Well I can answer that one. They don't weigh 25 lbs. The big fast zoom lens, and big heavy batteries (remember they need to run that thing for up to a couple of hours) are most of that weight. The rest is simply ruggedness. Those camcorders get thrown around and beat up a lot. Something like Adelheid's nifty Canon XL-1 (6 lbs or so) would not last 6 months in heavy news use.

And the advances in technology did lighten them they used to weigh 45-50 lbs.

--

Keith Whaley wrote:
Open letter to Cotty!

Why _ever_ do those cameras weigh 25 lbs?
You would think that with the advances in image recording technology in the past 10 years, they'd be able to shrink the size of those cameras considerably!
I know the weight helps steady things, but that's what we have IS for!
So it seems to me.


Have you taken out stock in the makers of arnica gel?  <g>

keith

Frits Wüthrich wrote:

Good thing England lost that game, else you had another night in a pub coming in a few days, with even more shoulder pain.

On Friday 25 June 2004 00:55, Cotty wrote:


FJW> Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy and
FJW> crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European football
FJW> championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful territory
FJW> with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 hours
FJW> (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin
FJW> and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful!
FJW> FJW> Anyway, off to bed.
FJW> FJW> Cheerio mate.





-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html




Reply via email to