First camera for weddings... 2nd cam only at DVinfo.net

Dan Shallenberger · March 28th, 2005, 12:05 PM

Sorry to ask yet another "what camera should I get" question, but this is a little different.

I just got part-time work with a local wedding videographer to help out with 2nd camera in the back (usually). I want to learn to do weddings under someone more experienced before trying my own, so that I don't botch someones weddings on by thinking I can do it all without some experience and training.

I actually don't have my own prosumer level camera, though, and I have been considering the PD-170 and the VX-2100. My initial plan was to get the VX-2100 and use some extra cash to pick up a couple of extra batteries, a light, a better tripod head and a solid case. But, another guy told me that the 2100 wouldn't look professional enough or have enough features to be used professionally. I disagree, thinking that I can live without XLR inputs and 24p for quite a while doing weddings with this other gentleman, and I'm really drawn to the low-light capabilities of this camera. I wasn't hired for the looks of my camera... I was hired before even OWNING a camera based on my creative skill using others cameras at church and my own little consumer model.

If I got the PD-170, I would still have the great low-light, but no extra cash for more than maybe batteries. He has audio covered, so I won't need to invest in any audio equipment for a little while as well. Plus, I thought that if this works out well, and I start working my own weddings or main-camera, then I can buy a PD-170 or DVX-100A and use my 2100 as a great low-light, smaller, lighter backup camera (or use it for receptions where the low-light would be most beneficial).

Whatta you all think?

Thanks for your time!
Dan

Glen Elliott · March 28th, 2005, 12:49 PM

The VX is more than enough. There are many sucessful wedding videographers that shoot soley with VX's. Remeber you still have the option of going XLR if you want to in the future - via a Beachtek XLR adapter.

The "other guy" that you mention seems to be tied up in technology rather than content. A more "professional LOOKING" camera isn't going to get the shots for you. I happen to think there is nothing in it's price range or form factor that can beat the VX2100. It's most definitly the biggest bang for the buck- to get better quality low-light performance you'd have to upgrade to a larger sized ccd, shoulder mounted cam....which would cost you close to 10k.

Waldemar Winkler · March 28th, 2005, 04:08 PM

I use Canon, am very happy with their cameras, and would recommend them to anyone. I'm familiar with the 2000 and the 150, both dependable cameras. Were I in the same situation as you, the 2100 would be my choice. You can take the $ you save and let it earn a bit of interest while you learn what accessories will really benefit you.

March 28th, 2005, 12:05 PM	#1
Dan Shallenberger Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 253	First camera for weddings... 2nd cam only Sorry to ask yet another "what camera should I get" question, but this is a little different. I just got part-time work with a local wedding videographer to help out with 2nd camera in the back (usually). I want to learn to do weddings under someone more experienced before trying my own, so that I don't botch someones weddings on by thinking I can do it all without some experience and training. I actually don't have my own prosumer level camera, though, and I have been considering the PD-170 and the VX-2100. My initial plan was to get the VX-2100 and use some extra cash to pick up a couple of extra batteries, a light, a better tripod head and a solid case. But, another guy told me that the 2100 wouldn't look professional enough or have enough features to be used professionally. I disagree, thinking that I can live without XLR inputs and 24p for quite a while doing weddings with this other gentleman, and I'm really drawn to the low-light capabilities of this camera. I wasn't hired for the looks of my camera... I was hired before even OWNING a camera based on my creative skill using others cameras at church and my own little consumer model. If I got the PD-170, I would still have the great low-light, but no extra cash for more than maybe batteries. He has audio covered, so I won't need to invest in any audio equipment for a little while as well. Plus, I thought that if this works out well, and I start working my own weddings or main-camera, then I can buy a PD-170 or DVX-100A and use my 2100 as a great low-light, smaller, lighter backup camera (or use it for receptions where the low-light would be most beneficial). Whatta you all think? Thanks for your time! Dan

March 28th, 2005, 04:08 PM	#3
Waldemar Winkler Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Durango, Colorado, USA Posts: 711	I use Canon, am very happy with their cameras, and would recommend them to anyone. I'm familiar with the 2000 and the 150, both dependable cameras. Were I in the same situation as you, the 2100 would be my choice. You can take the $ you save and let it earn a bit of interest while you learn what accessories will really benefit you. __________________ Waldemar

March 28th, 2005, 12:49 PM	#2
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	The VX is more than enough. There are many sucessful wedding videographers that shoot soley with VX's. Remeber you still have the option of going XLR if you want to in the future - via a Beachtek XLR adapter. The "other guy" that you mention seems to be tied up in technology rather than content. A more "professional LOOKING" camera isn't going to get the shots for you. I happen to think there is nothing in it's price range or form factor that can beat the VX2100. It's most definitly the biggest bang for the buck- to get better quality low-light performance you'd have to upgrade to a larger sized ccd, shoulder mounted cam....which would cost you close to 10k.