I don't have a problem with the cinematography. I DO have a problem with people criticizing it who have no idea what they are talking about. It's a safe bet that
Steadicams are being used throughout. The camerawork is far too fluid to be handheld without some sort of stabilization. "Handcam" doesn't mean a damn thing, and it's a fair bet that there aren't any
Handycams being used on such a highly budgeted series.
Stargate SG-1, like much of television in 1997, was shot and edited very conservatively. With a few rare exceptions, the closest it came to being visually adventurous was the use of the walk and talk, no doubt feeling the influence of
The West Wing, which popularized this shooting style.
Stargate Atlantis followed in the same style, and between the two series, the look quickly became becoming dreadfully boring.
Battlestar Galactica might be to blame for introducing so-called "dark and gritty" cinematography to a science fiction context, but it's worth remembering that shows like
The X-Files and
Millennium were pushing the envelope, visually, of television within the genre fifteen years ago. And when you expand your horizons to outside the genre,
Homicide: Life on the Street and
NYPD Blue were pushing the envelope long before Ronald D. Moore was approached to write and produce
Battlestar Galactica. And if consider the world of feature films, even solely in an American context, this kind of photography has been regularly in use since the 1970s. Would anyone honestly have the chutzpah to tell Martin Scorsese to hold down the camera and obey the laws of classical continuity editing in
Mean Streets? Good Gods, I hope not.