Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52
  1. Collapse Details
    Undone Review of R5 and R6 Production Cams
    #1
    Senior Member Tom Roper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,234
    Default
    https://youtu.be/qDXPiu3wpBs

    You can't start a topic without saying something. This review like most of his others is amazingly in-depth.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    283
    Default
    I don't usually trust people who companies give cameras to. He was caught manipulating some of his footage to make it look sharper in one of his comparison videos. I usually wait until I get mine to decide on a camera.


    1 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member Tom Roper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,234
    Default
    I can't help but think that in some boardroom right now, Canon execs, who gave him these cameras for the duration of his test only, are going point by point over each and every detail of his observations.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,134
    Default
    I like Gerald's approach and he does a good job. I would never base any camera decision on input from any YouTuber though. YouTubers are just entertainment in the guise of objective impartiality.
    Great for seeing how something performs and going through lists of specs and features but I either borrow, rent or otherwise get a hold of a camera before buying.

    You have to use it, for your style and material you mostly shoot to see what a camera is all about. Case in point, the Pocket 6K. I expected I would hate it, based upon YouTubers and reviews, yet when I shot with it for a month, I kind of
    ended up really digging it, it's an amazing tool with a lot of limitations that can be worked around and a lot of potential to create images that rival cameras that cost much more.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,106
    Default
    Here's my inference from the first three minutes (supported by what has been said by other reviewers already) - if the shutdown and the recuperating times are not dependent on the environment and its ambient temperature nor can it be altered by the external cooling, then it's a simple programming mode, i.e., with the parameters set intentionally by Canon. In other words, it's bricked by design. So, if you had thought that a manufacturer that previously delivered a professional camera without a highly desired professional codec can be trusted, you got another think coming.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    283
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
    I can't help but think that in some boardroom right now, Canon execs, who gave him these cameras for the duration of his test only, are going point by point over each and every detail of his observations.
    Ive been approached by companies who wants me to do the same thing. They send me their product i review it on my channel but they have to approve it first. I have turned down majority of them for that reason. I could have more subscribers if I get sponsored of course but I rather have my own voice when reviewing gear. If you noticed, almost everyone is saying the same thing about the r5 and sony a7siii right now. Sometimes even verbatum. Thats scary lol


    1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,106
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JSFILMZ View Post
    Ive been approached by companies who wants me to do the same thing. They send me their product i review it on my channel but they have to approve it first....
    That depends on the popularity of the channel/host. The more hits/subscribers one can claim, the more flexible the manufacturers become. The YouTube personalities can often be harshly criticized for their personal opinions but it behooves them to be honest about their reviews. Because, if they're dishonest, their reviews are worthless and their channel will go bust.

    PS. When I first clicked on the Undone video, it had ~ 27,500 hits. Now, half hour later, it's close to 30,000. I was only responsible for three.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,134
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JSFILMZ View Post
    Ive been approached by companies who wants me to do the same thing. They send me their product i review it on my channel but they have to approve it first. I have turned down majority of them for that reason. I could have more subscribers if I get sponsored of course but I rather have my own voice when reviewing gear. If you noticed, almost everyone is saying the same thing about the r5 and sony a7siii right now. Sometimes even verbatum. Thats scary lol
    FWIW, I'm a contributing editor for HD Video Pro and occasionally Pro Video Coalition (owned by FilmTools). Whenever I write about any piece of gear for any manufacturer, I will test the gear, use it on real, client paid shoots whenever
    possible. I will then write about the piece of gear. I write my first draft, then send it to the manufacturer or rep company for a fact check. Gear like cameras have so many specs and innovations these days
    I want to make sure that what I have written is factually correct. Who better to ensure that I got my facts right than the manufacturer? That's where it ends though. The manufacturer gets no editorial input, just gets to make
    suggestions on factual accuracy.

    Unlike YouTubers like Gerald who get taken on fancy junkets where they get their airfare, hotel and meals comped to fly to a venue, get to drive Ferraris on a racetrack (yes, really!), get to go to the tropics or Hawaii, I don't do those because
    in my mind, by taking travel junkets to fun places, you have already compromised any shred of journalistic integrity you might have had by simply accepting the company's "hospitality". Same with accepting review
    copies to keep, how you can write an honest review when the manufacturer gave you the piece of gear to review? More on this below.

    I will confess that with some lower priced pieces of gear (not cameras, things like tripods or once, a color correction panel), after I have submitted my review to my editor, I have emailed or called the rep or company to ask them to send me a return label to ship the products back
    or sometimes to the next reviewer, I have been told a few times, "just keep it." I don't have a problem doing so in those cases because I have always written from the perspective that the piece of gear is going back so I have not
    been unduly influenced by the promise of gear. Often with these lower dollar items, it's an item I already owned something similar and I don't need it so I will sometimes give the piece of gear to a colleague/friend. The exception is software. When you
    review plug-ins or some software, the rep or marketing company will give you a NFR (not for resale) license copy for the software and we just keep it, if we want to use it. Getting an NFR code though has zero influence on my reviews of
    software. I recently reviewed a fairly expensive piece of software that I was given an unlimited NFR code for. I liked the software but it has some pricing and structure challenges that I pointed out repeatedly in my review. The software
    is great, but the licensing model they are using, I really disliked and wrote about how in the era of Covid, when people aren't regularly working, subscription models are not a good marketing decision. This is why there has been a mass exodus away from Adobe CC
    this year. Who wants to pay for months and months of subscription with no paying work coming in?

    This is my experience as a writer/reviewer for over a decade. I am not a YouTuber though. The "Influencers" like Gerald, Kai, Gene, Philip, Matti, etc. all operate under a different set of rules that in my mind, mean that they are
    more often "compromised" than writer/reviewers. And that's just the nature of the beast. Written reviews are almost dead anyway, people really only want to watch YouTube "reviews". But that's also why I look at YouTubers as
    entertainers, not pro users, in most cases. There are a few exceptions. I know that Paul from ExtraShot is a working DP/cameraman and I really like his reviews. I am not sure what his ethics are about accepting junkets, free high end gear like cameras though?

    Just thought you guys might want a bit of the BTS of what is really motivating many YouTube Influencers. Many of them recieve gear worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year collectively. It satisfies their gear fetish and saves
    them a ton of cash outlay to own and use the latest state of the art gear. Nice work if you can get it. But it completely removes any semblance of objectivity from their observations. They are mostly just the latest avenue for ad dollars
    that used to be spent on print ads in the magazines, when we had gear oriented magazines. With many of the manufacturers, if you've been critical of their products or strategy, they simply move you down or take you off of the gear
    review distribution list so the impetus is high to not give a piece of gear a critical review because if you do, when the next model comes out, you won't be given a chance to review it. I have relationships with most of the gear manufacturers
    and I think I have been taken off of a list or two for things I have written that were less than favorable. I never write about "good" or "bad", that's too black and white in a gray world, but I do write about the value equation a piece of
    gear represented for me and readers can extrapolate if their situation is similar to mine or completely different. There are VERY few terrible pieces of gear on the market these days, unlike in the past. Most all of the gear is at
    least "good" and a huge amount of it is amazing. A piece of gear like the ATEM Mini Pro just a few years ago was inconceivable at almost any price, yet here we are today, it's cheap and amazingly good.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    2 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    510
    Default
    ...and the thing about influence on the reviewer is that it does not need to be explicit at all for it to exist. This has been studied extensively in the News and PR world. The famous Chomsky/Hermann book Manufacturing Consent is one of many such surveys of the landscape. Journalists don't have to be told explicitly by the gatekeepers (in this case the manufacturers) what the "right and wrong" answers are, it's self filtering if you want access to the trough. It's the same with reporting on the military, for example. You simply won't be invited to the party and have access to this or that key figure in the future if you don't maintain a certain narrow bandwidth of acceptable critique. Again, that doesn't need to be made explicit. It's just the way it plays out, and all players intuitively understand that to varying degrees and play the game with some amount of variation. Stray to far and your removed from the list as Puredrifting says above.

    That said, I still think these reviews are useful. You just have to watch several (including several from the non superstars) to make sure you don't get a one sided view, and most of all you need to get your hands on the item as Pure mentioned to see how it works for you.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,106
    Default
    I have not seen Undone on any of the press junkets/trips. But I do recall Sony bringing out two dozen YouTubers down to Miami in February for the A6300 review. It's near freezing in most of the USA and you get a free three day stay at the Fountaunbleu, right on the beach for free. To paraphrase that Orwell dude, "All reviewers are honest but some are more honest than others".

    PS. Scotty Kilmer has three and a half million subscribers ... and trashes everything and everyone. Which is why he has three and a half million subscribers.

    PPS. The thing that peeves me the most about the photo-video YouTubers is that they don't dare to bring up the cartel. Now, most only talk gear, without bringing up commerce, but they should talk commerce too.

    PPPS. At 3:21 EDT, it has over 36,000 views.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •