Leon Benzakein wrote:… I do not understand why people use cine style cameras with interchangeable lenses and post colour work when a video camcorder will do the job with less headaches...
Good question when you look at a simple lightweight camcorder with built-in zoom and many automated features to capture images in almost any conditions. I have recommended camcorders for non-professional shooters for personal use.
But for me:
Occasionally, I used to shoot weddings with my Canon HV20 camcorder and I got fine looking images for editing in Final Cut. My last Canon wedding in 2011 had lovely images shooting miniDV tapes outdoors on a farm with the ocean in the background in the daytime with 150 guests dancing afterwards in the field. But then we moved to the large tent reception which seemed to go well until it was nighttime. I still shot but the Canon images were extremely noisy and the dynamic range seemed to be only a few stops; was very difficult in post, but not horrible.
Contrast that with my first wedding with another 150 guests five years later with the URSA Mini 4.6K with Fujinon 20x7.8BRM. Totally manual, relatively heavy rig, some stressful angles. Outdoors daylight, indoor reception, nighttime dancing. Some lovely cinematic shots including medium closeups. Post in DaVinci Resolve. No problem as everything was manageable.
The camcorder barely did the job and the heavy headaches were in post. Sure camcorders have greatly advanced since 2011, but I’ve no reason to switch. Shot several weddings and clients always happy with the results. That’s why.