Re: High speed camera vs. HD video

"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:l4vOj.2267$WU.1750@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <benvhoff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:xXsOj.167785$nr1.119043@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Burgerman" <burgerman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:uuaOj.50167$Ff4.16383@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> snip
>>>
>>> Yes. Its a point and shoot! Noisy, low image quality, does not compare

>>> to a real Digital SLR. Great for snaps. Unusable for printing high 
>>> quality 20x30 prints unless you are very easily pleased!
>>
>> That's not what the reviews say. You obviously
>> haven't used one. They haven't even been
>> available until last week in the US. So I know you
>> are bsing. Who wants 20x30 prints for wedding
>> photos?
>>
>>
>>
> Not many of my past wedding customers wanted 2030 wall prints, except
for 
> the really upscale ones, but a 16x20, matted and framed of the bride and

> groom was purchased about 90% of the time. In many cases, three were 
> purchased (I gave a discount for that), one for the couple and one for 
> each parent. I suspect tht I would have solf far fewer of them if I
hadn't 
> been shooting 6x7 negatives.

I imagine that there are quite a few 16 x 20s requested but
that is a little more than half the size of the 20 x 30. You may
be right about the large format negs but there is a huge market,
at least in my city for people who might not even have photos
at the price that most 'wedding photo pros' charge. It's the
memory and not the high resolution, perfectly posed and
somewhat typical and unremarkable prints that I see, that is
important.