Hmmmm....
Let's see... Assuming that I shoot only weddings for a moment,
let me
ask you a question. What other field requires the ability to shoot
it
right the first time *always*, to do this often under the worst conditions
imaginable
("real-time", with no studio lighting, no director, no sound-man,
and
with "actors" who are *ALL* amateurs, and unrehearsed), and to
produce
in the end *every* time a good-looking, rather long (as in "major")
production,
done on a VERY tight budget? Are you skilled enough to do this?;-)
Don't
you think that someone into good imagery, and into making careful,
comparative
selection of the gear that works best for doing wedding
videography,
may not have a thing or two of value to say about the relative
merits
of the gear tried out, and selected/rejected for pretty solid reasons?
I
direct you to the pages of 53 frame-grabs from *one* of my weddings,
with a
great variety of lighting conditions involved, shot all "available
light"
to
best-preserve the "feel" of the event (with little time for MWB, MF,
etc.,
or
sound-checks, or whatever else that may partially compensate for
more
difficult to use or less capable gear). Could you have done as well,
with
little idea in advance of anything you were about to shoot? (The
link is
here: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wedding-video2.html.) I would
not
"look down on" wedding videography (at least the "good
stuff"...;-)
if I
were you! Other than combat videography (where you need only
"bits"
and not finished productions...), little else in the field of video is as
difficult
to do as producing consistently-good wedding coverage.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
"nappy"
<nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message news:edRhc.39827$J76.1685@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
And David.. just curious... what is the best reason you can give us that
>
ANYONE should listen to your advice? What movies have you shot? Anything
>
besides weddings?
>
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>
news:daPhc.19146$2v.11112@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> I second the below - though I would also look at the Sony PD170
>
> (a bit better reputation for sturdiness, and easier to get top-class
>
> lens converters for it), and add that the XL1s (and TRV950 and
>
> variants) would be among my last choice among current small
>
> 3-CCD camcorders for overall image quality. Have you looked at
>
> the JVC and Panasonic shoulder-mounts at slightly higher prices?
>
> BTW, there is also the *possibility* that a VERY interesting
>
> 3-CCD Sony HDTV camcorder (under $5000) *may* appear
>
> soon. This would likely provide better quality images than the
>
> other options, with native 16:9 included...
>
> --
>
> David Ruether
>
> d_ruether@hotmail.com
>
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>
> "John B., Indianapolis"
<johntakethisout@indytakethisout.net>
>
> wrote in message news:408776e3$0$46511$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
>
>
>
> > Get the Panasonic DVX100A -- it's better audio-wise (I assume that's
why
>
> > your're asking here) and everyone I've talked to who owns one loves
it.
>
> > I know several people who
have sold their XL-1's to buy the Panasonic.
>
> >
>
> > Of course, with NAB upon us, this could change. And, naturally, your
>
> > choice depends upon your individual needs, but since you simply asked
>
> > for a recommendation, get the DVX100A.
>
> >
>
> > Beyond that, my recommendation for good sound is to hire a good sound
>
> > person -- as someone else said here, "It ain't the piano, it's
the piano
>
> > player." Don't be afraid
to talk to a pro. There are many sound
people
>
> > who will sometimes help out an independent filmmaker with a special
rate
>
> > if the timing fits in between regular paying gigs.
>
> >
>
> > Learning to hire professionals is a major step on your road to
becoming
>
> > a professional.
>
> >
>
> > Good luck.
>
> >
>
> > John B., Indianapolis