Poll: If you were having a baby...

Hello Ulysses:

I would absolutely get a digital video camera and video editing software. I have the Sony TRV900, Studio DV, Adobe Premiere, and Adobe Photoshop. I'm using a laptop with a 1394 ieee port to capture video to a 80GB firewire hard drive. The TRV900 is capable of produce great stills (see http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900 ) ... Please check out some of the links and the still photography sites. I think you will be amazed, as I was ...

For the childhood moments ... quality live video and audio cannot be beat. The camcorder does not miss the moment. A still photo can.

I like to mix - still photos into my video editing. I do this with a Sony 707. I also use 35mm and a quality scanner for slides and negatives. Both work very well ... the 707 is for current stuff. The scanner is for pictures taken when the Canon A1 35mm camera was first released.

For my money, I would start with video.
.

Ulysses said:

... and NO, it's not me and the wife. Have a relative who is having
a baby.

What do you recommend? Getting a still camera or a camcorder? And why?

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

--The best to you!

My wife and I are having a baby...in June. That's why I bought my DSC-S85. However, there is a very good chance that my mother is buying us a Sony Hi8 camcorder for a baby shower present. So I'll have access to both. I think the still will be for me, and the wife will use the camcorder.

John B.

I have both, but if I had to choose only one it would be the camcorder. My daughter just turned 1 and hearing her first words and getting her first steps on video is hard to replace. We don't watch them often but when we do we get a very special feeling. We burn the video to DVD and send it to the grandparents who really appreciate seeing those things since they live on the other side of the country. We've broken it into pretty small chinks. Randon access makes ALL the difference in home movies. If we would have to fast forward through all that stuff to get to the one scene we want to watch we would do it much less often.

While not Hollywood quality, the Movieshaker software does a pretty good job at making watchable videos. It randomly takes scenes and synchs them to music to create 3-4 minute videos. If you don't have a load of time to sink into learning Premiere it produces satisfactory results with very little effort.

We have the Sony Pc-100 camcorder whitch takes decent stills. Good enough for web quality and 4x6 printing. When my daughter was born we had the camcorder and an APS camera (no DA yet). I made sure we had fresh batteries and we headed to the hospital. Just after the magic moment I caught my daughters first moments on video. After they cleaned her up I snapped a few pics on my film camera and also a few digital stills from the camcorder to load onto the web that night for the family to see. Back in the recovery room I discovered there was NO film in the camera!! LOL!

My only excuse is that I was taught to NEVER leave my film camera empty. Don't take out a used roll unless you replace it. My camera would not snap if the roll was used up, but as I only then discovered, it would snap away with no film in it. Someone had taken the film out of the camera and not replaced it. OK, lame excuse but the only one I had! My point here is that I had captured the digital stills. I was not that upset to lose higher quality stills, but if I had lost the video portions I would have been really upset.

Someone mentioned that the still camera is a better creative outlet and I agree with that. I get more enjoyment going out and taking pictures but when it comes to capturing your children grow and develop I have to come down on the side of the camcorder.

FWIW -- the camcorder was my first experience with digital stills and the positive experience was what prompted me to get a digital camera and ditch film.

Ulysses said:

... and NO, it's not me and the wife. Have a relative who is having
a baby.

What do you recommend? Getting a still camera or a camcorder? And why?

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

I would much rather have a $700 (G2) and a $600 (ZR25) than a combo, but Ulysses had just stated that he liked the all-in-onezees, and if that is the case- the 100MC is mighty nice.

hud said:

i see j&r world has the optura for $1300. So you think this is a
better option than the combination of a $700 digital camera and a
$600 camcorder? For me, I like the
separate-devices-for-the-same-total-price option better, but hey,
that's just my $0.02.

-hud

Click to expand...

I have a different view than most people (and am yelled at quite frequently by my mother for it).

I won't live life with my kids looking at them through a digital camera or video cam.... BUT...

We engage the kids in our creative and fun projects. With the digital camcorder we make little mini movies (and basic movie editing software is CHEAP these days) with the kids and we have a blast. It's fun when we're shooting it, fun when we're editing (we're often cracking up!), and, it captures them for that age. We're been doing this for years, and even my 14-year-old stepson still loves to do it. AND, to watch them later on, even for our friends and extended family, it's good for a lot of laughs (not just boring home-movies).

I never take the camcorder to a monumental event or with the purpose of capturing a moment in time. I'd rather live it and enjoy it with my family, not have a cam stuck to my head.

With the camera, I take only a few pictures at events... again, I'd rather engage the kids in silly poses, or sit on the sidelines and get candids (non-posed shots). I hate having the family line up for the formal pictures, and I hate being intrusive with the camera ("hey, hold up that gift again, I didn't get a picture" YUK).

My recommendation?

Get both. Enjoy both. But don't forget to enjoy life. You can't always do that with a camera or camcorder welded to your eyeball. They are nice things to have, but I'd rather have warm memories than snapshots.

Amy

Ulysses said:

... and NO, it's not me and the wife. Have a relative who is having
a baby.

What do you recommend? Getting a still camera or a camcorder? And why?

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

Jeff Gourley said:

I would much rather have a $700 (G2) and a $600 (ZR25) than a
combo, but Ulysses had just stated that he liked the
all-in-onezees, and if that is the case- the 100MC is mighty nice.

Click to expand...

That's just me personally, and it's probably why I'll always go for a still camera that has reasonable video capability. IMO, Sony really needs to up their video to 640x480, and they need to improve the framerate. The image also needs to be generally brighter (a la Fuji 602, but with a better framerate) People would eat this up.

But I'm going to take this entire thread of suggestions and print out each of the ideas from all the contributors here, and give it to them as a resource to help them choose. They have about five or six months to decide (due date).

-- Ulysses

Hey there. You have a lot of good info to consider here.

hud said:

http://image2.pbase.com/u7/hud/upload/1182963.MOV00904.MPG
like I said, it's not great, taken by the nervous shaky-handed
first-time dad, but to my wife and me, this footage is priceless,
no matter how bad it is.

Click to expand...

I couldn't help but smile as the first gasping shrieks came out of his little mouth.

But that's just what I'm starting to learn about the participants in this thread. There are two types of people here: Still people, and Video people. You are definitely in the latter half.

The Still people would have no real problem with the quality of that video. Even with a framerate of what --- 15 fps --- Still people would say "It moves, so it's OK." It's almost fluid at times.

hud said:

Ulysses, can I ask a couple of questions (feel free to decline to
answer any):
1. what is the budget of this family for a camera/camcorder (just
ballpack)?

Click to expand...

My guess is they're expecting to spend around $1200

hud said:

2. do they have a computer? (I never assume)

Click to expand...

A decent laptop. I think it has USB as well as 1394.

hud said:

3. if yes to #2, do they have a cd-burner?

Click to expand...

I believe so. No... wait... they opted for the DVD player, I think. I don't know that they can switch it out.

hud said:

4. to stay within budget, would buying used be a consideration?

Click to expand...

Hmm... knowing them, that's not going to happen. Maybe purchased discounted but new from an eBay vendor at the outside, but used isn't their style.

hud said:

5. to stay within budget, would buying lesser items be a
consideration (for instance, an analog camcorder instead of
digital, and/or a cheaper digital camera)

Click to expand...

A consideration, especially since they don't really know the difference.

hud said:

Although, if it really really came down to it, and I
could only buy one or the other, I'm amazed to find myself thinking
that I'd buy the camcorder with still capabilities. Simply because
I think at the point, the still capabilities of camcorders are more
acceptable than the video capabilties of digital cameras.

Click to expand...

Now, that's where we differ only in our personal usage. I'm all for buying a very good quality single device, as I'd feel that I compromised on both if I got two lesser quality items.

But it's not my call, and I'm going to put this into the mix of what I present to them. Gawwd... I hope they do something after my research. -- Ulysses

So they need a mother with a few bucks, and then they can have both, right?

Actually, I think that they do have that option available.

Bahahahahahah!!©

Johnny B. said:

My wife and I are having a baby...in June. That's why I bought my
DSC-S85. However, there is a very good chance that my mother is
buying us a Sony Hi8 camcorder for a baby shower present. So I'll
have access to both. I think the still will be for me, and the wife
will use the camcorder.

John B.

Click to expand...

-- Ulysses

Hello Ulysses

you said they do not have that much money. I have a 6-year old, and I would say, ask them to buy a compact camera with inbuild flash for those snap shots and a Videorecorder for anything else. Due to the big interest in Digital film, some very good compact cameras can now be picked up quite cheaply and for the price of a F707, they would easily be able to buy both, the Videocamera and a Compact Camera and have money left over.

Once you got babies, going out involves a lot of luggage (change of nappies, nappie bag, cream, something to keep the kids quiet, buggy, bags, leaking bottles and drinks, sticky sweets.....). A compact camera is much easier to fit in, and if it breaks, not a lot of money is lost. The pictures taken with the camera can also be developed on CD and treated just like a digital picture.

Maybe buying the Non-Digital format leaves them with enough money to buy a decent Video Recorder (also a lot cheaper since DVD), then, if they have any energy left, they can edit the tapes on there (saves the need to buy a rather expensive high capacity PC as well).

They can allways borrow you or your camera if they feel like it to get a start on digital photography and upgrade in a couple of years, when the whole stuff is a lot more cheaper.

I am really glad, my parents bought us a really good small and light compact camera (Minolta Riva Zoom150), when my daughter was born. It was allways with me and I have great shots of my daughter. I don't intend on carrying the 707 around with me all the time (too heavy and too big for once, second far too obviously expensive, to take to the more dodgy areas of London).

Sure they could get a cheap compact digital camera, but the picture quailty would not be the same, and imagin in about 20years, when the kids are older and we all laugh about those old 5Mega Pixel Cameras, that could lead to disappointment.

I have both, a Sony S85 and a DV-Cam (also Sony). I prefer photos, but my wife has a different opinion.

Video: Is more easy to capture 'the mood', but I think its requires too much work for edit and needs TV + VCR to watch. Is even after edit usually boring to watch for others.

Photos: When printed, easier to show and much better image quality.

Rob Smit

Ulysses said:

... and NO, it's not me and the wife. Have a relative who is having
a baby.

What do you recommend? Getting a still camera or a camcorder? And why?

--

Ulysses

Click to expand...

--Rob Smit

Ulysses,

I haven't forgotten about you, it was just that last night did not work out for taking&posting those pics (between the job, and an 8-month-old, this can easily happen). I apologize.

However, I did finally get a chance to take some comparison pics this morning before work, but I just didn't have time to post them. I'll get them posted tonight after work, if you still want them.

-hud

hud said:

well, anyway, i'll try to get them taken & posted this evening.

Click to expand...

i hope they're good enough for a "ballpark comparison's" sake.

http://www.pbase.com/hud/camera_camcorder_comparison

-hud

p.s. feel free to let me know if these are worthwhile, or if not, whether there's something I could do to take ones that are more worthwhile.

Thanks hud!!

I'll definitely refer the link to them.

hud said:

i hope they're good enough for a "ballpark comparison's" sake.

http://www.pbase.com/hud/camera_camcorder_comparison

-hud

p.s. feel free to let me know if these are worthwhile, or if not,
whether there's something I could do to take ones that are more
worthwhile.

Click to expand...

-- Ulysses