video vs. photo

[CompuDude]

Video is more effective, photos are easier. Photo is also a LOT cheaper to get into, from an equipment standpoint, and requires less bulky gear. There's also a lot less post-production involved in photos.

If you're set up for both, I'd say try both and see which YOU enjoy more.

 

[PerroneFord]

Video is more effective, photos are easier. Photo is also a LOT cheaper to get into, from an equipment standpoint, and requires less bulky gear. There's also a lot less post-production involved in photos.

If you're set up for both, I'd say try both and see which YOU enjoy more.

I don't know that I agree with this. A decent photo editor (Photoshop) and something like Premier both take a solid computer to run well. Housing prices are similar, and entry level DV videocams are cheaper than something like a digital rebel. Compare the pricing of a basic 3 CCD vid cam, and something like a 20D. Pretty darn close. The video camera has fewer contols to deal with, and doesn't use multiple lenses.

I've seen full video setups for sale here, and other places for $500. I can't even get a basic DSLR for that.

 

[JamesD]

Personally, depends on what your budget is too, I love my video and photo setup, using a Xacti VPC-C5 (the C6 I gather is better in low light conditions, but unfortunately I got it before that came out). With prices as they are now, camera and housing will cost you less than $1000, the housing is nice and small (no carrying lead bricks in your luggage) and overall the camera works really well.

It's NOT a pro-sumer camera, it's an okay digital video camera, and an okay digital still camera. For the casual diver who wants to take photo or video it's GREAT!