What is the difference between digital camera and Camcorder in the context of still picture issue?

[Robin G]

Actually i want better still picture + better video quality. but i m confused about that things. i want 2 buy camcorder bcoz its provide both feature. so which one is useful for me digital camers or Camcorder in still picture issue. is this the same quality between camcorder and digital cam.

 

[ampotratz]

Camcorders take far inferior picture quality than still digital cameras, simply because they're built mainly to record video. If you want the best quality pictures you are better off buying a still digital camera. On average, camcorders take 2mp photos while digital cameras take 5-7mp (megapixels).Bottom line: For the best picture quality, buy and take pictures with a digital camera. For the best video quality, buy and record video with a digital camcorder. Right now, there's not one device that does these both VERY WELL.

 

[Rudy]

digital cameras take better pictures, camcorders record video better.samsung makes (or used to make) a part-camera part-camcorder thing. it's basically a digital camera and camcorder crammed into one unit.

 

[Earl D]

First answer was wrong.On the AVERAGE a camcorder takes a 640 x 480 (2/3 MP) still image. You don't get into 2 MP until you spend over $1,200.It only takes a 400,000 pxiels to generate a standard TV image. Anything over that is over kill and they charge you for it.Now and HD camcorder will deliver a 2 MP image, but these still run over $1,200.Today, however, still cameras are now providing 640 x 400 full frame video images. That's just a hair smaller than 720 x 480 camcorder images. And you will get 4 - 8 MP of still quality.The newest offerings also let you zoom while videoing!I'm talking mostly the new Kodaks, the V530, V570, P850, V610, V603. I think the Sony W30 and W50 may also zoom while doing video work.I think by next year most still cameras will offer 640 x 400 at 30 FPS (PAL and NTSC outputs) with activing optical zoom while doing the video.These, however, record to an SD card, which is more expensive than tape. You will also need to transfer these to DVD or computer hard drives.There is also the interesting little SD camcorder from JVC that is a lot like the Aptek or Video Blue, except it does 640 x 400 at 30 FPS (the Aptek is 10 FPS) and it offers a 3 MP still image and digital zoom.The best low priced camcorder for still I saw was the now existinc JVC GR 270, which took a 1 MP still image on SD card and was priced around $350.The new GR370 is back to 640 x 400 for stills.

 

[Vidyut Kale]

A camdorder is goos for both, as long as you are not too particular about quality. But a digital still is better quality. Also it is designed for clicking and sharing pics, so you will find it has more options for getting stills how you want them to be, as well as the quality of the pictures and overall performance for still pics.Even a really inexpensive digital camera will give you better results than the camcorder for stills

 

[DamonA]

No its not the same quality. Buy a digital camera, not a digital camcorder. Still frames of camcorders are horrible quality and only look good when played with other frames. What I would do is buy a camcorder and a digital camera. If you just want video then buy a camcorder, but for pictures, the camera is the best thing!