Nightmare to choose a camera! Arghhhh!

Ron Wilk · October 30th, 2009, 09:21 AM

"As far as content is king - well, yes, there's no disputing that within reason. But I find it an irrelevant argument here - it seems to presuppose there has to be a choice between good content OR higher technical quality. Which isn't true. Get the best content you can, but that shouldn't mean technical quality has to suffer."

Let me first say that I admire your technical expertise and knowledge and, yes, your are correct in your statement vis-a-vis the dual Zebras, however, I disagree with your opinion in regards to the waveform monitor, I find it much easier to use than the dual zebras on my Ex3. Furthermore, the issue is not good content vs "technical quality" but rather content vs NO content! If one is not carrying an imaging device, i.e. video camera, then one cannot record content, good, bad or otherwise. And if the reason that you're not carrying a camera is because it is either too large, too heavy or both, then I rest my case. And while we're on the topic of quality, it must be stated that quality cannot be defined as a singular entity. Quality of technique is arguably more important than fineness of resolution. I have never witnessed a movie goer complain about graininess or unsharp images but I have heard endless comments relating to the quality of content and, or course, the underlying script. That said, I believe that you have completely ignored and or disregarded the underlying premise behind all of my responses, that being, portability! If you feel comfortable lugging a heavy camera around town on a regular basis for the benefit of pixels then the more power to you (no pun intended) but personally, while owning several high end cameras, the Ex3 sitting at the bottom of that list, I would gladly sacrifice that minimum modicum of what you call "technical quality" for the comfort and portability of a light weight camera. Remember, the viewing public is not sitting inches away from an HD broadcast monitor as you and I might while in the process of editing. And even on my 65" HiDef (true HD) television at a regular viewing distance of 8-10ft there is no visible difference between, for example, comparable footage shot with the EX3 and Hpx 170. So, as they say, different strokes for different folks, heavy for you, light for me and pixels be damned!
Although I suspect that my sentiments will be denigrated I have said my piece and it is now time to get back to the more mundane enterprise of capturing images, ciao.

October 30th, 2009, 09:21 AM	#16
Ron Wilk Major Player Join Date: May 2009 Location: Parkland Florida Posts: 407	"As far as content is king - well, yes, there's no disputing that within reason. But I find it an irrelevant argument here - it seems to presuppose there has to be a choice between good content OR higher technical quality. Which isn't true. Get the best content you can, but that shouldn't mean technical quality has to suffer." Let me first say that I admire your technical expertise and knowledge and, yes, your are correct in your statement vis-a-vis the dual Zebras, however, I disagree with your opinion in regards to the waveform monitor, I find it much easier to use than the dual zebras on my Ex3. Furthermore, the issue is not good content vs "technical quality" but rather content vs NO content! If one is not carrying an imaging device, i.e. video camera, then one cannot record content, good, bad or otherwise. And if the reason that you're not carrying a camera is because it is either too large, too heavy or both, then I rest my case. And while we're on the topic of quality, it must be stated that quality cannot be defined as a singular entity. Quality of technique is arguably more important than fineness of resolution. I have never witnessed a movie goer complain about graininess or unsharp images but I have heard endless comments relating to the quality of content and, or course, the underlying script. That said, I believe that you have completely ignored and or disregarded the underlying premise behind all of my responses, that being, portability! If you feel comfortable lugging a heavy camera around town on a regular basis for the benefit of pixels then the more power to you (no pun intended) but personally, while owning several high end cameras, the Ex3 sitting at the bottom of that list, I would gladly sacrifice that minimum modicum of what you call "technical quality" for the comfort and portability of a light weight camera. Remember, the viewing public is not sitting inches away from an HD broadcast monitor as you and I might while in the process of editing. And even on my 65" HiDef (true HD) television at a regular viewing distance of 8-10ft there is no visible difference between, for example, comparable footage shot with the EX3 and Hpx 170. So, as they say, different strokes for different folks, heavy for you, light for me and pixels be damned! Although I suspect that my sentiments will be denigrated I have said my piece and it is now time to get back to the more mundane enterprise of capturing images, ciao. Last edited by Ron Wilk; October 30th, 2009 at 10:27 AM.