|
Yeah, economical is relative...
It's like I'm not going to want a racing engine in my car as I don't want to have to rebuild it on a regular basis - I want 100K MILES out of it at least...
but if I want to win races in my RACE CAR, I probably just accept engines at around 100K a pop, and they are going to blow up fairly regularly - two different scenarios.
SO, I'm gong to go shoot some high risk video situation, but I need a certain level of quality, I'm going to sacrifice the least expensive camera I can and still get my shot. Not terribly unusual in TV land... ever hear the term "crash cam"? It's just part of the budget that some gear may not survive!
The small, relatively inexpensive cams are getting a fair amount of mileage in reality TV shows - I remember that someone posted the A1U from "Ice Truckers" (?), and Survivorman uses Z1 and HC3 from what I've seen. Bottom line the footage looks pretty good, and if the cam doesn't see a second season, so what, just replace it with the newest one.
I think what's hard to "get" is that those of us who baby our cams and expect them to last more than a few months are on a slightly different budgetary footing.
It's all relative. I scratch or dent a camera by accident, I'm crying... they destroy a camera nailing a tough shot on purpose, and their ratings go up and the audience applauds... the audience is watching to see scenes that most sane videographers (or most anyone for that matter) wouldn't be caught dead in... and SOME camera has to go there to get those shots! It's a testimony to the quality available to the average shooter that these cams are used and survive as well as they do...
|
December 21st, 2007, 03:18 PM
