# yet another camera question... image stability???



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

Okay. I am checking out these two camera/camcorders...

Buy the Aiptek Digital Video Camera (DV5900) and other Camcorders at circuitcity.com

and the bigger brother:

Buy the Aiptek Media Player and Video Recorder Camcorder (PDVR) and other Camcorders at circuitcity.com

The biggest difference I see (at least that makes a difference to what I want the camera for) is the 'Image Stabilization'...

Is Image Stabilization really that important, or would it be better to just go with the cheaper?

Oh.... and yes, I did read the mixed reviews it gets, but it seems that the bad reviewers were expecting more like you would get from a $500 item than what they acctually paid for it.


----------



## spypet (Sep 15, 2006)




----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

That is pretty cool and strange at the same time. 

Unfortunatly, I am really getting the camera-camcorder for random on the go shots and close up of miniatures (see C. E. Colt's Online Web Store Enlarged Picture ). Already have a good mount station for my miniatures.

So the question on image stabilization still stands....


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

First, let me say that both models are absolute crap. You won't get good video and you won't get good stills. There are key specs missing that would give you the real story, but needless to say, terms like "enhanced 5MP" and "digital image stabilization" are pretty much meaningless.

As for image stabilzation itself, a very good feature in longer zooms and low light situations, in these cameras, it's moot, especially when they neglect to give you any real details about the system.

You really should up your budget and get something decent, otherwise you'll just be disappointed.


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

Well, honestly, when I am upgrading from an ancient and giant Mavica 1.3 mega-pix......

I am really not expecting the enhanced 5MP, to be more than the plain '3 mega pixel CMOS sensor' it has. However, even at 3MP, the picture quality can't be worse than what I have now.

On the same hand... it is either get a moderate upgrade now, or deal with my old one for another year, and still not have the expendable cash to upgrade to something much better next year.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I would be willing to bet your Mavica takes as good a picture as any of those.

But there are numerous models that would be an upgrade to your Mavica for well under a $100.00.

Hit pricewatch and see.


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

pricewatch?


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Pricewatch, a good starting point for the lowest prices on just about anything


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

Maybe I am not looking up the items right, but only one of the listed digital camcorder/cameras on pricewatch is in a similar price range... and it doesn't include half of the features of the Aiptek listed at the same price.

Also, it doesn't list very many brands or items.

I guess it would be good to find low prices on something you already know you want, but doesn't seem much use for comparing items.


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I did say priced under a $100.

The fact is for $50, you just aren't going to get a digital camera that has any better picture quality than a cheapo web cam, same type of sensor, same type of lens. You'd be better off waiting and saving your pennies than buying a POS that won't do the job you want it.

There are several models at around $70, like this one that would be just great for you and 100 times better than the ones you're considering.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

It seems like a great idea to throw all that functionality into on box and offer it at a rock-bottom price. And 6MP sounds really good too.

However, reading the reviews, the old saying about "you get what you pay for" seems to be true, again...

I think if you want it to snap some low-rez pics for posting on the net, and you'd like to take some fun videos, because you can, you might be very happy with it.

If you want to take fairly decent snapshots, I'd go with a compact digital camera. I just bought a Fujifilm Finepix 400 for $59 - not the greatest thing in digital photography, but looking for Christmas gifts sometimes you stumble over deals like that.

For good quality videos, I would invest a bit more money...

What you could do is to buy the Aiptec locally at CC and try it out and return it if it disappoints you.


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

glass-gardens.com said:


> There are several models at around $70, like this one that would be just great for you and 100 times better than the ones you're considering.


Errrr... not to bash the listing, but it would be nice if I wanted only a camera (refurbished at that) and to take short _soundless_ video clips.

Really, the video capability and the MP3 player is two of the top reasons I want to get one of the Aiptek's. I can always take close-ups with my old Mavica at home. (Can you believe it takes pictures onto 3.5 floppy disks!)

MP3 players with 1G of memory run upwards of $60 on sale by themselves... and this uses SD cards.... so I have in effect as much memory as I want for pictures, video, and MP3's. (I already have six 1G cards on hand... super sale priced at $2.99.) Also, the big brother (second listing) can record video straight from my VCR-DVD or TV to watch later. Kinda a neat feature.



Wasserpest said:


> What you could do is to buy the Aiptec locally at CC and try it out and return it if it disappoints you.


Yea, I am thinking about that... Though I just found online that Best-Buy has the big brother one for the same price as other stores, but it has a 5 Megapix sensor (instead of the 3 available at other stores) and supposedly enhanses it to 8 Megapix.

Aiptek - Digital Camcorder with Hard Drive and 2.4" Color LCD - PVR

I guess really my big question now is.... Whether the added features on the big brother is worth the added money over the little one.

bigger screen
better video
more megapix
rechargable LiIon battery (instead of AA's)
record video from VCR-DVD-TV
improved 'Night Shot'
Image Stabilization

Hummmmmm.....


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

Did a bit more checking.

The DV5900 video is limited to 640 X 480 resolution at a maximum of 11FPS.

The minimum requirement to be considered "full motion" is 20FPS, which it will do, but at a much lower resolution of just 320 X 240.

Either resolution is going to look very bad, extremely bad viewed on your TV, but perhaps adequate in a window on your PC screen.

Also, the still image resolution is actually 3MP, the 5MP rating is interpolated, i.e. added pixels = added noise. However, 3MP is sufficient for what you want so that's kind of moot. The other models do 30FPS at 640 X 480 which is better, but still the res isn't going to result in good video on your TV. But the 5MP sensor is better than 3, on the other hand, the lens probably isn't anything to look at, which can be important.

Just keep in mind, you get exactly what you pay when it comes to cameras and such.

Good luck.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

20fps doesn't work unless it's projected film, and even that works off of 24fps. digital, you'll want 30fps to keep things fluid and you'd want image stablization to keep the movie watchable. your budget should be around or above $500 for a camcorder that's worth owning.


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

Well, I got the 'big brother' version to try out...

And it does seem to be a case of 'You get what you pay for.' However, at $139, I think all the features it has is a decent bargain.

The image stabilization really seems to be more of a benifit for still images, since the camera compensates for the tiny wiggling you always do unless you have the thing on a tri-pod. However, it seems to acctually make turning during video taking come out more blurry... During stationary video taking without a tri-pod, it does help to smooth small movements (shakey hand). It has the option to use image stabilization or not, and I have tested it both ways.

The macro mode, however, is pretty much a joke since you can't manually focus or hold focus. This means that whatever the camera 'thinks' that you are focusing on is what it will try to focus on distance wise. Therefore, this would NOT be a good camera for taking super-close ups of miniatures or even decent pictures of fish, since it would almost always be focused on something else when you are trying to take your shot.

This is also the kind of camera (very common now days) that takes a moment after you click the button before it takes the picture, while it desides the final light requirements and distance to focus. So if you are wanting something for action shots, this doesn't do well, since by the time (about a half of a 'one-mississippi') that the camera takes to 'snap' the picture, the action is probably gone.

However, I do like the video. Obviously I am not going to be making a block-buster movie, but for short to medium or even long clips to play on the computer or back on the camera itself, it would be fun and neat to have at a party or traveling or easy videos of my nieces soccer games.

The controls are a bit harder to manage with a small directional button being the primary difficulty. If you have big fingers and not very fine sensitivity, it would probably be hard to use.

The MP3 function is pretty cool. With the option of listening over it's built in speaker or head-phones, or by using the audio-out cable, it is pretty handy. It doens't seem to have any restrictions on the source of the MP3 (like lots of MP3 players do now). And you just drop your MP3's onto the card (or into the camera memory) into a folder labled 'MP3', and it plays them. For me this is GREAT since I think I am pretty much the last american who doesn't have an MP3 player of any kind. And dealing with a ton of cd's on road-trips, or a skipping cd during excercise, really sucks.

Normal range photo's seem to be very nice, and really are an up-grade in quality from my 1.3 Megapix.

I havn't tried out the record from VCR-DVD-TV yet, but will probably try it out tonight.

So all in all, it is worth the money for what you get, but I am leaning toward returning it and getting the smaller version. The smaller one has the features that are most important to me, while costing much less. Then maybe next year I will work on getting a camera that takes really nice macro shots.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Thanks for the review!



TAF CAF said:


> However, I do like the video. Obviously I am not going to be making a block-buster movie, but for short to medium or even long clips to play on the computer or back on the camera itself, it would be fun and neat to have at a party or traveling or easy videos of my nieces soccer games.


Did you playback the video on your TV or computer monitor? I didn't expect it to turn out decent. 10 fps is a joke, and to get the fps up shooting in 320x240 is... well... not real usable size. Maybe for the tube.


----------



## TAF CAF (Jan 12, 2006)

Havn't tried it on the TV, but it looks fine on the computer. The 'big brother' one I am trying out has 30 fps in both 640x480 and the 320x240 sizes.

The smaller one I am thinking about getting has:
640 x 480 Pixels (up to 11 fps)
352 x 288 Pixels (CIF) up to 30 fps 
It would be fine for me to have the smaller size at 30 fps, since I would be mostly using it to email small videos to relatives.


----------

