Query on using camcorders to photo birds. (1 Viewer)

I was in a hide the other day and there was a birder in there using a camcorder to record the birds on the scrape.I got talking to him and bearing in mind I know nothing about cam/video recorders he told me some interesting things about his camcorder :-

* It had a 30X optical zoom
* It had a hard disc to record on with a large capacity
* You downloaded direct to your computer
* You could print off single photos

Having tried to take all this on board I thought this may be a better way to take bird photos than digiscoping with the trouble of buying scopes,cameras,connectors etc. and possibly a cheaper way of doing it.Also the 30X optical zoom is as good as most scopes.

Am I right in this thinking ? Are the results as good?

Max.

The type of people you meet in hides eh Max, wanting you to spend more money! :'D Happened to me yesterday!

D

Max,

Good question, I am also interested in any answers. I have been thinking the same thing having looked at the camcorders in electronic shops. They seem to have impressive zoom ranges.

I guess that the issues will be the frame rate, how smooth the movies are, and the overall resolution, size of the image.

Having never played with movies, other than the clip functions in stills cameras don't know what the results would be like, but interested in any examples.

Currently considering a new stills camera, and have been keeping an eye on the movie mode of the contenders. Looks like the basic is 30frames/sec but have not figured out the quality/size of the image other than some refer to 'high quality' MPEG4.

I am looking at the Canon A620, Olympus 7070 and SP350. But may review a camcorder either just using its own zoom power, or via a scope.

Mel

senatore said:

I was in a hide the other day and there was a birder in there using a camcorder to record the birds on the scrape.I got talking to him and bearing in mind I know nothing about cam/video recorders he told me some interesting things about his camcorder :-

* It had a 30X optical zoom
* It had a hard disc to record on with a large capacity
* You downloaded direct to your computer
* You could print off single photos

Having tried to take all this on board I thought this may be a better way to take bird photos than digiscoping with the trouble of buying scopes,cameras,connectors etc. and possibly a cheaper way of doing it.Also the 30X optical zoom is as good as most scopes.

Am I right in this thinking ? Are the results as good?

Max.

Click to expand...

I believe most camcorders will record to a maximum dvd image frame quality which is around 720x576 = 0.4 megapixels. Given the limited frame resolution, it's much easier to put large relatively inexpensive zoom lenses on the devices as minor imperfections in the lenses will not be easily noticed because the end image is low resolution.

For still photography at much higher resolutions, lens quality is critical and high magnification lenses are therefore very expensive.

To summarise, a higher quality lens is usually required for still photography when compared to making movies.

Melproudfoot said:

Max,

Good question, I am also interested in any answers. I have been thinking the same thing having looked at the camcorders in electronic shops. They seem to have impressive zoom ranges.

I guess that the issues will be the frame rate, how smooth the movies are, and the overall resolution, size of the image.

Having never played with movies, other than the clip functions in stills cameras don't know what the results would be like, but interested in any examples.

Currently considering a new stills camera, and have been keeping an eye on the movie mode of the contenders. Looks like the basic is 30frames/sec but have not figured out the quality/size of the image other than some refer to 'high quality' MPEG4.

I am looking at the Canon A620, Olympus 7070 and SP350. But may review a camcorder either just using its own zoom power, or via a scope.

Mel

Click to expand...

Hi RKA,
Thank you for your response.I can see that if the maximum amount of pixels you can get is 0.4 megapixels the quality of any still photos will be poor.This has put me off considering a camcorder for getting still photos.

Max.

I can see that if the maximum amount of pixels you can get is 0.4 megapixels the quality of any still photos will be poor.This has put me off considering a camcorder for getting still photos

Click to expand...

Many camcorders have sensors that are larger than this minimum spec. This is to support electronic deshaking, where the effective area used is shifted around to track out the movement of the camera.

The stills options on these give you much higher resolutions, though if what you want is DSLR quality you won't get there from a camcorder. For instance the Panasonic GS150 runs stills at 2.3MP.

JVC make a range of hard disk recorders like the GZMG20EK. These record in MPEG2 or something worse which will not give you the same movie quality as the standard MiniDV tapes, particularly with moving subjects like birds, though the stills may be fine as long as they are not captures form the movies.

Other things that make a camcorder attractive is that a motion clip of a bird can be easier to ID as you see it's movement and you tend to take several angles as it moves. If you are going to take stills, run the camcorder in progressive scan mode and shorten the shutter speed if possible - motion rendition will be poorer, like film, but stills will be easier. For website and ID purposes a good movie capture off tape is fine, but it won't give you a picture sharp enough so you can print and hang on the wall.

Hi ermine,
Thanks for your response.This is a more complex subject than I thought.I could easily make a mistake here.

Max.

Actually, there are also some hybrid devices that are both camcorders and still cameras as totally separate functions in one device with the camcorder resolution of 0.4MP and still camera resolution much higher.

Note however that you should always test the still image quality through the maximum optical zoom just to ensure the quality is acceptable to you.

The point ermine makes above is also true. For example, I have and older Panasonic camcorder that can take stills at 1.3Mp which is well beyond the movie frame quality. However the quality of the 1.3Mp image was not as good as a standalone 1.3Mp camera.