I don’t have a lot to add to the debate, some of it heated, over what’s “proper” gear for newspaper video folk. I fall into the whatever-works-for-you camp. And in the insistence on high-end equipment, I see a lot of the old claim that you couldn’t be a real photojournalist unless you were shooting with a Nikon.
I do have a small observation, though. My first digital still camera was an Olympus E-10, an SLR that I quite liked. After using it exclusively for a couple of years, I picked up a Canon SD-200, a tiny point-and-shoot, primarily because it also shot video and that was something I wanted to play with. It quickly replaced the larger camera, because it was shirt-pocket small and almost as capable as its larger cousin.
What I discovered was the reaction of those around me when I was taking photos. Whenever I hauled out the E-10, people were aware of me taking photos. Not so with the smaller camera. I think it was a difference in perception: the big, black E-10 said “serious photographer at work”; the smaller Canon said “just another snap-happy civilian.” Because I was virtually ignored when I used the point-and-shoot, it was easier to work as a journalist, because I wasn’t being seen as one.
As I said, a small observation. But it leads me to wonder if some of the video stories being captured, particularly coverage of events and those softer stories we call features, wouldn’t benefit from those small, consumer-level but still capable cameras that say, “Don’t worry, just another snap-happy civilian.”
TAGS: VISUAL JOURNALISM, EQUIPMENT
Proof of concept: I ran (literally) across the street on my day off on Saturday with my tiny P&S Canon A510 to cover a fire that was blowing smoke into my own house.
When I headed up the hill to track down the battalion chief to get my audio for the action and b-roll stuff I had shot, the cop at the bottom of the hill glanced at my camera…
…and asked for my press pass ;)