While I agree on most of your points, I still prefer to see some helmet cam in a trip report than just some still photos. I can tell more about snow conditions from a helmet cam than a still photo. I guess it depends on "why" you're watching the video in the first place.
Helmet cam is easy...often it's helmet cam or nothing...and helmet cam wins over nothing.
Follow-cams are my favorite use of helmet cams as well...when well executed. It's much harder to do a proper follow-cam than most folks realize. The cameraman often has to adjust his skiing to keep the featured skier in frame, not too small, and not to bouncy.
And what's wrong with "brag" videos on Facebook? Would you rather your friends posted nothing about their day on the hill?
Originally Posted by alexzn
Allow me to post a diatribe against the helmet cams
. I find most of the footage obtained with them boring, you cannot get a sense of terrain, almost never get a sense of scale or skier's skill and it makes awesome jumps look mundane and confusing. Check out Miles Clark's POV cams on TGR and UnofficialSquaw. The guy is a total ripper and was one of the best extreme skiers at Squaw Valley, but you get that sense only if you know the lines that he skis. The only helmet cam footage that works for me is a follow-cam, when you ski behind someone and film the other person. I have the impression that most people use helmet cams as a tool to brag on Facebook pages about the "gnar" that they skied last weekend....