Is there a video camera that would,also allow me to capture reasonable stills at least printed as 8x10's, for about $1500 or less. I shoot junior high and high school sports with a Canon 1d Mark II at 8 fps. The video camera would be to augment the Canon not totally replace it. Although from what I see advertised I can see still cameras disappearing in the future and maybe near future(at least for some things)?

Short answer: NO. You'll need an HD camera that does 1080i ($2500 minimum for one with any kind of decent low-light performance), and even that will only give you 135PPI for an 8x10. Standard print resolution for a good-looking photo print is 300PPI, so the prints from video still captures are going to look pretty crappy in comparison to your DSLR images even if you spend several times your proposed budget. It's a really bad idea IMO.

That's a bummer. What had me thinking along these lines was an advertised 8mp Sanyo, but since I have no clue about camcorders............I wondered. Oh yeah low lite performance would certainly be an issue. Some of places it's marginal with f1.8 lens.

And none of the video-capable digicams are going to shoot stills that match your 1D-MkII, so that's pretty much a waste of time thinking about as well. You'll have the same quality issues as the dedicated HD camcorder.

How about that! Not yet available and way out of your budget, unfortunately.

Sanyo website saysC40 shoots video and 4mp stlls at same time or so they claim. 8mp interpolated(not sure about this interpolated stuff).

Interpolated=upsampled=ho-hum image quality.

I notice the Canon HV-10 is now available for around US$900. This apparently takes 3mp stills (actually 2.76mp) which are apparently quite sharp. The lens has a maximum aperture of f1.8 which should be really useful for low light shooting. Because the sensor is so small (about 6.7mm diagonal) you get a DoF at f1.8 equivalent to f9 with a camera such as the 1D2. I don't know if there are any P&S still cameras with such a wide aperture.

I've been thinking for a while of getting an HV-10. It has some impressive features such as; true optical image stabilisation (err! I mean lens shift stabilisation ); 1920x1080i capture and amazingly fast, continuous autofocus.

However, I'm glad I resisted the temptation because Canon have now announced an upgrade to the HV-10, the HV-20, which addresses many of the gripes that some consumers had about the HV-10, such as lack of HDMI output, lack of accessory inputs for a decent mic and awkwardness of handling. The new model is marginally bigger and heavier but has a quality advantage of being able to record 1920x1080p at 24 frames/sec.

This could be the one.

Any reviews on low-light performance?

As I understand, low light performance in the new model (available in April) is described as 3 lux as opposed to the HV-10's 5 lux. I believe there's sample footage on some Japanese web site, but with a 56kbps dial-up connection I wouldn't even attempt to download such large files.

Hmmm, I may need to start saving my nickels...3 lux is pretty decent low-light performance, true 1920x1080 resolution instead of Sony's bastardized 1440x1080 upsampled to 1920x1080, 24fps 1080p, HDMI and mic inputs for somewhere around $1000?

There's a very seductive element here which worries me a bit. I already own a Panasonic, standard definition, miniDv tape camcorder which boasts broadcast quality. It's nowhere near broadcast quality and I seldom use the camera.

I get the impression, when comparing such miniature camcorders with broadcast quality, one is in the situation of comparing P&S cameras with DSLRs. No matter how amazing the quality is from such a small device, the ultimate quality is severly compromised when compared with a DSLR.

I get the impression that broadcast quality HDV cameras would employ 3x2/3" size sensors, one for each primary color, a bit like the Foveon system. A single 1/2.7" Bayer type CMOS sensor could surely not compete.

The other issue is the display monitor. One would need a modern, large screen 1920x1080p TV set to appreciate the resolution of the HV-20. The resolution might be stunning, but the dynamic range might be severely lacking, ie. blown highlights and noisy shadows. No RAW mode in these cameras, Jonathan .

I'm a bit late in jumping into this thread (a month!) but just wanted to say that I got the new Canon HV20 a couple weeks ago and the video quality is absolutely stunning. It's fantastic when played either on my 1080i TV in the living room or the 720p in the bedroom. I'd heard it described as "Discovery Channel quality" and took that with a grain of salt. Well, it *is* that good. As far as I can tell, the dynamic range is quite good. I shot some night video and the noise wasn't bad at all. I don't see any in shadows when shooting in daylight, but again I haven't shot tons of video yet with it. It should be noted that I'm no video pro but I do work in a broadcast video unit as a media technician. I'm still learning how to use the camera. If the darned weather would cooperate, I'd be able to use it more.

Regarding getting stills from it, I doubt that you'd be able to get an 8x10 off the video. However, it does have a fantastic high-rez 3.1MP still camera feature.

Shootergirl

Hi Shootergirl,

how do you find maining accurate focus and exposure with the HV20. I find it difficult to mainain both these functions with the Sony A1 but, I have put it down to the high definition of the video showing up the flaws that wouldn't have normally been visible with standard definition video.

I tend to use the viewfinder all the time with the A1 but still find it most annoying when playing back on my HDV ready lcd and I find the exposure is well out.


Cheers.

As I said before, I haven't had too much of a chance to use it, but when I have, I haven't noticed any focus problems. On another board I read, someone had some focus problems but it was due to a bad copy--she returned it and got a replacement and it's fine. The only odd thing I noticed was when I shot video of a bird flying, the wing movement was, I dunno how to explain it. You'd see three of each wing? Maybe the shutter speed was too slow. As for exposure, I haven't noticed any problems at all.

Shootergirl

I'd buy an HV20 right now if it weren't for the 24p issue. The Aussie dollar is quite high in relation to the US dollar. However, I think it's better I wait for the 25p versions to arrive. I'm totally confused as to what happens to a 24p recording, both in-camera and during playback. I failed to get a 24p clip to play smoothly in Windows Media Player on my 64 bit system, although it did play reasonably smoothly on my 32 bit system, but still a bit choppy.

As you know, 24 does not fit easily into the 60Hz system, but 25p certainly fits very nicely into our 50Hz system.

With the possible exception of full resolution footage off of something like a RED One (never seen one, never seen the results from one), you can't pull decent stills from video. I have seen still captures from super-expensive HD Broadcast cameras (the $50,000 machines), and they're barely adequate for the newspaper - the place they sometimes pop up is in the sports pages - if nobody got the runner sliding into base with a 1D mk IIn, but the TV guys have a great shot, the papers will sometimes run a frame grab off the HD camera. You can tell even in a newspaper when they've done that (aside from the photo credit saying thanks to NESN, the image doesn't look as good as a true still). This is the extreme case - $50,000 video camera, very low quality print process hiding a lot of the flaws - and it still doesn't work!
The other example of still and moving pictures not being interchangeable is that Hollywood is VERY reluctant to print a single frame from a movie for advertising (they'll do it only if they have no decent choice among the stills, and only for a publicity photo, NEVER a poster) . I learned this from a still photographer who shoots on movie sets for a living! Even if they're shooting the movie in 70mm, they always have somebody with an M8 (quiet is VERY important) there shooting stills as well. I imagine that the quality difference there is because of the way movie camera shutters work or some similar factor, because 70mm SHOULD be equivalent to 645 stills if all else were equal - the presence of the still photographer shows that all else is not equal. I don't know if the RED camera will change this - I think its shutter is electronic, so if it is the shutter, the RED may be able to do it...


-Dan

Definitely not. The actual projected area of a single "70mm" frame is 48.56 x 20.73mm, so the frame height is still less than that of a 35mm still frame, and certainly smaller in all dimensions and total area than 645. And 70mm is very rarely used because of its high cost.

Hi Dan,

The reason that movie frames (or digital movie frames) are not used for stills is that the shutter speed on each frame is 1/48th second. This means that there is almost always too much motion blur to use for stills. Also, if the movie is shot on film, nobody wants to handle the original camera negative to retrieve still images. It's just too risky. Also a typical 35mm movie frame is about 1/4 the size negative as a 35mm still camera frame.

Some other movie trivia: No 70mm theatrical hollyood films have been shot in 70mm for years. (I'm not including special IMAX films).

I've never seen an M8 used by a movie set still photographer. Almost all use nikon or canon in a sound proof housing. Almost all now shoot digitally. The last semi major film that I worked on had a still photographer using a Sony digitcam because it did not need a sound proof box

Hope this proves interesting to any of you interested in the movie biz....
-bruce

ps. here's a frame from one of those $50,000 HD cameras
[attachmentid=2567]

nice photo
http://buy-flowers.bravehost.com

Thanks!

You can see the movie (it's only 2 minutes) that the frame comes from on my website at:

http://www.brucealangreene.com/patinareeltheater.html

if you're interested.

-bruce