Does Panasonic make an $80,000.00 camcorder???

E

Evro

Well-known member
Hi guys,

As a DVX & XL2 events shooter I get annoyed when I see some claims made by other videographers. Anyhow I'm not sure if I've posted this in the right area however...

I found this 'professional' videographer who says that he shoots events with available light only using some Panasonic 910 model camera that costs about $100,000.00 AUD (about $80,000US)!!!!

Check the 'About Us" section of his website at: http://www.available-light.com/

I was drawn to the attention of this guy because of a full page advert in a very expensive Australian Bridal magazine.

1) Is this guy talking crap?
2) Why would you use such an expensive camera to shoot weddings & events?
Can you imagine the repayments & depreciation??!!!!
 
HEH, thats funny. What a massive claim. That said you can probably pick one of these bad boys up in Aus for around $20K - $25K AUD used? Guess only.

This is a HD DVCPro 50, 2/3" CCD cam with native 16:9. Its no slouch, but not $100K AUD.

That website is one of the worst I have ever seen.
 
What I find surprising is the claim that he assures his customers he only uses available light!

Can you really shoot in any lighting conditions with 2/3" CCD camera??

When I switched to my first DVX after years with an SVHS Panasonic M4 I was very consious of using too much light however, most of my indoor footage ended up looking lifeless & noisy so I don't understand how you cannot use any additional lighting, especially for events where you don't have the luxury of being able to re-position your talent for optimum lighting.
 
It seems the more expensive the camcorder gets, the uglier it gets... :)

But than when you get to the $45K camcorder on the Panasonic site... your stunned...
 
Yeah... that website is complete crap. What's worse is the fact that he's attempting to "sell" the "no lights" as a benifit, not what it actually is (lack of gear, and knowledge).

Despite how stupid it sounds, it's actually kind of clever. To people that know NOTHING about video/film, they may find the idea of shooting "all natural" enticing.

Problem with that is that you can do as much advertising as you want, but word of mouth in the event business goes much further, and when he give's the client their final product, it's going to look like crap. No more business for Mr. Bullsh!t ;)

-brown

p.s. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy stole a camcorder, knows nothing about video/film, and just want's to make some money off of his recently "acquired" camcorder.
 
Selling "no lights" as a benefit would probably play well to wedding clients who don't want their "once in a lifetime" event ruined by some videographer pointing bright lights at everyone.

Of course, the video itself will be far worse than it could have been with a little light, but I can see how the guy would make the claim and how someone (who doesn't know what that compromise entails!) would buy into it and see it as a "benefit."
 
By the way, he's not talking about the HDX900 that you guys are linking to. This is a much-older (7-year-old) Panasonic AJ-910, which is not HD, it's a DVCPRO50 camcorder. He acknowledges that it was the "official camera" of the Sydney Olympics; remember that those were in 2000! I sincerely doubt anyone ever spent $100,000 on one of those, but I don't know what they went for when new.
 
Well beziermask- It sounds to me that this videographer is blowing a bit of hot air... "$100K Cam- Panasonic AJ-910" and still recording weddings? A bit excessive for such a category of work... I've seen "Pros" do some awesome jobs in capturing weddings even with some consumer 1ccd cams- it's not the cam, it's the operator...

Also, if I am not mistaken, If you have $$ to shell out, then you may get that page in that mag- Ads are ads in some cases- if I am wrong then someone correct me; but this guy IMO just seems to not have something right. Man do I get annoyed!

peace
elijah

p.s.-that website IS horrible and i bumped into an ad for a Panasonic AJ-910- $15000-
 
I dunno . . . if I was using a 2/3" cam and was in the event business, I'd play up its advantages over everyone else shooting Mini-DV.
 
David Jimerson said:
I dunno . . . if I was using a 2/3" cam and was in the event business, I'd play up its advantages over everyone else shooting Mini-DV.
Click to expand...

Yes David there is some truth in what you say - I'd love to have a 2/3" CCD cam, but it would not be a sound business investment for event work because the return is so much lower. Even with the monetary aspect out of the way, using a bulkier & more expensive cam for weddings would reduce one's level of creativity in terms of movement and use in more daring situations. I've seen the work of some competitors who use large format Sony DVCAMs and their work is pretty ordinary 'on-the-shoulder' ENG stuff.

My DVX gets treated pretty badly at times, especially on the dancefloor and I often have to clean the body & lens from drink splatters the following day. I would never dream of using my XL2 like that because it's just too bulky, fragile & precious.

Man I've come to love my DVX so much that I've even had thoughts of selling the XL2 and trading up to the HVX. In fact my business partner's initial support for buying the XL2 is begining to deteriorate and she's telling me with the money we blew on the XL2 & accessories we could have bought another two DVX's.
We're having so much trouble colour matching the footage from both cams in post - what with the DVX leaning towards the red & the XL2 towards the green. Why are we guys always so obsessed with camera size??!! ;)

Maybe I should have listened to her :(
 
Last edited:
This guy sounds pretty smart to me. His way of advertising is exactly what I would do in the same situation. In his line of work (wedding, live events) there's a really good chance that most people don't know a one chip from a three chip, so they judge by how the equipment looks and how much it costs. "Hey, if that camera costs 100k, it MUST be good! Wow, that camera is huge! It MUST be good! And if this guy is using a 100k camera, he MUST be good!"

And I'm not sure why 2/3'' camera is excessive for wedding. The guy covering my sister's wedding used a 2/3'' JVC cam (one of the older model, can't remember which) and it came out pretty good.
 
jade8472 said:
And I'm not sure why 2/3'' camera is excessive for wedding. The guy covering my sister's wedding used a 2/3'' JVC cam (one of the older model, can't remember which) and it came out pretty good.
Click to expand...

Jade8472, I agree that a cam with 2/3" CCDs has a definite advantage over one with 1/3" CCDs. However, give me an old SVHS cam with a couple of redheads and a pepper and I bet I can produce something much better looking than any 2/3" CCD cam with only-available light. By the way I'm not doubting this guy's business sense, just his credibility as a videographer. He comes across like he just bought one of those "Become a Wedding Videographer and make $500,000 a year" packages on e-bay. The problem is that it is this type of business that gives event videography a bad name.
 
Last edited:
As long as we're on the subject of 2/3'' chip camera, can someone explain to me the advantages of having a bigger chip size? Two I already know of are greater DOF and better low light performance. What about the image produce?
 
It's actually a smaller depth of field, which can be a disadvantage in some situations.

Better low light performance also implies a cleaner image (less noise) at any given level of light.
 
beziermask said:
What I find surprising is the claim that he assures his customers he only uses available light!

Can you really shoot in any lighting conditions with 2/3" CCD camera??

When I switched to my first DVX after years with an SVHS Panasonic M4 I was very consious of using too much light however, most of my indoor footage ended up looking lifeless & noisy so I don't understand how you cannot use any additional lighting, especially for events where you don't have the luxury of being able to re-position your talent for optimum lighting.
Click to expand...

You get a bit more out of the 2/3 inch cam but you should almost always light indoor shoots. Room lighting just looks bad unless its directional such as a row of windows at your back
 
Even with the monetary aspect out of the way, using a bulkier & more expensive cam for weddings would reduce one's level of creativity in terms of movement and use in more daring situations.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I shoot with both an older Sony 2/3" DVCAM (DXC D30) and a DVX100A (our management is about to replace the 2/3" shoulder mounts with only DVX or similar). Everything that is run&gun shooting is so much easier and better with the shoulder mount, I really hate the DVX for such purposes. With the shoulder mount I am so much quicker with focus and iris because I do it manually only and it's fast and reliable. When I want to set focus and iris manually on the DVX I need 3 times as long and with moving objects setting the focus manually is near impossible.

When shooting in movement (walking) I can make much steadier pictures than with the DVX, from the shoulder or holding it low. This is especially true with a nice wide-angle optic (which we unfortunately do not have at work, all we have is a standard 9-166 zoom lens, 9mm being about the same wide angle as the DVX's 4.5mm). There's a reason why everybody working for national TV (at least here) uses 2/3" shoulder mounts with 6-7mm wide angle lenses (doesn't have to be new, you can get used equipment like that in the price range of a HVX200)

So, in my opinion I can work well with the DVX as long as it's not quick run&gun shooting - and a wedding would be the kind of situation where I'd rather have a shoulder mount.
 
Last edited:
That's a very interesting opinion FBAS. I definitely agree with you about manual lens control on professional cams; I learnt camera craft shooting weddings with a National tube camera in the mid 80's (when we needed floodlights) which is why I just can't get used to the crap lens controls on my XL2. The DVX is a dream to focus compared to the XL2.

The reason I say bigger cams impede creativity is because they kind of force you into the shoulder mounted shooting angle especially on long shoots after fatigue & backache sets in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top