It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions. Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people, he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew of multiple people.
The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.
> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.
Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of their kids.
People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.
Comments
It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions. Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people, he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew of multiple people.
The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.
> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.
Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of their kids.
People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.