This summer iam goining to walk the West Highland Ways in Scotland. Its the first time iam doing something like this.

I have a videocamera, but iam thinking of shooting pictures instead. Because it wil be mainly landscapes with little movement in it, so why use video? Its a lot more work (you cannot just take 'a picture' in video there 'must' be some kind of story and you dont just want to have some random shots) and there is no need for it, really.

Iam not bringing both, i must travel light. But i want this discussion is a broader context: for walking holiday trips like this, what do you recommend, video or photo? and why?

Further more, do you have any suggestions how to make the video entertaining without having just taken "moving pictures" (iam used to fiction, setting everything in scene...).

Oh wel, i just like to hear some opinions, story's, suggestions etc on this subject!

Greetings,
Jerry

Photography, and simply because I have never seen a good holiday movie. You can take fantastic photos, but making a good video of your travels (unless it is a real documentary) is unlikely.

That, and photos are much easier to take, easier to look at, and easier to deal with later.

I agree with Perry that photography is the better way to go. Unless you plan on making a documentary or possibly a short film of some kind in the location take the camera over the camcorder. I had the same issue before I went to Venice and I realized that rather than having to worry about voltage conversion and everything I just took extra batteries for my camera rather than all my chargers.

This is something I've been debating on too because I'm going to Europe this summer with a pretty huge band and we're playing in five different countries, so I'm trying to decide which one to do...

I think in your case though I definately agree with Titanium and Laudy...Pictures are funner to look at rather than 5 minutes of footage of one lake... So yeah, take the camera

I was in Scotland over the summer, not to walk the highlands, but to play golf, and I brought a long a photo camera and a video camera, and though the video was my friend's, he brought it so I could use it. I used the photo camera for some beautiful golf course shots, and a few stills of people swinging, but the video camera came in handy for any one who wanted a long take of their swing, along with one of the more amazing things I've shot, which was some very long wispy kind of heather grass just blowing in very gusty winds. It's hard to describe but it was amazing to watch again, because it was just a humoungous enormous field of the stuff and looked really incredible, like water flowing, as the sun shone off it. Anyway, that was my experience, and I think that if there might be a chance to capture something extraordinary like that, you might consider taking the video camera just in case. It's your decision, but I would definitely reccomend taking a video camera.

It all depends.
I think if you just go to walk anywhere, it is the same you take photocamera or videocamera.
It's just a walking...and everyone like use other instruments for memory.
But if you want to tell a story with pictures for me, you have to use videocamera...
what do you think?
(my english is poor, sorry..)

Thanks for the reactions, i know there is something to say for both mediums, but it is clear that iam not going to make a real documentairy. The reason is that the person iam going with is not into videography and i dont want this to turn into a 'filmmaking holiday'.

"Photography, and simply because I have never seen a good holiday movie"

Oke, but what if you are filming your holiday/travel? Most holiday movies are made by people who dont have experience with filmmaking and editing. I have. You have. So let me ask the quistion: are we capeble of making a "good" holiday/travel video without disturbing the holiday itself to much?

But what IS a good holiday movie? I don't want to watch a movie of my vacation. It's not about anything. It would just be a collection of clips. There's no story. Unless a movie has a story to hold it together (like a documentary does) there's very little to make it interesting. It can't be about you, because you're the one making it. So it won't really be about anyone or anything. Just a sort of montage of clips.

Maybe you could make it about your friend, but then he needs a goal or purpose that he's trying to achieve or something. Also, if you make it about something, suddenly you need good sound equipment, and lots and lots of footage.

I guess I just don't see it justifying its own existence in a video form.

I get what Titanium is saying but at the same time I sort of disagree...

I know that unless it has a story and a purpose, any sort of video you could make really wouldn't be a film, it would be "a collection of clips" as titanium says, but just because it doesn't have a point doesn't necessarily mean it's pointless, just another way of reminding you of your memories...

So I say if those clips would mean something to you afterwards, then take the video camera...But if you're more like Titanium and don't find much pleasure in watching your vacations, then I would say a regular camera...

P.S. Titanium: Sorry if anything above isn't exactly what you were trying to say...Feel free to yell at me (and correct me) if I was putting words into your mouth...

You got it

I guess I just take more pleasure in photographing something disorganized and random like a personal event. When I'm going to film something, I want it to go according to plan. It could well be just me. Anyways, I _love_ photography, so that's given me a bias too.

I'm about to travel through London, Paris, Arles, Florence, Venice and Corfu in the course of two weeks, and between my brother and myself, we're packing two digital rebels, four lenses, and a 35mm fixed 50mm/f1.8 nikon loaded with slide film. It's gonna rock.

Perry, Enjoy Venice! It is such a wonderful city to visit, even if it gets crowded this time of year.

I say for a hiking trip through Scotland a camera is best. If you visit a city a camcorder might be an advantage, but I also must stress that when I have brought a camcorder in the past on a trip and just found it a huge hassle when I went to edit the footage because 3/4 of it really sucked. Stick with still photography.

definitely camera!!! put the pictures together, make a montage and you can still make a video out of it.

enjoy the trip

quote:

Originally posted by techie1902:

...just because it doesn't have a point doesn't necessarily mean it's pointless, just another way of reminding you of your memories...

My wife and I took a video camera* and a pretty nice still camera on our honeymoon to Charleston. While the still photographs turned out quite well, it was nice to have a condensed video version of the trip. It wasn't really a story at all, just a montage, but like you said, it's another (great) way to capture your memories.

The video can be found at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2924885400861428763&hl=en

The song that it is cut to was by a musician we bumped into on the street who was performing on Halloween, dressed in skeleton paint and a straw hat. His name was Hank Marley (aka The Charleston Pirate), and he gave me a cd for my radio show. We just found it fitting to incorporate that aspect of our honeymoon into the video.

My thoughts on this thread: no matter which camera you take, you're probably going to have a blast. Have fun!

*saddly, it was only a very low level consumer model...I didn't have my vx2000 at the time.

Yes, ofcourse i will have fun! Number 1 priority is to see it with my OWN eyes, after that, see it trough a lens. I think i will use a still camera, because of the reasons that were written here and because of my own feelings about this subject.

Lets get walking

i made a home movie last summer with still camera (320x240pixel)in hungary.
my film entitled "I Know".
what do you think: is it a simple reminding of memories or a realy movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzL96qyXKWI

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rendzsaw,

I just got back from a trip to hawaii, and i must say, taking stills is much more effective. The thing about video is, it's tough to get scenery and vacation shots and actually incorporate them with a video. I took my GS500 and used it for stills as well, but also had my parents still camera.
here's the video i took from the trip, i took about 1 hour of footage, but only used 2, the video is mostly surfers we saw on the north shore of oahu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJLl_Z_VDCc

So my advice, take the stills cam, unless there's something in particular you know you want to take video of.