As I said, as a title to the topic in here it makes a certain sense but I’m talking more about the titles on the video itself.
A little story:
I attended an exhibition by a landscape photographer. There were some stunning pictures. I stayed behind for the talk after where he explained the philosophy in regard to landscape.
At the end he asked for questions - I knew what was coming. “What camera do you use?”
He explained he used a Mamiya Press 23 which, as its name suggests, was ideally suited for newspaper photography and, although perfectly competent, was an unusual choice for a landscape photographer.
I could see several of the audience writing in their notebooks, lips moving, as they recorded this information and I felt sure that the local camera shops would be scoured for examples of this unusual camera over the next few weeks.
Then someone asked “why do you use that particular camera?”
“Because my car was broken into, my Leica was taken and this was the only decent piece of kit I could find locally that I could buy with the cash in my wallet.”
So I’m not particularly bothered by the kit used to take pictures as long as it is of reasonable quality. (Ok, yes, I’ve just bought a Nikon D750 and a Sigma 105mm Macro …). You can get hung up with the equipment side of things and pay too little attention to the images you intend to produce.
Someone gifted in seeing can work within the limitations of the equipment, the fanciest kit doesn’t guarantee good results.
Sorry, I’ve wandered a bit off-topic here so I’ll get down from my soapbox.
As I originally said, few terrestrial videos mention the make of camera used to produce them. I’m wondering why, when aerial footage is no longer an awesome and expensive-to-produce thing, the drone model is included in the introductory title.
