera with video capabilities. It's okay for sending a clip by e-mail, but not too good for video worth keeping (those important moments). My son's video camera is far superior for good quality videos. You should buy a digital camera for its ability to take good pictures, and if what you want is mostly videos, then a camcorder would work.
It comes down to quality. You can get digital cameras that take video, and camcorders that take photos. But in each case, the 'extra' feature is not as good quality as a dedicated piece of equipment. You will find less 'tweaks' available in the extra mode than with a standalone item, and the resolution will be lower.
If you really don't know, I'd probably go for a camcorder with photo capability. This is simply because a digital camera won't store much video at all, so it's almost a waste of time.
They both do the one thing they were made for well, and the other function as a gimmick.
Digital cameras usually only do up to 30 seconds of video, and at a resolution of just 640x480 lines.
Conversely, camcorders take poor quality still pictures - only at around 2 megapixels.
Answers: Video-capture capability is now available in selected models of cellphones, digicams, and other portable consumer electronic devices such as media players. Typically only digital cameras offer videos that are of useful quality for anything other than a novelty. The marketing approach is to claim 320 X 240 video is VHS quality, and 640 X 480 video is DVD quality. A few cameras can offer 800 X 600 resolution, and a recent development is High Definition (720p) in cameras such as the Sanyo Xacti HD1.
All are limited somewhat by having to serve as both cameras and camcorders. Compared to a dedicated camcorder they have poor low light performance, limited options, and many do not offer zoom during filming. (This is because the noise from the zooming motor is heard on the clip, only a few digicams have a manual zoom.) Many either have fixed focus lenses, or autofocus lenses that are sluggish and noisy compared to a camcorder.
The quality varies widely depending on the compression format used and the type of device. Frame rates can range from 30 FPS down to 10 FPS, or can be variable, slowing down in dark settings. The length of clips can also vary from unlimited (up to the capacity of the storage media) down to a few minutes.
I have a digital camera with video capabilities. It's okay for sending a clip by e-mail, but not too good for video worth keeping (those important moments). My son's video camera is far superior for good quality videos. You should buy a digital camera for its ability to take good pictures, and if what you want is mostly videos, then a camcorder would work.
It comes down to quality. You can get digital cameras that take video, and camcorders that take photos. But in each case, the 'extra' feature is not as good quality as a dedicated piece of equipment. You will find less 'tweaks' available in the extra mode than with a standalone item, and the resolution will be lower.
If you really don't know, I'd probably go for a camcorder with photo capability. This is simply because a digital camera won't store much video at all, so it's almost a waste of time.
They both do the one thing they were made for well, and the other function as a gimmick.
Digital cameras usually only do up to 30 seconds of video, and at a resolution of just 640x480 lines.
Conversely, camcorders take poor quality still pictures - only at around 2 megapixels.
More questions & answers:
- What's the name of that camcorder?
- Tape stuck in camera, won't eject?
- How to create dvd from the video cassette shot by samsung camcoder?
- Canon Optura 50 recording with SD card instead of mini DV tapes?
- What's the best digital camcorder under $500?
- I looking for the named of this camra?
- Can someone give me JVC MiniDV GR-D395US report?
- Comments on Sony Handycam DCR-DVD205E DVD Camcorder?
- Is there a cable that you can hook up to a manual camcorder and hook it into a computer like a digital one?
- Camcorder or PSP?
- I'm looking for an inexpensive video camera for my daughter?
- What compact handycam would you recommend?
The Consumer Electronics informations are posted by the website users and for your use only, and without responsibility on jenneth.info.