Mark,

Happy to be civil as we should all work together.

I just looked on B&H and the PD-170 is going for $2499.

3 x 2499 = $7500

That leaves $2500 for mics, lights, tripods.

For HDV, then two bookings.

I guess my point about gear is that it is not either or.

When I bring this up I always get people saying "it is not about the gear, it is all about the talent".

Well, I would say, what if you used that talent with better gear?

In most other businesses, it is not normal to come close to the cost of equipment within a few jobs, but in the still/video world, people seem to expect this.

-As an aside, have you ever used larger chip cameras for any work?-

Because for me, after using better cameras, I never want to use 1/3" chips because I feel it is selling myself short.


I own Pd-170s and larger chip cameras and the larger chip cameras produce a way better image than the PD-170s.

Now if I filmed the same wedding with the two different cameras, would one say that the talent played a part in one looking better that the other?

I used the VX-2000/PD-170 as my entry into this field, but after I got my business together I upgraded because image quality is very important to me and I feel that it is important to use higher level gear if I want to be viewed as a higher level outfit.

I am looking at the Sony EX camera to be the perfect wedding camera right now as it has larger chips and portability for $8,000-$9,000 with memory.

Sorry for the thread hijack!

BTW, I think selling a production should start with the client as it is their event and private moments and profiting off of this should be with their blessing.

This would be a fascinating discussion for another thread I think. I don't think your point is without merit. Even though everyone has their own style and quirks, there does seem to be a fair number who ply their trade in the same aesthetic. The question is this: Is the bride's pallette refined enough to see the differences? Or does it all run together?

As for selling training DVDs, I think if it's a show reel type thing, a commentary track is essential. I've done two training DVDs that are more of a fundamentals type thing. One on shooting and the other on editing. Both are the concept and example type of video and I'm pretty proud of them. The shooting one I sell for $100 and the editing one goes for $125.

I for one would love to see a full production with commentary from you Patrick. Your work is outstanding and I'm not too big for my britches to learn something new. Best of luck!

Chris W
Watson Videography

All the pro equipment in the world won't save the video from sucking if the operator is not an artist. Gear is important but if your work is average, you won't ever get to $10K even if you own a Red One camera.

Chris W

very true chris

Tim, obviously, that would be ideal: that you use your talent and with the increased talent, use better gear. I think, the point, however, is in the emphasis of investing first in improving your skills using the best equipment you currently have access to.


Dude, that camera is sweet! If the initial reports are true and it actually does "brighten reality," it'll rock my world! :)

I see a bigger camera as a detriment for a few reasons. One is that creative angles and flying are really only feasible with a smaller camera. The other factor is the obtrusiveness of full-sized camera. I've shot with 3 x 1/2" and 2/3" cameras going back to the early 90's. I had two DSR-300 for a while in the late 90's. At nearly every wedding someone would say "oh look - channel 4 is here." When I got the VX2K in my hand in 2000 the big cameras went on eBay the next day. I've never missed them. For run and gun productions there is nothing like a small camera, not only for their unobtrusive nature, but also for what you can do with them given the right supports. If the Sony solid state camera lives up to the hype and viable intermediate storage solutions for source media become available I'll be all over a small 3 x 1/2 CCD or CMOS camera. Until then I don't see 1/3" cameras as a compromise in the least. Being the right place at the right time and knowing how to present what you capture is infinitely more important than what you use to shoot with.

To come back to the original question, for a completed wedding video I wouldn't pay more then 20dollar, for a how to video I'd pay at least 200dollar.
The reason for this is that a completed wedding video doesn't give me much more information then what I can see on hundreds of free wedding demo's you can find all over the net. A how to video, that's way more valuable to me, if Patrick would show how he operates the glidecams and what technique he uses, if he would show all the tricks in his book, only then I would be interested in paying much more because that could have an impact on what I produce and what I charge.