On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 22:18:39 -0330, "Chris Fewer" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3e101fbd.4534504@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> My wedding clients appreciate the unobtrusive small cameras,
>> without lights (this is, after all, *their* event, and not
>> a video production...;-), and I appreciate the high quality,
>> freedom from dropouts, ease of editing, mastering, and
>> copying DV without generation losses, and the low gear
>> weight (and as a "single shooter", I can place a bunch of
>> unattended tiny cameras on poles around the ceremony without
>> overwhelming it - see for an example
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera2.htm, and the
>> resulting frame-grabs at
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wedding9.html and also at "10" and
>> "11"...). This type of "easy intimacy" cannot be done with
>> large cameras...

>As I said, there are many videographers shooting weddings with new compact
>cameras. On the other hand, provided it's done properly, a large camera
>isn't intrusive in anyway. As well, the larger cameras don't require as much
>lighting... so less turning on the sun gun.

Have you tried the VX2000/PD150? It does not require a
light, either, and is FAR less "intimidating" for those
close-in shots than the monster SVHS Panasonics (most
guests have never before been "shot" with a big video
camera, and it can be a bit unsettling, to say the
least...! ;-) Also, try clipping one of those with a
fisheye on the the top rear corner of the little
Jewish thingy that is held held over the couple, or
try setting one up *unobtrusively* up front closer
than about 50'...! ;-)

>Another popular model was the AG456 (?)... or the AG455... one was VHS, one
>was SVHS... whichever was SVHS was the popular one. It's not high end, but
>it was good enough, and was always good for the price.

But the best Mini-DV cameras are both cheaper and better,
besides being easier to hide or move around easily with...