It has been a week since we arrived home and since our last post. That’s because we both got bad colds just as we arrived in Seattle. Coincidence? Anyway, I want to resume posts with some reflections on our 8,000 mile odyssey. This first one is about video versus still photography.
Jean sticks with her Nikon D-90 digital SLR. As usual I took along my video camera (Canon ZR850) as well as the digital SLR (Canon Rebel xti). The video camera received relatively little use. Here are my reasons for using it sparingly: it requires a tripod to get really good video; the tripod is always lost somewhere in the car; for still subjects the still camera works as well; animals often leave the scene before I can get the video camera set up; much of what we viewed was scenery, not animals.
The video camera has a tremendous optical zoom capacity that lets you get right up close and personal. That means that any slight vibration of the camera is magnified in the image. I find the best and easiest shots are of a moving target with a moving camera. That seems to alleviate much of the jerkiness associated with amateur videos.
The still camera produces crisp, clear images with great color…if I use it correctly. It requires more attention to settings and detail to get good images. However, it is relatively easy to use and can be handled without a tripod in almost all situations. That makes it much more portable.
In the furture my choice of camera will depend upon subject. If I know I am shooting wildlife I will lean toward the video. If it’s going to be scenery, flowers, portraits, etc. I will take the SLR. Of course there will be times when I don’t know what’s coming (like this trip) and I’ll still take both cameras.