That’s a good camera… but we were talking about sub $300 cameras.. and in that cat, I still love my Canon A40
Some of the cameras recommended go really high up in the price. WHats the trade-off (quality wise) if one was to use a camcorder for the pictures? MY friend once sent me a picture taken from his camcorder which had a really high resolution along with exceptional sharpness and clarity as well as color. SInce the camcorders now come with the ability to take stills (along with USB connectivity), why not add a few more bucks and buy a camcorder which can take stills? Thats the route I am going with my next camera purchase.
Oh sorry :) how much is it ? I got it for $350 in LA somewhere
hmm..SOME new camcorders take “decent” photos. but the majority still take crappy shots. so ull need to research abit.
for example :
the panasonic PV-DV401(an awesome vidcam) takes these qual photos-
the sony dcr-trv17 takes:
the sony dcr-trv27 takes:
the sony DCR-IP220 (pricey cam) takes these:
as you can see none of these pics are anywhere near a digital camera’s quality.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hskhan: *
hmm..SOME new camcorders take "decent" photos. but the majority still take crappy shots. so ull need to research abit.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. I have used JVC GR-DVL505 digital camcorder but didn't like the pictures I took from it that I downloaded on my PC...they were kind of bakwas...
ps.
nice oldy thread :-)