Here's a little more support, Heads-
It takes about 400' of vertical descent to get an R44 at MAUW up to recommended autorotational airspeed (and RRPM) after an engine failure in a zero-airspeed hover. Push the lever down, as soon as the horn stops, push the cyclic forward as rapidly as RRPM will allow. Since most ENG work has a little headwind, you can reduce that altitude figure slightly. So from 1,000' AGL, you have your airspeed with 600' left to go, or put another way, you can put your spot where you want it simply by how slowly or rapidly you accelerate your airspeed.
It's very easy to keep forced landing areas in reach (as long as the areas are available at all) while positioning your ship, as long as you put safety first, picture second. With the great equipment mounted on most ENG helicopters, the camera op will have no trouble getting a shot as long as the angle is right, giving the pilot a lot of choice about altitude and distance. (BTW, I work as back-up in a 206 in both positions, pilot or camera op.)
As far as an engine failure goes - as folks with a lot more experience and education have pointed out, it generally isn't an engine failure that causes ENG (or most) accidents (ignoring the air in the fuel lines problem, which affects you no matter how many engines you are swinging). For the slightly (and I mean slightly) increased risk a single engine might create, the R44 will give you back reduced risk via almost no chance of LTE, excellent cockpit visibility, very low pilot workload, excellent fuel endurance.
Now I will say personally it makes me nervous to have that much power going through that somewhat cheap Robinson belt-drive system - in fact, on the R-44, that fails at a much higher rate than the engine, and usually with more dramatic results (an piston engine will usually fail somewhat gracefully). So do I think the R44 is a perfect ENG ship? Nope. But it is no more likely to cause a problem than ANY eng ship, single or twin (for what that's worth).