On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:22:35 -0330, "Chris Fewer" wrote:
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3e146dc9.2610615@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> 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'...! ;-)

>I've tried a VX1000. If you can consider the PD150 or VX2000 to work without
>a light, and produce suitable images, then the GXY2 or 3 will work in the
>same conditions and produce the same results sans light.

The low-light difference between the VX1000 and VX2000
is "like night and day"... The VX2000 picture is also
sharper.

>And this is a matter of oppinion, but a good videographer should be able to
>make people comfortable regardless of the size of the camera... I know ENG
>operators, carrying 30lb BETACams, fully rigged so they're the size of
>houses, doing solo interviews, and the people they interview end up looking
>like they're just having an informal chat, the way it should be.

Fine, in a set-up situation - but for walking around a room
of 100-200 people, catching "bits" as-is? I don't think
so...

>> >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...

>Not really... best mini DV cameras are more expensive then the practically
>surplus SVHS pro models (PD-150, $5699.99 CND from Henrys, GXY3, $3399.99
>CND and that includes *I think* a canon lens, not a fujinon lens) ... and
>"better" is a matter of oppinion... in my oppinion, size is the only real
>advantage for the purposes of weddings...

VX2000 is $2350 (or less, US), and produces a superior
1st-generation image to ANY VHS, and at edit finish
and first copy, the DV image is FAR better... This is
silly - this issue was settled here a few years ago,
and it is hard to believe anyone is seriously
recommending big old SVHS machines...

>But in short, I'm not trying to say MiniDV is no good. It's perfectly good.
>Pretty much anything will do for a wedding. I'm just saying that I've seen a
>number of examples where wedding videographers have sold a small mini-DV cam
>because they got irritated loosing jobs because clients couldn't understand
>the difference between it and a generic camcorder... and as I said, there
>are also of people doing quite well at weddings with MiniDV gear. So it all
>depends on what ends up working for the person.

Of course. Then buy a JVC 500 - you get "size" AND
excellent results...;-)