|
|
Posted by doc on 07/17/06 03:27
the DVC60 does do 16:9 and has a lot more features.
drd
<riclanders@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151721621.419316.225320@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> David McCall wrote:
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>> news:4gl323F1n73arU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Mr. Tapeguy" <mr.tapeguy@pro-tape.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1151654387.875535.315710@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> That question is best answered by the pros in rec.video.production.
>> >>> I
>> >>> suspect the GL2 _may_ suffice, but the reviews that I've seen of it
>> >>> aren't
>> >>> that good. Most "entry level wedding videographer" recommendations
>> >>> that
>> >>> I've seen have been for a PD-150/170 (or the prosumer equivalent, the
>> >>> VX2000/2100). Next up the ladder is the XL2, which offers the
>> >>> advantage
>> >>> of
>> >>> interchangeable lenses but, from what I understand, offers video
>> >>> quality
>> >>> comparable to the Sony offering. Sony's big advantage is
>> >>> extraordinary
>> >>> low-light capability -- I can shoot by candlelight with my VX2000 --
>> >>> and,
>> >>> evidently, that makes it appealing to wedding videographers who have
>> >>> to
>> >>> shoot in dimly lit churches, at night, etc. I've honestly never seen
>> >>> the
>> >>> GL2 discussed in this context, though I suspect it probably wouldn't
>> >>> be
>> >>> too
>> >>> bad (though check its low-light capability). The GL1, on the other
>> >>> hand,
>> >>> from what I've seen is pretty bad.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Ah shaddap ya pompous blowhard ; >
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >
>> > Yeah, the nerve of me -- actually providing information!
>> >
>> I think you pretty much answered his question, in the post above.
>> It just wasn't what he wanted to hear. Some people just keep
>> asking the same question over and over until someone tells
>> them what they want to hear.
>>
>> He asked another question that was a bit naive. He wanted to
>> know if size matters. I'd say yes. If you charge someone a
>> couple thousand dollars for a wedding video and show up with
>> a camera that looks just like the ones Uncle Dick brought to
>> the wedding, they might wonder why they were paying him
>> the big bucks.
>>
>> Of course if your demo real shows that you really have a lot of talent,
>> then that might get you off the hook.
>>
>> David
>
> I had heard this mentioned before but didn't know quite what to make of
> it. Should this be a factor when considering a camera? Given two
> cameras of equal ability, should you opt for the larger one because it
> makes you look more professional?
>
> The Panasonic 400 seems to beg that question ... or does it? How does
> it compare head to head with, say, a Canon GL2? Someone mentioned
> it's not very good in low-light; ok, excluding that, can you do
> professional quality work with it?
>
> I could buy the Panasonic next week or wait a week and get something
> that cost a bit more.
>
> By the way, speaking of Panasonic's there's another one that strikes my
> fancy -- the AG-DVC30. Got real pumped about until I discovered it
> doesn't shoot in 16:9. I rhink that's a feature I'd want. Other than
> that, the camera seems awesome. It seems to be small but looks pro
> enough to let people know you're serious.
>
> Also,someone wrote most used cameras are DOA. Is this true?
>
> ric
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|