Look at it this way: the Optio 43WR shoots video at 640x480 and 30 fps. This is near DV (digital video) quality.
It is nowhere near DV quality, I'm afraid. There's more to quality than resolution and frame rate.
In fact, each time I was back in camp at the end of a day I recorded the Optio footage into my Sony handicam via the AV ports to clear my SD card for the next day's shooting.
Thus losing further quality by transcoding it into DV(?)
Later, back at home, I transferred the digital video into my computer and am in the process of editing it into a video/DVD.
And even more by transcoding it for a second time into MPEG2. :-)
> When the
technology improves further why wouldn't people shoot video all the time and just pick a frame they like later if they want to print out photos? Of course I would still like an interchangable lens camera but there is no reason why such a camera shouldn't be able to shoot video.
Still and video cameras are optimised for very different uses. Hence a camera that can do both will always be a compromise. Here's an example: the motion blur from slow shutter speeds is invisible in moving images because your eye smooths it out. In still photos however, it becomes very obvious. So the shutter speeds you would choose for shooting a video are likely to be very different to those you would use for shooting stills. And what about flash?
Compromise cameras will become increasingly popular, but for the best possible results, you will always do better by purchasing a camera dedicated and optimised for one thing.
S
