08-11-2009 12:40 PM
I'm a senior in high school and I'm interested in film and photography; I lik to record EVERYTHING and take a LOTS of pictures. So I'd like a camera that performs fairly well using both picture and video mode.
And because I'm a senior my budget is about $400. So any tips or suggestions would help a lot.
Thanks so much,
10-08-2009 02:54 PM
I have to start by saying that for $400 you are restricted to point-and-shoot cameras, and although you should be able to get a very nice point-and-shoot camera for still photography in this price range the video capability of the camera will be limited.
I would suggest getting point-and-shoot camera for your still images, and a camcorder for your videos. You should be able to get both for around $400. I would say budget $200 for the still camera, and $200 for a camcorder. To see the digital cameras we sell for $200 or less you could look here, and to see the camcorders we sell for $200 or less you could look here.
I hope this helps!
11-15-2009 06:59 PM
I would think that life would be a lot easier dealing with one device instead of fumbling around with two and trying to decide which one of them to use. That alone is a major deciding point. Secondly, read the description of something like the canon powershot sx20. It has 12.1 megapixels and an amazing 20X optical zoom AND it captures video in HD/. You'll have a great device that is flexible, you won't have to carry two devices, and you won't have to purchase expanded memory for two devices or keep batteries for two devices. By the way, I've seen the Canon as low as $315.
11-16-2009 10:16 AM
If you want a good all-in-one unit, you will need to spend more. Think along the lines of a Nikon D90.
If your total budget is $400, you will not find a good all-in-one device at that price range. I agree with Allan - split it 200/200 and get a device to focus on each function.
11-16-2009 10:25 AM
"i don't agree with what you say, but i'll defend to death your right to say it."
though, if you want anyone to think of you seriously, you will have to do something more.......like firstly, logically refute each of my points and secondly, do something more than say 'i like the other idea better because i just like the other idea better,' which is, in essence, all that you did say.
11-17-2009 10:11 AM
SX20 has no microphone jack. Still cameras with video capability are notorious for horrific audio. The only reason high-end still cameras with video added (Nikon D90, Canon 5D MkII, Pentax K-7, etc) have had their video capability accepted is because they have external microphone jacks to allow for good audio. Even those cameras are highly controversial in terms of their video capabilities. (Most people consider them excellent for short clips and a great "add-on" for wedding photographers, but not good for the primary camera of someone doing serious video work.) The majority of still cameras that have video capability lose focus control and exposure control when recording video. There are some exceptions (Latest 5D MkII firmware update for example), but the focus/exposure control capabilites are worse than even the most basic dedicated camcorder.
SX20 has 20x optical zoom. There is a high risk of severe image distortions for anything with more than 4-5x zoom in the P&S form factor. 10x zoom without serious deficiencies is rare, 20x is basically impossible. Video cameras get away with high zoom ratios because their comparatively low resolution (even for HD cameras) compared to stills masks most of the deficiencies of superzooms, even the nasty ones.