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.