<p>From the point of view of image quality, I think the choice is clear. Camcorders shoot good video and crappy stills, digital still cameras shoot good video and good stills.</p>

<p>Some digital still cameras shoot even better video than camcorders. I have a $800 Canon Vixia camcorder that shoots 1080p at 24fps with 24Mbps bitrate. The little SX230 HS referenced in your article also shoots 1080p at 24fps but at 36Mbps, and all for about $200, a quarter of the price!</p>

<p>Problems I see with using digital still cameras for shooting video:</p>

<ul>
<li>Still cameras are not comfortable to hold for shooting video. Camcorders win this category easily.</li>
<li>Audio recording is pretty bad in still cameras, so for any serious shooting you will need a separate audio recorder and microphone, plus editing software.</li>
<li>If you plan to do in-camera editing with effects and such, then a camcorder will probably give you more options than a digital still camera. But if you plan to edit on the computer this is not a problem.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-12-18T00:49:44.500Z
2011-12-18T00:49:44.500Z
Miguel
<p>It seems that the latest models of compact digital cameras come with many features which used to be only in camcorders: image stabilization, low-light shooting mode and of course high-definition to name a few.
This <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311TravelZoomGroupTest/page9.asp" rel="nofollow">article</a> shows some candidates which IMO give pretty good competition to modern camcorders.
I already have a decent SLR camera for taking still pictures, and now i am interested in buying a camera for shooting home videos. I thought of buying a digital camera instead of a  camcorders - but only if I will not be missing out anything that only camcorders have to offer.</p>

<video>
What are the advantages camcorders have over zoom digital cameras?
zr.
# What are the advantages camcorders have over zoom digital cameras?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-12-17)

It seems that the latest models of compact digital cameras come with many features which used to be only in camcorders: image stabilization, low-light shooting mode and of course high-definition to name a few.
This [article](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311TravelZoomGroupTest/page9.asp) shows some candidates which IMO give pretty good competition to modern camcorders.
I already have a decent SLR camera for taking still pictures, and now i am interested in buying a camera for shooting home videos. I thought of buying a digital camera instead of a camcorders - but only if I will not be missing out anything that only camcorders have to offer.

**Tags:** video


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2011-12-18. Score: 2

From the point of view of image quality, I think the choice is clear. Camcorders shoot good video and crappy stills, digital still cameras shoot good video and good stills.

Some digital still cameras shoot even better video than camcorders. I have a $800 Canon Vixia camcorder that shoots 1080p at 24fps with 24Mbps bitrate. The little SX230 HS referenced in your article also shoots 1080p at 24fps but at 36Mbps, and all for about $200, a quarter of the price!

Problems I see with using digital still cameras for shooting video:

* Still cameras are not comfortable to hold for shooting video. Camcorders win this category easily.
* Audio recording is pretty bad in still cameras, so for any serious shooting you will need a separate audio recorder and microphone, plus editing software.
* If you plan to do in-camera editing with effects and such, then a camcorder will probably give you more options than a digital still camera. But if you plan to edit on the computer this is not a problem.


---

