Photos Videos

[MarkBarbieri]

If you could only bring a still camera or a video camera on your next WDW vacation, which would you take and why?

 

[YEKCIM]

Mark, that is a real toughie! I have both and have taken both every time we have gone, and do not regret it at all. If forced to choose, I guess I'd take a camcorder that had decent still capability in order to be able to bring back priceless stills and video. My Optura 30 is 2004 vintage, and I'm guessing the still capability of newer 'corders has improved. I suppose the reverse, taking a still PnS that shoots movies *might* be an option for some, but I think the "hybrid camcorder" would be a better solution for me, personally.

~YEKCIM

 

[Master Mason]

my video camera was purchased in 2002 or so, I think I have used it 4 or 5 times in all of that time. And I have never taken it to anything disney.

So my answer is pretty simple.

I guess I was tramatized as a small child by my grandmothers home movies. I don't want to do that to anyone else.

 

[MICKEY88]

still camera all the way, camcorder has been used once or twice for hs musicals, it's only trip to wdw was with my sister and her family last February, they broke theirs and borrowed ours..I was along on the trip to photograph their vacation...

I've never been into camcorders,, pics can be shared much more easily

 

[photo_chick]

Still camera. If I want a vacation video I could always do a photo montage video.

 

[mabas9395]

I heard it said that still photos do a better job of stimulating memories because our own mind stores those memories as stills. We might have a couple of things we remember as "motion memories" but the majority of them are stills. I don't know if I totally agree with that but I guess it has a degree of validity.

I used to do a real good job of videoing family events, but when I got my dSLR, I've kind of let the camcorder collect dust. On our last trip to DL, I was in charge of stills and the wife was in charge of video.

But I would choose still if I had to pick one.

 

[KrazyPete]

I would take a still camera. I *think* my family is like most. We record the videos but we almost never watch them.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'll also go with still cameras. I thought a lot about this subject a few months ago. My conclusions may not be universal, but they worked for me.

Advantages of pictures:
1) Easy to share
2) Easy to take and process
3) Easy to view
4) Interesting the minute you get home

Advantages of video
1) Richer - includes sounds and motion
2) Increases in value with distance - temporarl or spacial

I've found that watching recent videos is dreadfully dull. On the other hand watching videos of people that I haven't seen in a long time or videos of things well in the past is interesting.

Another thing that I noticed was that pictures of people and places all worked well. For video, stuff that didn't include people important to me was generally dull. A poorly done video (which, let's face it, includes just about all home video) of something like a Disney show is just terrible to watch. On the other hand, looking back at random videos of activity at our house years ago was interesting. I wouldn't watch them often, but they are very interesting on occasion.

So my final conclusion was that taking video on trips didn't add much value. We rarely watch them. When we do, we skip through the scenic parts and primarily watch the bits with people. The videos taken around home were more interesting.

I might still take a video camera on trips, but I'll focus on recording people rather than what we were seeing. In fact, one thing I'm considering is doing brief video interviews at the hotel at the beginning and end of each day. In the morning, I'll ask about what we are going to do that day. At the end of the day, I'll ask about what the best parts of the day were. I might include those clips as part of an overall slideshow of the trip.

I recently bought a new video camera. I've been applying what I learned. My big focus with the video camera has been capturing things around the house. We've done interviews with the kids, asking them questions about their lives today and their dreams for the future. We're working on videos showing life around the house. I'd like to do some videos showing what a typical day is like for each member of the family. My goal is to capture video of the things that we'll find most interesting 10, 20, or even 30 years from now. For us, I think that will be looking back on what our ordinary lives were like, not 20 minutes of footage of the SpectroMagic parade.

 

[photo_chick]

OK... Talked to DH about this and he made his argument for the video camera. He is the video guy in the family and he edits them all into watchable movies.


SO I should revise my answer... If it is my call still camera, if it is DH's call video camera. Good thing we don't have to make that call!

 

[Groucho]

I'm with most of the others...

Part of my reasoning is that with a still camera, someone with a halfway decent camera and some skill can really produce results to be proud of.

For video, it's much more difficult to produce results that can be as pleasing. With video, you're generally dealing with a much lower quality picture, you are going to have to worry about sound (which will generally sound fairly muddled, especially if recording a show or ride), zooming almost always look distractingly amateurish, and it's difficult to "direct". Another thing is that when you play it back, I don't like the way it sounds when the person running the camera talks, and when you're taking a video, it's hard not to talk if you're trying to direct your friends/family.

And you can't really "pose" for a video like you can with a still photo.

The main thing that would interest me is probably ride videos, and there's already tons of them floating around the internet. If I want to take a quick family video (like when my 21-month-old son was dancing to Off Kilter), we can use a PnS to take a halfway-decent video.

We brought along a camcorder with us last trip, it only made it to the parks maybe 1/3rd of less of the days, and the extent of its use was to video one of the music performances of the Osbourne Dancing Lights, and a walkthrough of our one-bedroom at Saratoga Springs. I was going to video the New Year's Eve fireworks at MGM but was too sick.

Ultimately, I'll leave the video to the pros who can take along professional equipment, get the necessary clearances, have professional editing done, etc, etc.

 

[AndrewWG]

Well, I thought about this one just the other day. I have been talking (to myself as noone else will listen ) about getting a Canon XT for a couple weeks now and have (at this point) decided not to go the DSLR route as there is no video aspect to them as far as I know. I find that to be extremely cool and could not vacation without it. I take about 90% still pics and 10% video and the S2 IS does the trick for me at this point. I know that my still pictures suffer a bit and I have to work quite hard to produce even somewhat comparable results to anything a DSLR can do, but I need the video.

So my answer is: BOTH, but in one camera. I would never drag a still and video camera around the parks all day long.

Andy