Viewing Thread:
"Your opinion"

Ok, I've narrowed down my search for digital cameras to these two:

1. uk.special.reserve.co.uk/q_GG6023_mustek_dv5000_41_m.html

2. www.argos.co.uk/ProductDisplayTRK019?partNumber=5602166

Which one do you think I should go for?

At the moment, my heart is at the Samsung.

The mustek films movies in MPEG 4 - is that good?

phi11ip wrote:
> It's like 5MP cameras, unless you wanna do something really special
> then 1.2MP is normally fine.

1.2MP is not really fine. Most camera phones theses days are around 1.3MP. And I think you could agree with me that even the best camera phones are not very good at all when it comes to picture quality.

In anyones opinion, which one SEEMS to be better quality in general?

(just answer with one of the options, please)

fire_starter wrote:
> Ok, in your opinion, which one SEEMS to be better quality in general?
>
> (just answer with one of the options, please)

I seriously cannot answer that, it's like asking me to compare a car with a motorbike. Sure both will do the job, but one is more comfortable, wheras the other is built for speed.

PS I'm actually qualified to speak on this as I used to work on a John Lewis camera counter...

phi11ip wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that normal TV is at 30 frames per second...

British films are 24 frames per second.

fire_starter wrote:
> The samsung (the camera) is 30 frames per second, which is not
> rubbish, even for a proper camcorder.

I'm pretty sure that normal TV is at 30 frames per second...

Anything about that is unnecessary unless you're gonna be recording videos of hummingbirds...

It's like 5MP cameras, unless you wanna do something really special then 1.2MP is normally fine.

fire_starter wrote:
> Does anyone know how many frames per second the mustek has?

Camcorders usually don't bother to quote this, as it's usually faster than the human eye can detect.

Ok, in your opinion, which one SEEMS to be better quality in general?

(just answer with one of the options, please)

fire_starter wrote:
> Cong_Man wrote:
> Like I said, the camcorder is better for movies, but rubbish for
> stills.
> The camera is better for stills but rubbish for movies.
>
> The samsung (the camera) is 30 frames per second, which is not
> rubbish, even for a proper camcorder.

Beware of manufacturer quoted benchmarks like that, you'll usually find out this is measured under optimum conditions (i.e. LCD screen turned off, memory completely blank and little movement in shot) any of these conditions not being optimum will cause the rate to slow considerably.#

I'd go down to your local John Lewis and ask to try them out, see which suits you best. Neither is better than the other for trying to do both.