Posted by riclanders on 07/01/06 02:40

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

[Back to original message]