Of course you?re going to run into problems with a poor DV camera as far as lighting goes. So it all depends on the quality of the DV you use. For instance, when it comes to lighting, the SDX900 is great for just this reason. Also, the depth of field issue can be greatly improved with the SDX900 by simply adding the P+S Technik Pro35 lens adapter to this camera.
So to IBL, keep the faith even if the purists tell you it's not going to last, because DV is here to stay and only improving, not being replaced. Sony has already incorporated blue ray technology into their new line of DV cameras. <-- Millions of dollars in R&D on a soon to be extinct format? Sony is smart so I think not.
If I were you I would go DV. However, I would truly consider DVX's bigger Brother SDX900. I have seen both cameras perform side by side, and my thoughts were:
"Hmm...I can see why people say that the DVXA can look like film synthesized," but it still had some reminisces of video and practically all DVX shots do in some way. Nevertheless when I saw the SDX900 performance I was like "Someone pass the popcorn please." If you haven't already, check out this article:
http://www.cinematography.com/articles/sdx900.asp.
If you have the money, you should consider the SDX and rent the P+S Technik Pro35 lens.
I also wouldn't be concerned with distribution because the whole purpose isn't to sell you short (financially); it?s to be an innovator by making good films. I believe that the DP?s, who looking down upon DV filmmakers, are just speaking out of arrogance and obstinacy. IBL remember, be a leader not a follower. So for this reason as you humble yourself and use a medium that others may laugh at, you'll learn new things that they are to scared to learn.
As a documentary film director, I've learned quickly that this format is ideal for both distribution and financial prudence.
So be wise.
Good Luck to all!!
