The do it all Camera?

[GTR]

Is there a camera, able to:

• Do more than 6X Optical zoom
• Has more than 4MP
• Can record videos in HD (720p / 1280x720)
• Can be used as a Webcam
• And overall a decent camera for the more common expectations (i.e. can hold up good in the dark, can take crisp pictures with no motion blur, doesn't choke after a flash, you know, take good professional looking pictures)?

My budget is about 500. I'm gonna be carrying it around a lot so I can't do with a really heavy or bigass camera.

I posted a this question at Yahoo Answers, I got nothing helpful. Here, you might want to get some points

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...422AAkP3Wy&r=w

[t3ku]

Eh...I don't know of one offhand...
My old S3IS could take 6mp pictures, 640x480@30fps videos and had 12x optical zoom. Never saw if it had a webcam, since I have one...
Worked well for what I needed, still use it for videos, but bought an SLR for pictures.

[RedTwentyFour]

a camera that is usable as webcam is called a WDM compatible camera, if im not misstaken. at least thats what we use for hommade 3d scanners. a hd camcorder is the best to chose, and it can take pictures too and has zoom

[GTR]

I'm kind of overruling the webcam feature...I'm leaning towards the Canon HF200 right now. It's just a little too expensive for my budget.

Now if I were to have no HD video capture, what'd be the best camera as far as just pictures go? I've seen some cameras with super low mega pixels take incredible pictures and 12MP cameras looking like shit. What factor am I supposed to look at?

[t3ku]

Lens is the factor as far as that is concerned, and lighting... A 5mp digital with auto focus can trump a 12mp SLR with a 300 buck lens in the hands of an novice.

I have a Cannon SLR and it takes some amazing photos, the detail is staggering compared to my S3IS.
Factor is what you want out of it and plan to do with it.

[Revolution]

Ignoring the HD video thing, and if you want to avoid big and heavy cameras, ie DSLRs or the big zoom cameras, then I'd recommend the Canon S90 IS.
I hear very good things about it. Interesting review of it here.

[Tubaman]

The Canon PowerShot SX20 IS looks like a Nice camera For $400, and it takes HD video

[Ecstasic Seraphim]

One word.

Sony DSC-T900.

- 12.1 megapixel
- 3.5" LCD touch panel
- 4x optical zoom
- 720p HD Movies

[t3ku]

I've had ONE camera with that level of optical zoom, and never owned another since. You will get tired of that level of magnification very quickly.

[Venom]

I have a Kodak Z1012 IS which works decently enough. Can record 720P video, 10.1 mp, 12x optical zoom, and optical image stabilization. Is a fairly decent camera for around $250 or so. And if you really want to, you can add SLR lens to it via an adapter and threads in the lens housing. Though, If I had waited I probably could have gotten a better camera from Canon...

[GTR]

Thanks for your input guys.

Originally Posted by Venom

I have a Kodak Z1012 IS which works decently enough. Can record 720P video, 10.1 mp, 12x optical zoom, and optical image stabilization. Is a fairly decent camera for around $250 or so. And if you really want to, you can add SLR lens to it via an adapter and threads in the lens housing. Though, If I had waited I probably could have gotten a better camera from Canon...

I'd say that's pretty close to what I need. Small enough, lots of optical zoom (don't ask why...), optical stabilization (shaky hands ftl), HD recording, good price, and decent but not crazy high resolution pictures. Like I said MP seems pretty much irrelevant far as I've seen, especially when you'll be resizing the images anyways, and even so, 10.1 MP is still a lot to play with. A

That being said your last sentence makes me not want it because you say you'd rather have had something else. Which I really wanna know what it'd be.

And one more thing I'm a total newb when it comes to cameras, I really dunno shit. So any info or features I should look for is appreciated.

[t3ku]

Yes, which is why I have two cameras, one for photos and one for video.
I don't know of a video camera that can take good pictures, and vice versa.

I got my S3 and loved it, still do, but I eventually wanted to take better pictures and instead of getting the lens, I bought an SLR.

[GTR]

Originally Posted by t3ku

Yes, which is why I have two cameras, one for photos and one for video.
I don't know of a video camera that can take good pictures, and vice versa.

I got my S3 and loved it, still do, but I eventually wanted to take better pictures and instead of getting the lens, I bought an SLR.

Yeah I heard Lenses are really expensive. What is the SLR? Can I ask how much you got it for?

[Revolution]

Digital SLR.
SLRs have capabilities far beyond a regular digicam, and are configurable with extra lenses and flashes you can buy. Although generally, for a beginner, the kit lens is all you'd need. That said, DSLRs which shoot video tend to be quite pricy. And they're generally not compact or lightweight.

[t3ku]

Blah sorry for late reply, net was a pita.

Anyway I own a Canon EOS Rebel XS 10mpx, it came with a 18-55mm lens, but I also bought a 70-300mm lens and will be getting a wide angle lens eventually.
Lenses as a whole are quite expensie, my 70-300 was 300 bucks, which is about average for normal lenses, specialty lenses can easily go into the thousands.

Mmm hmm and also what Rev said, for most people the kit and 18-55mm lens will suffice, even that has more zoom than most normal cameras.

One really good thing about SLRs is they have auto AND manual focus on the lens, and most others are only auto focus, which presents problems in bad lighting taking pictures, because the camera doesnt always judge things correctly. They also have a multitude of settings for white balance, color and such when taking the picture, shutter speeds, aperture priority... Theres a lot, and I love having it all.

An SLR is also a camera you will own for years down the road, while others tend to wear out r become obsolete with age. My father still has his Cannon A1(NOT AE) SLR from the early 80s and it can take better pictures than my DSLR with film.

[GTR]

That's nice, but, a little too much for my use.

I guess what I want is something that can take decent videos and pictures. The Kodak Venom was talking about is pretty close to what I want, maybe something like that but with better overall quality and finish?

[Linkin]

I've got a DLSR and would never go back to a regular P&S as my main camera again. Once you try a DSLR, you'll know why.

[t3ku]

Yup, completely agree with Linkin.

I occasionally use my S3IS to take a picture because I'm too lazy to break out my SLR, which in turn makes me take it out anyways because the picture looks like crap.

[GTR]

Guess I will have to find the cheapest DSLR in the world, then?

[Linkin]

Look for a used Nikon D40, should be pretty cheap for a great little SLR.

http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Dig...=p3286.c0.m282

[Killua]

As far as I know, you can't record videos with a Nikon D40.

GTR, I'd recommend you to look into Canon cameras. I don't own one myself, but I have used an old A460 a few times and it worked really good for being a basic camera, so the choices there are currently in their line-up are much better (The link I posted will lead you to the general consumer Canons. The EOS series ones are too expensive; take a look).

I don't know about Sony. I tried to get in their website but for some reason I can't press any of the buttons in that page.

Once you get interested in a certain model (Whatever brand it may be), I recommend you to look around for many reviews and test pictures/videos to see if that's what you're looking for.

[GTR]

Yes Killua, actually that's exactly what I've been doing. I even go on Youtube and carefully watch videos taken by each camera to see how good it is for recording (colors, noise, white balance - not so much the resolution).

And that's correct, I'm looking for something that can also record videos. Those cheap P&S cameras can record videos, I don't see why a camera several times more expensive shouldn't.

Right now I'm looking at Pentax K-x. Great camera, HD recording, jaw-droppingly stunning photos, and good on battery power (or so claims their ad, 1900 photos before needing to replace the 4 AA batteries). They're just a little out of my price range, at about 600 bucks.

[t3ku]

GTR look at something like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16830120379
I have an older S3IS I use for my videos, an older S series should do what you want it to.

Frankly the reason DSLRs cant record video(entry level ones anyways) is because the internals are completely different and they dont work the same as traditional digitals. The ones that can do video, the bodies on them are raaaather large and prices go into the thousands.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16830120305
This is what I mean too lol...

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by t3ku

Frankly the reason DSLRs cant record video(entry level ones anyways) is because the internals are completely different and they dont work the same as traditional digitals. The ones that can do video, the bodies on them are raaaather large and prices go into the thousands.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16830120305
This is what I mean too lol...

Ohh, not necessarily, the new Nikon D5000 shoots HD video I believe, and that's not super expensive like that 5D. That said, it is still well out of the price bracket GTR said he wants to spend.

Anyhow, GTR, if you want a DSLR, I would second Linkin's recommendation of finding a second hand D40, they're a solid little camera and an excellent beginners point. It will take better photos than just about any point and shoot.
It does not offer video though, and if that's something you really want I'd look into the 'big-zoom' style cameras, like that Canon SX120 t3ku has linked to. They're sort of like oversized point and shoots, with big zoom lenses, a decent array of manual options and make a decent video camera too. Plus you'll easily be able to get a decent one for the price you're looking to pay.

And finally, before you commit to buying anything, take yourself to a camera store and try them out. Internet reviews are all well and good but nothing will compare to going to a shop and trying it out first hand.

[GTR]

I appreciate all the input guys, just lemme get a couple of things straight:

I'm not trying to be a professional cameraman. I'm just a little detail oriented, that's all. I mean seriously, I just want something that produces pictures, not the shit my Nikon D80 produces. Even in perfect lighting its always blurry, noisy, and full of artifacts. I don't care if its SLR or not either as long as it doesn't shit on my hands when I press the shutter.

And yeah, I really want the recording. I mean think about it, why would I wanna lug around 2 gigantic cameras everywhere I go? I want one, a compact one even.

Cameras like the Pentax K-x or Canon T1i are way overkill for me, but something along the lines of that would do the trick. I just have a hard time believing no body ever thought of making a camera that can do everything decently.

[t3ku]

It's not that they never thought of it, it's called marketing. They can make more money selling two separate cameras for 400 bucks, then they can one camera for 800.

[Linkin]

Research how a DSLR works compared to a P&S and you'll understand why they just don't blend. The sensor on a DSLR is much larger, more sensitive and expensive than a small P&S sensor.

Originally Posted by t3ku

It's not that they never thought of it, it's called marketing. They can make more money selling two separate cameras for 400 bucks, then they can one camera for 800.

???

400 + 400 = 800

800 + 0 = 800

800 = 800

[GTR]

Originally Posted by Linkin

Research how a DSLR works compared to a P&S and you'll understand why they just don't blend. The sensor on a DSLR is much larger, more sensitive and expensive than a small P&S sensor.

I've done some research, most sources said SLR cameras are more purpose built, and have swappable lenses. Little mention of video compatibility.

So I'm guessing the DSLR cameras with HD recording have two separate sensors?

[t3ku]

???

400 + 400 = 800

800 + 0 = 800

800 = 800

They can sell more cameras at 400, separately, than they can one camera individually.
People are willing to cut corners and buy one for half the price, than pay for one with everything and be twice the price.

Say they sold 200 units at 400 bucks, well that's 8000 dollars.
But only sold 50 units at 800, thats 4000.

Thats the whole point is they can sell more units at a lower price, had a class on this crap >_>

[GTR]

Originally Posted by t3ku

They can sell more cameras at 400, separately, than they can one camera individually.
People are willing to cut corners and buy one for half the price, than pay for one with everything and be twice the price.

Say they sold 200 units at 400 bucks, well that's 8000 dollars.
But only sold 50 units at 800, thats 4000.

Thats the whole point is they can sell more units at a lower price, had a class on this crap >_>

In that case, why would they sell 15MP full HD DSLR cameras for $600 instead of selling more than twice by making 10MP 720P DSLR cameras for $300? That's what I have a hard time believing they haven't done by now.

[t3ku]

and thats something only the company themselves could tell you