mtsidford
Guest
:06: For those of you who have both a digital and a video camera which do you find yourself diving with more? Which do you prefer? Thank you for helping me choose my next big purchase. Sid
Camera vs. Video
- Thread starter mtsidford
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I shot video for a long time...then got a digital still camera and now don't shoot much video. I think about taking the video camera down, but don't.
The question is - which do YOU like better? Do you enjoy looking and and showing still shots off? Or do you enjoy shooting video and putting a show together? Both are great fun and very addictive.
You are the only one that can decide which suits you the best. If stills, maybe look for a camera that can also do some video - there are several out there that do a pretty good job. Some video cameras have a stills function. It's a good way to have your cake and eat it too - even if you have to compromise a little for the type that comes in second!
I love them both, but couldn't choose for sure...each offers something completely different to me as a diver, a photographer, a post-processor and a viewer.
The question is - which do YOU like better? Do you enjoy looking and and showing still shots off? Or do you enjoy shooting video and putting a show together? Both are great fun and very addictive.
You are the only one that can decide which suits you the best. If stills, maybe look for a camera that can also do some video - there are several out there that do a pretty good job. Some video cameras have a stills function. It's a good way to have your cake and eat it too - even if you have to compromise a little for the type that comes in second!
I love them both, but couldn't choose for sure...each offers something completely different to me as a diver, a photographer, a post-processor and a viewer.
I used to use a video cam exclusively for surface pics and would pull stills off of the video. When I went to a digital camera I found I missed the flexibility of selecting exactly the shot I wanted from the video. (I am no photographer). I have only just just started diving with a video camera but have been diving with a still camera for a while. At first the size of the video was a bit of a put off but after getting it wet I find my diving is much more relaxed and I actually see more. My first videos are really terrible but I know they will get better. I still like shooting stills underwater and actually got much better ones on my trip to St. Croix but I think I'll be pretty much exclusively video now.
OP
mtsidford
Guest
I'm just hoping for opinions from those who have both to see if one is collecting dust over the other. My belief is that I would be better served with a good digital camera due to the visability where I live. Twice a year I head to warm clear waters, hopefully more in years to come, but typically I dive in 10-20ft of vis where a digital camera would be good for close-up still pic's and a video may not do as well.
I have been impressed with my dive buddies still camera, and figured he could take pictures while I shot video's. Another SB thread I began "show me your best dive video" keeps me captivated and longing to take my own video's. I have been very impressed with everyones posts in that thread however they all depict warm clear water which I rarely dive in. So I'm still a bit torn between the two. My heart says video but my brain says still. Help me choose. Sid
I have been impressed with my dive buddies still camera, and figured he could take pictures while I shot video's. Another SB thread I began "show me your best dive video" keeps me captivated and longing to take my own video's. I have been very impressed with everyones posts in that thread however they all depict warm clear water which I rarely dive in. So I'm still a bit torn between the two. My heart says video but my brain says still. Help me choose. Sid
Sid -
You're going to have to toss a coin!
Those who are more still heads will be pro stills;those who are more vidiots at the moment will push video. I have a lot of gear - both video and photo - lately the photo stuff is getting more use. Until just over a year ago, I hadn't shot stills in years as I was dedicated to video!
If you have a buddy that you are happy to have take stills, then maybe video is the way to go for you. You can share the stills/videos from the same dive and that's a very cool thing.
You may find that if you do go video and want to do close ups, a video light is going to be more essential than if you were diving in clearer waters and shooting more WA.
...or Christmas is coming up
You're going to have to toss a coin!
Those who are more still heads will be pro stills;those who are more vidiots at the moment will push video. I have a lot of gear - both video and photo - lately the photo stuff is getting more use. Until just over a year ago, I hadn't shot stills in years as I was dedicated to video!
If you have a buddy that you are happy to have take stills, then maybe video is the way to go for you. You can share the stills/videos from the same dive and that's a very cool thing.
You may find that if you do go video and want to do close ups, a video light is going to be more essential than if you were diving in clearer waters and shooting more WA.
...or Christmas is coming up
I use both all the time. But i use the video more often as that is the main source of my income. If i don't have any potential customers then i grab the stills and go have fun. Personally i would rather be shooting stills....
dougaldiver
Contributor
Hi
I started out with 35mm, moved to digital stills and have recently moved to video.
It has to be said though that I never classified myself as an underwater photographer, only someone who took pictures while underwater. Likewise I now wouldn't describe myself as an underwater videographer only someone..... well you get the picture. Based on that I have never gone for the high end gear. I used to have a Sea and Sea MX10, changed to a Sea and Sea DX3000 (Digital) and my video is a Sony DCRHC with and Ikelite housing.
Personally I moved to video for a couple of reasons
1. There are some things that you just cannot capture, or that it's very difficult to do justice to, on stills that look amazing on video. Glassfish in a cave for example. I must have taken hundreds of stills and its just a lot of little fish in a hole. On video I can capture the way they all move together and the way the light flashes off of them. It looks really good.
2. I find with video you can get good results from further away (only for bigger stuff obviously)
OK.... And it was an excuse to buy some new toys
There is a downside to video.
Basic video is more expensive than basic stills
You tend to be carrying a larger (and heavier) bit of kit
To get decent results you have to spend a bit of time editing, adding soundtracks etc whereas with stills you don't have to if you don't want to.
I started out with 35mm, moved to digital stills and have recently moved to video.
It has to be said though that I never classified myself as an underwater photographer, only someone who took pictures while underwater. Likewise I now wouldn't describe myself as an underwater videographer only someone..... well you get the picture. Based on that I have never gone for the high end gear. I used to have a Sea and Sea MX10, changed to a Sea and Sea DX3000 (Digital) and my video is a Sony DCRHC with and Ikelite housing.
Personally I moved to video for a couple of reasons
1. There are some things that you just cannot capture, or that it's very difficult to do justice to, on stills that look amazing on video. Glassfish in a cave for example. I must have taken hundreds of stills and its just a lot of little fish in a hole. On video I can capture the way they all move together and the way the light flashes off of them. It looks really good.
2. I find with video you can get good results from further away (only for bigger stuff obviously)
OK.... And it was an excuse to buy some new toys
There is a downside to video.
Basic video is more expensive than basic stills
You tend to be carrying a larger (and heavier) bit of kit
To get decent results you have to spend a bit of time editing, adding soundtracks etc whereas with stills you don't have to if you don't want to.
I shoot video mostly... My wife shoots stills, so we kind of have that covered...
There's always at least 1 camera with us between the two.
In addition to the other downsides to video (weight of housings, lights, etc.) they are harder to edit and share.
I edited 8 hours of footage to a 20 minute video... It took me about 12 hours in front of the computer to do that.
Stills, are pretty much ready to go.
There's always at least 1 camera with us between the two.
In addition to the other downsides to video (weight of housings, lights, etc.) they are harder to edit and share.
I edited 8 hours of footage to a 20 minute video... It took me about 12 hours in front of the computer to do that.
Stills, are pretty much ready to go.
howarde:
I would say that this depends on what mode you shoot and what you use the pictures for. For me, there is still a fair bit of work doing post processing on my images before I'm ready to use them. And depending on where they will finally end up (website, print, etc.) there's going to be more to do to get them ready. Maybe not quite as much work as video, but for me, they are far from ready to go.
Similar threads
