My camera is a 12.1MP Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS15 and for my purposes I am generally very satisfied with it. It has several frames-per-second burst settings, but I find it problematic to record images in the highest setting of 60fps (at relatively low MP resolution) because I must crank up the ISO to 3200 to get any picture(s) at all in low light indoors. Why can't I just take video (also at 60fps and relatively low MP) without the high ISO problem, and then choose and create still pictures to be saved?
Why can't I just take video (also at 60fps and relatively low MP) without the high ISO problem, and then choose and create still pictures to be saved?
You can. Which quality is better depends on the decisions that Lumix has made. Video seems to work happily in low light that the same camera has difficulty in handling for stills. I've not looked into why (although I'm sure a vast number of people have" but I suspect they increase the effective shutter speed per frame - if necessary either repeating the same image in several frames. That type of manipulation can look "good enough" in a dynamically changing video* 'image' whereas with a still image you get to examine it 'warts and all'.
Viewer perceptions of frozen frames:
*I have a number of Sanyo Xacti video + still cameras. You can take full resolution still photos while recording video - an immensely useful feature which is largely lacking on more "real" cameras. When you taake a still photo during video recording the camera continually replays the last video frame while the sensor is "busy doing other things" and then continues business as normal when the still capture is finished - a substantial portion of a second all up.If you know when it has been done it is obvious enough but in typical 'home movie' or trip record recodings people could watch a video with many still spots due to stills and probably not notice at all.
The photo below is a screen capture from a Red Bull video advertisement. While not up to the standard of what you usually expect from s DSLR, something like this is far better than no photo at all.
That's on the Crown Range in NZ. Neither vehicle crashed, but if he'd been able to get his rotor tips just a little closer to the spoiler it may have been different. Maybe it's just telephoto foreshortening. Maybe not :-).
You can grab frames from video. Cameras with very high burst rates are basically capturing video. It has some drawbacks to consider:
Resolution is reduced (previously to 2mp, but now to about 8mp).
There is motion blur because shutter speed is limited, usually to 1/24, 1/30, or 1/60.
Exposure control may be limited. For instance, you cannot control exposure by changing shutter speed because it is fixed to the frame rate.
Lighting options are limited. For instance, you cannot use flash.
Post-processing options may be limited. For instance, there is usually no raw capture.
There are more compression artifacts, especially when there is a large amount of movement.
Depending on the subject you are shooting, it may be better to shoot at a lower frame rate of 30. This would allow your sensor more time to capture light for each frame, and therefor allow for a lower ISO. Best thing to do would be to do a few video recording tests to see the differences for yourself. Record at the highest resolution and frame rate, then record at a lower resolution and frame rate and compare the frames.