[SGVLUG] Camera recommendations?

[Dustin]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Emerson, Tom wrote:

> what is it with you and "low latency" nowadays?  first it was audio, now
> it's your digital camera :)

I'm impatient and don't like to wait around. :-)

> [ok, kidding aside -- actually, I'm interested in the same thing as I
> have a far more fleeting "event" to watch for than "oooh look, the kid
> smiled, and it wasn't gas this time!"]

Must be rocket launches. :-)

> What I have to suggest isn't necessarily any less expensive than the
> really good camera, but certainly has a low-latency between pushing the
> button and capturing the scene: a video camera.  What I have is a sony

> The camera has a digital photo mode that is "1.3 megapixels" [1300x1050
> or so (*)]

We have a digital camcorder (what new parent doesn't these days?) with a a
still mode and we even bought a card for it, but we found that the
resolution isn't good enough to be satisfying so we've only used the
feature a couple of times (when the Powershot was in for repair).  I don't
remember what the latency is like, though.  I bet you're right--it has to
be able to take video at <mumble> frames a second anyway, so the
still-photo shutter delay is probably good.

We may use it again while I'm looking for a new still camera, but I'm 
going to get one fast.

> under SuSE since early 8.x days, and while the firewire video capture
> works just fine under windows, it *was* a little spotty under linux --

Hmm, what problems did you have?  I haven't done much video editing, yet, 
but it's on the list.  dvgrab worked OK over firewire, but the transport 
control was a bit wonky IIRC (I think it worked in dvgrab but not in kino 
or something strange like that) and we did get some dropped frames.

> (*) Unless you are a photo-snob, 1.3 megapixels will produce an 8x10
> (11?) suitable for a family scrapbook (remind me in advance of a meeting
> and I'll grab a couple of samples)

I guess I'm a photo-snob. :-)

Seriously, the minimum requirement for me is that it looks good at full 
resolution on a good monitor, and whatever the camcorder resolution is (I 
think it's similar to yours, not sure) it doesn't really make it.  I'm 
sure it would print OK in smaller sizes.

> Magazines and newspapers, however, are likely to turn up their noses at
> anything less than 5 megapixels [which is understandable -- they "print"
> at 1200 dpi or better, and if you think about it "5 megapixels" ends up

My photoprinter can print at similar resolutions--better, I think, if you 
ask for it.

Dustin