Re: High speed camera vs. HD video

"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:hewNj.14572$gT3.261@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "flaming-o" <fac_187@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:CAvNj.6858$GE1.1668@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>I pity your clients if you are hiring yourself out as a professional 
>>photographer and do not already know the answer to this.
>> Manufacturers have in the works HD video cameras that will have 5 or 6 
>> megapixel sensors and will be better optimized for still images as well

>> as HD video.
>> However these multi megapixel sensors will be quite small, so that
large 
>> range zoom lenses will not have to be massive and massively expensive.
>> Supposedly the noise levels in these sensors will be able to compete
with 
>> mid-range P&S cameras but they will not compare to dSLR quality.
>>
>>
>
> Additionally, there is substantially more to professional wedding 
> photography than just having a camera. You need to know posing, dealing 
> with crowds of people, putting yourself in charge of a trainwreck, 
> convincing people who may not like each other to stand beside each other

> and smile. Then there is the presentation of your finished work: putting

> together an attractive package of portraits into a durable holder of
some 
> sort that's worth the money you are charging.
>
> I've shot hundreds of weddings over the years before I decided that it 
> wasn't worth my time, the cost of liability insurance, and the 
> aggravation.
>
> I pity the person who thinks he can shoot weddings without knwing
exactly 
> what kind of camera would be best. Further I pity his clients.
>
> (By the way, in my opinion, the best camera was a medium format 
> rangefinder, such as my Koni Omega Rapid M. Nice big negative for sharp,

> detailed pictures, fast to operate, dependable, and not _too_ heavy.)

Really. I'm surprised people bother to take pictures at all.
It must be a tough tough business. I'm surprised there isn't
a warning on cameras to only be used by professionals.