I am going to Italy in a few weeks and trying to decide whether i should buy a video camera. The last time I was in italy, I was only there for a few days, but I took multiple videos on my Olympus stylus 710 and they were shakey and of horrible quality. I hate this camera because it just doesn't take the best pictures. It seems to have a mind of its own because the settings are never right no matter what. So, since I will be spending two and a half weeks in Italy, I am trying to decide whether I should just live with my Olympus digital camera, buy a video camera, (considering the new canon that takes a memory card and has a hard drive) or just buy a new digital camera. The thing is I was talking to some friends and they suggested that I'm the only person who is ever going to want to watch the videos of my trips... but I'm not sure about that. Also, is there a good chance a video camera would get stolen? I;m not sure what to do at this point so any advice would be great!
Posted by
Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA
606 posts
sasha, this was topic was discussed in some depth just a few days ago. See HERE.
My own thinking, described at the link above, is that I've discovered that when I get home, I enjoy very brief videos with sound a lot more than still photos. A 10-second video can capture so much more than a still.
The video cameras also take still photos and I can't tell any difference from their stills and those made by my digital camera. So you've got both options in one device.
Posted by
Tresana, Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
23626 posts
I would invest in a good quality digital camera. Years ago I used to take video, but dozen of hours of video that I have only looked at once but have over 2000 pictures on my computer. And every 15 mins a new one pops up on my computer to bring back memories. One of these days, I need to edit the video. May get to that about editing maybe 5000 ft of 8mm. May not live long enough. Very personal opinion -- video is a pain in the ........
Posted by
Jonesboro, Arkansas, USA
606 posts
Frank's comment above, speaking of dozens of hours of video and need for editing, is why I advocate taking just a little 10-second video every time you'd normally take a still photo.
No need to edit, no hours of video to watch. Your video shows the same thing you'd have in a still, but lets you pan around a little, show more, plus it picks up the SOUND of the place, with your own family/group's voices in the background as you make a brief comment about the subject of the "photo".
The combination of picture, movement, and sound is MUCH better than just a still photo, in my opinion. But the key is to keep each one very very brief, so you don't bore friends and family back home with the dozens of hours Frank speaks of.
I'm not saying it's better than an Ansel Adams photo. Of course a still photo can be a work of art. But, for us average folks, I think that nothing we do can capture more info and memories than video with sound.
Posted by
Canberra, ACT, Australia
115 posts
Hi Sasha
I asked a similar question a few months ago, but the topic is still active. You can check it out here
Hope it helps. Personally I will take both :)