Hi,

I know practically nothing about digital video cameras (including
standards, ect.), so I thought I'd ask here for advice.

My elderly mother has been diagnosed with cancer and wants to document
the whole experience.
What is needed is:

=1) Something simple to use (she won't read the instructions or
remember complicated procedures - basically something which can be
turned on and then press the "film" button).

2) Small and light (large zoom range not important - even fixed focal ok).

3) Long accumulator life and ability to store a lot of filming (she has
no computer).

4) Good quality images, given the above.

I would take of occasionally transferring the images onto a computer (I
live in a different country) and doing the editing.

Any advice would be appreciated.

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...

=1) Something simple to use (she won't read the instructions or
remember complicated procedures - basically something which can be
turned on and then press the "film" button).

Hi, Chris. Your mother has my utmost admiration for turning what must be a
very frightening experience into somthing that she and others can learn
from.

All but the most expensive cameras have a "green square" setting - it means
the camera does most of the work assessing exposure etc. You might want to
consider one with low-light capabilities and possibly an IR lamp for
night-time filming (if she has a soul-searching moment in the middle of the
night that she wants to commit to film, it's better if it doesn't have to
wait 'til morning for light).


3) Long accumulator life and ability to store a lot of filming (she has
no computer).

4) Good quality images, given the above.

I would take of occasionally transferring the images onto a computer (I
live in a different country) and doing the editing.

A DVD camera would be the most efficient if you're planning nothing more
ambitious than straight cuts in the footage. Rewritable discs can be reused,
but are more expensive. As long as she records in SP mode, a DV camera's
footage can be transferred with no loss using any other DV camera.
Personally, I reckon you need to take the DV route, but it's a close call...

Make sure you factor the price of a tripod into the budget. A cheap, light
one will do - ease of use is more important than resilience against some
snotty kid running into it (which is what my tripod has to cope with).

G Hardy wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...

=1) Something simple to use (she won't read the instructions or
remember complicated procedures - basically something which can be
turned on and then press the "film" button).

Hi, Chris. Your mother has my utmost admiration for turning what must be a
very frightening experience into somthing that she and others can learn
from.

All but the most expensive cameras have a "green square" setting - it means
the camera does most of the work assessing exposure etc. You might want to
consider one with low-light capabilities and possibly an IR lamp for
night-time filming (if she has a soul-searching moment in the middle of the
night that she wants to commit to film, it's better if it doesn't have to
wait 'til morning for light).


3) Long accumulator life and ability to store a lot of filming (she has
no computer).

4) Good quality images, given the above.

I would take of occasionally transferring the images onto a computer (I
live in a different country) and doing the editing.

A DVD camera would be the most efficient if you're planning nothing more
ambitious than straight cuts in the footage. Rewritable discs can be reused,
but are more expensive. As long as she records in SP mode, a DV camera's
footage can be transferred with no loss using any other DV camera.
Personally, I reckon you need to take the DV route, but it's a close call...

Make sure you factor the price of a tripod into the budget. A cheap, light
one will do - ease of use is more important than resilience against some
snotty kid running into it (which is what my tripod has to cope with).


Thanks for your answer.

She has experience using some Canon double-eight movie cameras in the
sixties and seventies.

A tripod is out, unfortunately. I'm wondering is image-stabilizing is
compatible with a non-technical user.

She has in the past also rejected some VHS-C and Video 8(?) cameras
because of their weight.

Again, the basic idea is a simple hand-held camera where she doesn't
have to navigate through menus to do anything: An always usable note-taker.

I suppose that the process is far more important than the final product.

Chris Loffredo wrote:

A tripod is out, unfortunately. I'm wondering is image-stabilizing is
compatible with a non-technical user.

How about a tabletop mini tripod?

http://www.lensmateonline.com/ultrapod2.jpg

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u32/i...land/upload/41
184981.minitripod.jpg

Or a Gorillapod?

http://www.joby.com/

(Though I'm not sure if that would support the weight of a camcorder.)

Anyhow, it's hard and tiresome to shoot oneself just by holding the
camcorder in thin air at an arm's length. Even the best image
stabilization technology won't help much when your arm starts aching and
the camera begins bobbing and wobbling about.

--
znark

Jukka Aho wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

A tripod is out, unfortunately. I'm wondering is image-stabilizing is
compatible with a non-technical user.

How about a tabletop mini tripod?

http://www.lensmateonline.com/ultrapod2.jpg

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u32/i...land/upload/41
184981.minitripod.jpg

Or a Gorillapod?

http://www.joby.com/

(Though I'm not sure if that would support the weight of a camcorder.)

Anyhow, it's hard and tiresome to shoot oneself just by holding the
camcorder in thin air at an arm's length. Even the best image
stabilization technology won't help much when your arm starts aching and
the camera begins bobbing and wobbling about.


Good idea, I will keep that in mind (I have several such *tripods* lying
around, being an experienced still photographer)!