At the moment I’m so desperate for money that if someone were to offer me at least a few to several thousand dollars to help shoot a documentary or News report for a month I’d be willing to pack up and go to the Airport first thing tomorrow night and I wouldn’t mind if its Lebanon, Palestine or even Iraq. I choose the night so that I can spend the day signing a will but in the bright side I would have enough money to get myself a PS3 and pay of a good portion of my college loan if I come back alive and it would be one extra thing for my résumé.

I’d just hope the producer doesn’t give me a full size 3 ½ inch or 3 2/3 inch CCD camera because I saw a documentary that was shot in the Middle East that showed a guy walking into the hospital injured with a full size camera in his hand. I was thinking that if he had a brought a Z1u or a PD170 he wouldn’t have gotten injured.

A cameraman was killed by U.S. gunfire in Iraq a couple of years ago. The soldier said he thought the camera was a missile launcher or something. I don't necessarily belive that, but you have a valid point--at least if they blow you away, they can't use that excuse.

One of the best documentaries I've ever seen, and also the best looking, was shot with an XL1. it was called "Death in Gaza" and I don't remember the name of the filmmaker but he was a well known British documentarian and winner of numerous award. An Israeli tank crew shot and killed him. There was home video of the incident--he was waving a white flag and was clearly identified as not being an enemy soldier, but they killed him anyway. He was doing the documentary about fundamentalist religion breeding fanatics among children in Palestine, and he was going to Israel to do the same thing. He wasn't holding the camera at the time. My point is, if they want to blow you away they will, regardless of the camera. However, I agree that in those conditions I too would rather be using a Z1 than a DSR570. Especially in Iraq where blowing sand is a serious enemy of any camera. You could half a dozen Z1s for the same price as one DSR570 (with lens and power); one dies, pitch it and use the next one.

James Miller was the UK filmmaker.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dea.../synopsis.html

very sad indeed.

Professional DSLR camera users rely on these features, so I think the video equipment market is just lagging.

There is nothing professional about an inanimate object. Cameras cannot be professional.

On BBC4 in the UK there is a programme that challenges 3 professional photographers working with film to try using digital imaging. One of the photographers get a high-end camera, one gets a point n click while the last one gets a camera-phone. What is apparent from the programme is that professionalism is independent of technology as all photographers produce quality images no matter which camera they were given to work with. Producing professional work has less to do with equipment than some would have us believe.

I am a pragmatist and I realise that to consistently hit focus when viewing on a low resolution LCD VF or 2.5" flip-out screen is nigh on impossible without some electronic intervention. I welcome the inclusion of selected assistant functions as the ability to capture high resolution images far outstrips our ability to effectively monitor it on camera even on larger format camera to a degree.

To reject electronic assistance functions and come back with poorly focussed and exposed footage is deeply unprofessional by any reasonable measure.

I am not suggesting using the camera in full auto all of the time far from it but to embrace the fly by wire functions for purely pragmatic reasons.

TT

OK, what this thread leads me to think is that we need some new terms. A "professional" camera has always meant a "broadcast quality" (which is now a meaningless term) camera with 2/3" chips, shoulder mount, interchangeable lenses, full controls with standard toggle switches, NTSC color bars. Today, with the better capabilities of the 1/3" chip cameras, the main differentiation between "prosumer" and "professional," in my opinion, is the lens. Not that it's removable or not, rather that you have smooth aperture adjustment rather than click stops, and repeatable focus shift with markings so an assistant can do that. However, the new HDV cameras can do repeatable focus shifts, so even that difference is about gone. The "professional" lenses still have an edge in that it's a lot faster to snap into focus and set aperture accurately. But the electronic lenses have another edge--auto focus when you need it, as well as stabilization.

When I categorize a camera into the "professional" realm, I'm always referring to 1/2" 2/3" chip ENG type cameras. It's not meant as any attempt to say one thing is better than another, just different and sometimes for different purpses. The problem is that when somebody uses the word "professional," then there is the implication, to some, that he's saying that other things are "nonprofessional," and therefore inferior. That's not the case, at least it wasn't intended to be.

What we need is a word that means "high end 1/3" chip handycam style camcorder," and a word that means "larger 1/2" or 2/3" chip shoulder mount style ENG type camcorder." I guess you could say "ENG camcorder" for the big ones, and that, actually, is pretty accurate and has been used for a long time. But what do we call the smaller ones? I hate the non-word, "prosumer." For two reasons. First, it's not a real word. Second, it implies the cameras under discussion are partially consumer cameras, and they really aren't. How many people spend over $5K for a home movie camera to shoot video of their kids? Maybe some hobbyists, I dunno. I also don't like calling them "handycams" because that sounds dumb.

Important enough, Bill, that perhaps this should become its own discussion topic.

I'm feeling rather militant about this non-word "prosumer" these days and I'm considering its complete eradication from our forum message database. Plus, a two-strike warning system for anybody that ever mentions it again (oops, one strike against me already).

In addition to the real need for new terms that accurately reflect what these camcorders are, I'm also proposing that we eliminate these poorly outdated and completely inaccurate descriptors for chip sizes. Because a 1/3rd-inch chip isn't really one-third of an inch, nor is any chip size nomenclature actually the size it says it is (they're all much smaller). Plus, a 1/3rd-inch native 4:3 chip is not the same size as a 1/3rd-inch native 16:9 chip. I think we need to refer to image sensor sizes in millimeters, and in actual diagonal measurements too, not in imaginary circles drawn around these rectangular chips just because, well, "that's how we measured tubes back in the day." Ancient history. No significant relevance to the current state of technology today either (yeah, I know, the lens mounts are relevant, but not for too much longer).

As for the people who really do spend over $5,000 for a home movie camera to shoot video of their kids, there's already a term for the camcorders they use. They're called Dentist Cams. Because you've got to be a dentist (or a doctor, or a lawyer) to afford that kind of a luxury item.

This range of gear is one of two things... either it's a business tool or it's a luxury item. If it's not being used to generate some kind of revenue, that is, if it doesn't pay for itself... then it's strictly a luxury item. To me, that's where the distinction lies between "professional" and "consumer." From my point of view, it's all about how it's used.

Good idea.
To kick off, here's a table with some sizes (diagonal, widt, height for a variety of 4:3 aspect ratio sensors) :

Great. The (your word here) cameras we talk a lot about have 6mm chips (diagonally measured). What about the 16:9 chip ones? That's the real figure, since all of them native are 16:9 now. I think the (your word here) cameras probably shouldn't be based on chip size, since the new Sony V1 (your word here) camera has smaller chips but is a camera in the same (your word here) category.

Henceforth, I will not say "prosumer."

Prosumer.

'Ey! Off with 'is ead! 'E said "prosumer," the bloody bloke said "prosumer!" ("Life of Brian," Monty Python).

Chris:

I have to disagree with you. While I am an attorney, I know plenty of people out their, wage earners and the rest, who spend $5,000 and
$ 10,000 on spare time pursuits annually. Golfing, RV and motorcycles, off road racing, and big screen t.v.s all come to mind immediately And, not all attorneys make more than videographers or plumber or dentists. I don't know if you have actually done the demographics, but from my view of the people on this forum is that there are about 15% here who actually earn a decent living from video production. Another 20% fool around and make a little money, now and then. Another 25% are looking for a carreer, and a balance of the regulars are doing this out of a "love" for the process and an enjoyment of "film" making. There are a select few who get the latest cameras because they are the latest (NBA basketball players seem to be into it big time, ala Chris Webber) Nothing scientific about estimate, just a feeling from my experience here. Your site serves and benefits all of these people, and I think you might be underestimating who and what type of person other than professional would invest in a $5,000 camera..

Chris B. is right. I just shot a big international event last week. All the pro media were credentialed & tagged around the neck. The number of DVX 100s, Z-1s, XLs, etc. on bare necks was staggering. They couldn't all be dentists.

Apparently, the professionalism of the inanimate camera is indeed significant.

I tried to get a Sony Z1U "Accidental Damage" extended warranty from the Sony Style store and was turned down because my camera was "professional" product from the "professional" division. I will drive there tomorrow and tell them that my Sony Z1U can not be "professional" as it is an inanimate object. Surely, they will then sell me their comprehensive extended warranty.

Glint, very much agreed. I've sold pieces shot using mpeg4 clips from my still camera with sync sound off of a consumer voice recorder plugged into a $29.95 mini-jack lav. That was "professional." And I make my living from my Sony A1U, which, aside from the fact that it has XLR inputs, is almost certainly not a professional camera by *anyone's* definitions.

jeeez!! here we go, again, with the labels. why can't we just let go of all this BS. If video is your passion, what does it matter. Is there some resent against dentists? Seems to me, many times, a dentist can afford much nicer equipment than a struggling cameraman waiting tables to pay the rent. It's all so much of a waste of time to categorize, label and descriminate.

having said that, I'll add that from a purely subjective opinion, I really, really like my new HD110. It's so much more of a pleasure to use than my XL2. and it's infinitely adjustable....automatic....what's that?

The fact is, these cameras come from completely different divisions of the company. Sales, warranty support and service for the professional products is handled completely differently. SonyStyle is strictly a consumer outlet. You can't buy a Z1 or a PD-170 from SonyStyle, so why would they sell you a warranty for one?

The combination uses of business and luxury consumer that were pointed out by Chris Hurd have been known for years. Due to this, I have been calling my VX2000 (recently sold) a "biZluX" camera since before the google was popular. It has both a Z and an X making the word totally hip and if you capitalize those letters it looks like 1337-speak which is far more useful in today's world than standard English. Ya gotta know how to talk to teh kids these days. If you call it "prosumer", you are just a square.

The truly funny thing is that with the number of professionals using this forum, we could change the word that "prosumer" cameras are called. :)

I don't think the definition will disappear simply because it was banned from this forum. Of course we could simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend we're still living in the stone age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumer

Don't underestimate the power of The Force.

When I was shopping around for an HDV camcorder, I noticed that the Sony Store offered an accidental damage warranty for the FX1. I liked Sony's terms better than Mack's . So, I asked the Sony Style store if they would sell me a warranty for an FX1 that I purchased from another source (BH Photo). No problem. One salesperson actually provided me with quotes for both the FX1 and Z1U. When I went back for the Z1U, they asked me for my sales slip so that they could FAX it to their parent division. I was close to the 30-day deadline, and they couldn't get the Z1U warranty in time, so I just bought a Mack warranty.

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary and found that "Prosumer" had been added. Further checking also revealed the word "gullible" had been removed.

TT

We're in shallow and dangerous waters when a wiki is cited as being authoritative. Oxford dictionary still holds sway, however. ;-)
But I love "gullible."
So many of us are.

Aaackkk!!!! Wickipedia has "prosumer" as if it's a real word! History is going to look back on that entry as the beginning of the end of civilization.

That settles it. I hereby declare the non-word officially banned.

I always felt the word "prosumer" was a good way for the companies to tell us that it is user friendly enough for everyday consumers yet sturdy enough and with enough manual controls and features to appease a professional. I thinks it's better than saying a hybrid consumer/professional camcorder. Or a mixed camdorder. Or whatever else they might call it. Plus, "prosumer" sounds alot better than "confessional". :)

Ozzy

I think what we have are Compact Professonal HD camcorders--CPHD camcorders, and ENG camcorders, and PHDs--Professional HD camcorders, ie., the HDCAMS, Varicams, etc. So, CPHD, PHD and ENG.
Nah, that sucks too.
OK, I give up.

It is just an indication. There are three main categories: consumer, prosumer and professional. It is hard to distinguish what is professional and what is not. I think the build quality is of great importance as well as the feature set. I would not call a Sony HDR-FX7 a professional camera. It's a prosumer camera. The HVR-HC1 and HC3 are clearly consumer camcorders. Everything above $2000 is a prosumer camera in my eyes. The line between prosumer and professional is harder to define. Sony for example, lists the V1 and Z1 on their professional site, and not on their consumer site. Which would indicate that those are professional video camera's. I think within the professional video camera category, there is just a low, middle and high segment. The Cine Alta is clearly in the high segment, whereas the V1 and Z1 are in the low segement.

But I really do not see the problem of using prosumer. The alternative would be to call it the "amateur segment". Let's keep it prosumer.

I think Bill Pryor is on to something.
Compact versions of things are:
1) usually less expensive
2) have fewer features
3) represent a trade off between size and function
When I think about it, the Z1 really does seem to be a "compact" version of a pro level camera.
To me, "Prosumer" sounds self contradictary to the point of stupidity.
So, why not:
-Consumer
-Compact Pro
-Pro

IMHO, price is the major determinant in which cameras compete with each other. After price, it is features/functionality. Clearly, if two products are the same except for a significant price difference, the cheaper one wins. However, most buyers...of any product...will consider any alternative in their price range.

So, the A1, V1, Z1, HD110, and to a lesser extent the HVX200 would be competitors. The H1 and G1 would more likely compete with the HD200/250 and to a lesser extent the HVX200.

If the SI-1920 was in a prosumer handycam package, would it be less of a camera? I don't know, however it would be sitting on the tripod behind me.

Why name it anything? We don't give different names to different sizes of HDTVs do we?

I'd like to see camcorders borrow more of the features found on higher end DSLRs :

1) Focusing zones and dynamic group modes (even if they don't work at f/5.6 and smaller apertures). Camcorder auto-focus really has to get out of the "focus on the back wall" mode.

2) video histograms or colored-metering-zebra stripes on record and playback , if even held for one frame after computing

3) audio level histograms
Held over the last few seconds
Those peak meters don't hold long enough to be useful for level adjustment