Camera or camcorder

For stills, you are not going to get better images using a camcorder, even an HD camcorder. HD resolution is only equivalent to about 2.1 Megapixel. That may be enough if you wont want to print any pictures larger than 5x7.

Except for video, the SD890 is much higher resolution than HD. If you still want camcorder, go ahead and get one and bring the SD890 as well for you stills.

Unless you really need to have the long zoom with a camcorder, the Flip HD and similar are a good option, and can carry it in your pocket.

I know I'll have my Flip HD, and pocket digital on our Europe trip. Makes it much easier to travel light.

I would buy a higher end point and shoot or a DSLR with video functionality built into it. I much rather have great looking photos and decent video versus decent video and crappy pictures that a camcorder is going to produce.

Then again, I like looking at photos and telling stories then watching hours of boring video. But that is just my personal opinion.

On the advice of our son (who does a lot of photography), we bought the Flip HD ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0023B14TK/ref=ox_ya_oh_product ). It was $150.

I, too, was contemplating getting a new camcorder but didn't want to spend $500+ on an HD model. We got the Flip and tried it out over Christmas in preparation for our upcoming trip to Germany. It worked great and is super-easy to use. It doesn't require a memory card and has space to record up to 2 hours of stuff. This will work fine for us because each evening my son will upload the video to his laptop.

The way you word the question certainly makes it seem as if your mind is made up - you want an HD camcorder.

Personally, what we carry is dictated by our post-vacation behavior; We have learned, after two decades of vacations, that we treasure a good still photo and rarely watch videos. It's not that we don't like videos, it's just not common for us to think on a slow night; "hey, lets find those movies from our trip to Yellowstone in '97". But we have a nice computer that has all of our photos, displayed on a rotating basis, as the desktop. Every day is a new photo and almost every day is a brief, pleasant, "Awwww, I remember that!....." We do take a few video clips and they are nice to see once in a while, but it's not a big deal for us.

I used to take these slow motion panoramic videos whenever we got to a viewpoint on vacation, thinking "this will be great to relive years from now". When I watch those jittery shots now, all I think is "I could have swore it was more interesting & attractive when I was there" and "too slow...speed it up, please..." But I still love the photos.

So for us, a good digital camera that fits in my pocket and also takes passable video, is our preference. Taking the opposite approach and getting a camcorder that takes just passable still photos would be awful. I can make an ordinary photo look great by heavily cropping it and touching it up, and you can't do that and still get a good still photo with 1, 2, or 3 megapixel stills.

So just ask yourself what you see yourself doing most after vacation - having stills on the computer, in a digital frame, or prints....or watching videos. And then ask yourself if you really want to carry two devices and their batteries and chargers or of one compromise device will work best.

Everyone had different preferences.

Thanks for the advice, folks.

I'm gonna go with the camera. But I'm looking for a camera that can produce higher quality pictures than my Canon SD890 IS.

Does anybody have any suggestions?

I take a small digital camera. Mostly for it's small size and weight. It has video capability that I use occasionally.

This SX20 from Canon has tempted me to take a step up in size from my current camera:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11492035&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+4000000&eCat=BC|79|83&N=4040593 4294967258&Mo=11&No=6&Nr=PCatalogName:BC&Ns=PPrice|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

There is also another step up from that, the SX120, you might like.

Josh, maybe you need to define what you mean by higher quality. In the film world it was strictly the glass. That is equally important in the digital world. You can shoot high pixel counts but if shooting through cheap glass or plastic you don't gain much in quality. I am always amazed at people who have expensive single lens bodies but a cheap lens.

The other, often over looked, aspect of quality is the composition, lighting, etc. If you are dissatisfied with you prior pictures, maybe you need to review you techniques. For example, if is very rare for me to take a picture between 9/10 AM and 4/5 pm. If I do it is strictly for my memory.

I think Randy nailed it. I have hours of video that I never watch back to the VHS days. I can so much more with stills that we have stopped complete taking video. PS -- also have a bunch of 8mm film.