Canon sponsored content on DPReview

[Andrew Reid]

It just goes to show that some pros will say anything.

Literally just bullshit misleading drivel to get a pay cheque.

It's as if reality TV is the new advertising blueprint for Canon.

To think this video now has over half a million views and a sales spike in 80D's because of it...

All because some dick is prepared to bare face lie through a sponsored video so he can enrich himself.

And it totally undermines what we're trying to do, passing knowledge between us on the forum, testing cameras, putting time and money into reviews without any support from Canon at all.

They can all go and fuck themselves.

The video is so cynical.

I hope Canon's dumb pro customers who don't know better do what Scott DickWanker says he does.... selling all the pro Canon gear for an 80D! That would be funny.

If Canon want to encourage this, they could have at least fixed the moire and aliasing on it! 

 

[Andrew Reid]

How far have the modern camera companies come from the founder of Panasonic and his business principals -

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/16225/konosuke-matsushita-principles

A long way backwards by the looks of it!!

[Don Kotlos]

23 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

There's a new form of advertorial called a 'balanced review', which are actually 80% positive and 20% negative. That the negatives exist at all in these review is seemingly all they require for 'balance' and I've lost count of the number of times people have mistaken a glossy advertorial piece for a 'balanced review'. It's very easy to do. Likewise it's easy to mistake passion and genuine enthusiasm in the product, for selling too. There are camera reviewers that get accused of this a lot.

Yes, there are a lot of "positive" reviews with their main objective driving sales and clicking the "affiliate button" (*cough* dpreview *cough*), but there are others that are truly about the possibilities that each camera offers.

There was a time that this site was more about what the cameras can do than what they can't. But I guess back then it was hard to even get a usable 1080p while now we bitch about AWB, AF or having too many settings in the camera. How things have changed. 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving cameras even further, but we have to be able to distinguish negativity and valid criticism. Spicing things up in a forum can drive conversation but most often than not it drives negativity as well. 

[OliKMIA]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:24 AM, Andrew Reid said:

To think this video now has over half a million views and a sales spike in 80D's because of it...

All because some dick is prepared to bare face lie through a sponsored video so he can enrich himself.

And it totally undermines what we're trying to do, passing knowledge between us on the forum, testing cameras, putting time and money into reviews without any support from Canon at all.

They can all go and fuck themselves.

The video is so cynical.

I hope Canon's dumb pro customers who don't know better do what Scott DickWanker says he does.... selling all the pro Canon gear for an 80D! That would be funny.

Why do you even care ? If some people buy this camera based on an official video posted on the manufacturer channel there is nothing we can do for them. Cynical ? It's all about business. Did you call Philip Bloom cynical when he showed up in the official Phantom and Inspire release video ?

I really don't understand who Canon is targeting here. The mass market (blogger, soccer mom, your little sister) could have been influenced by this stupid marketing attempt a few years ago but they are now too busy shooting "stories" with their cell phone, doing editing in an app and post the result vertically in 720p on the social networks... They will never buy this outdated paperweight.

Now if a beginner videomaker purchase this crap it means he's dumb AF because he haven't done the most basic research, at this point he deserve to become a 80D user.

Honesty ? Since when advertisement and marketing is honest ? It just doesn't exist. Again, we must do the due diligence with the help of honest reviewer like you Andrew.

 

On 12/24/2016 at 7:46 PM, Eduardo Portas said:

For the sake of transparency, It would be even nicer if you noted that the director used a huge and expensive

Canon cinema lens for the majority of the shots: a 35mm T1.5 that costs 4,600 dollars!!!!

 

Except for marketing purpose, it's just lipstick on a pig... Or perhaps the gimbal was balanced this way... This lens changes nothing, the sensor and tech behind it is horrible for video. 1080 that looks like 720p since the T2i. A 40 years old FD lens would have been the same.

 

 

 

[Arikhan]

@OliKMIA

Quote

Since when advertisement and marketing is honest ? It just doesn't exist.

Full ACK. The problem is, buyers don't pay any more just for cameras as hardware, they pay for huge marketing and PR (very often "lipstick on a pig") costs. In my eyes, the 80D - as camera - is worth max. 500 Euro (without DPAF probably only 250 Euros). The difference to current price are marketing costs I would never pay.
The best philosophy for camera buyers is to wait some time after release of a serious piece of camera/gear and buy it decently used in mint condition (or from a pawn shop). Doing it this way, initial buyers pay for marketing costs I don't want to pay for.

[jonpais]

I just have to quote this when I finish writing my post about how internet forums are really driven by economics, not true value. Everything you buy, be it a bar of soap or a condom, has marketing costs attached to it. And I wouldn't want to buy one used! Electronics companies spend on average 10% of their revenue on marketing, the lowest percentage of investment of any of the manufacturing sectors. If they didn't they would perish.

Also, marketing is the bread and butter of many filmmakers, cameramen and editors, and it is the only way your work will reach a broader audience.

[mercer]

I understand why a lot of people may be upset about websites and sponsored content... I don't really care because it is listed as such. 

The next argument seems to be about a filmmaker's ethics for using the 80D and overly selling the camera. Maybe he just really likes it? And the truth of the matter is this... if you can't make a good movie with the 80D, then you really can't make a good movie. People have made features with iPhones. 

With that being said, obviously this short promo movie is geared towards young filmmakers and the parents who will buy them their first camera. It is geared towards vloggers who need an acceptable image with good in camera features. I mean, Casey Neistat still, proudly, uses a 70D.

But... if Canon really wanted to show the world what can be done with a Canon camera, they should have hired Kendy Ty. In fact, if Canon gave Kendy Ty an 80D and a 35mm f2 lens, I bet this thread would have evolved differently.

[bigfoot]

Can't tell a story with a 80d? you definitely have to get the f*ck out for a walk, put some lipstick on and look at the pretty problem in the first mirror u can find...

[Eduardo Portas]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

...obviously this short promo movie is geared towards young filmmakers and the parents who will buy them their first camera. It is geared towards vloggers who need an acceptable image with good in camera features...

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.

At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video,

which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens.

If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here?

Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

[OliKMIA]

25 minutes ago, Eduardo Portas said:

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.

Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

Even if they did I don't think anyone would have notice since the canon DSLR "image quality" is so horrible. There is no point of fitting a fancy cinelens on a horrible camera: 1080 that looks like 720, tons of aliasing, heavy contrast/low DR and so on. This video is just pure non-sense like most marketing material. Nothing deceptive here.

Now we can play the shocked virgins all we want but who is willing to pay a monthly fee to access DPR ? If the answer is no, that's what we must endure without bitching.
And even if DPR is own by amazon, there's still a financial department at the end of the accounting period. Money doesn't rain from the sky and I don't see why amazon would provide cash to this website just for fun.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the sponsored post neither but as the DPR person said earlier in this thread the usual Banners Ads don't work anymore so they must find new source of revenue.

[mat33]

The video is a bit over the top and should be more balanced, but here is an article/interview from August with the filmmaker about the video he produced:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/scott-winn-canon-eos-80d/

Its actually reasonably balanced considering he is being paid by Canon for that piece.

I think the 80D is just fine for many uses especially run and gun, and would be a good option for someone starting out .  The IQ is meant to be better than prior canon dSLRs:

'Now to image quality. The 1080p of course could be better, this is Canon after all. But the skintones, colour science, codec, rolling shutter performance and low light are all very nice indeed - much better than most of the 4K cameras out there in fact and much better than Sony. The image upscales well to 4K on my LG DCI 4096 x 2160 display. In fact overall detail appears much higher than any Canon DSLR before it, way better than the 60D and 70D. It looks like the GH2 on many shots especially those at closer focus distances'

'The 60p seems as highly detailed as the 24p. Just a shame about the aliasing and the moire can still rear up and bite you, but overall the image is very satisfying when the conditions are right to use it. And if it means getting the shot vs not, then this justifies the 80D's existence.'

[Tim Sewell]

I've long read The Guardian online as my primary news source and they have sunk an absolute fortune into their web/app presence and have never had a paywall. As a consequence, of course, they're deep in the doo-doo financially as web ads don't pay the bills like print ads in the physical paper used to. I remember those days - successful sales guys on national papers' jobs were more about picking the advertiser who would demand the least discount rather than actually having to go out and sell to clients - everyone got respectably rich (well, a lot of them didn't, actually, as they spent it all on drink, drugs and hookers at the weekend and came back hungry for more cash on a Monday - but that's another story for when I see you all in the pub!).

Not any more. The Guardian have resorted to hawking 'memberships' at £49 a year to those who wish to pay - you get access to some dedicated content and they send you a nice bag. I've bought one because I have a need for good professional content - I'd be happy to do the same here if @Andrew Reid were to offer something similar.

[mercer]

50 minutes ago, Eduardo Portas said:

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above.

At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video,

which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens.

If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here?

Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

All advertising is deceptive, it's the nature of the business.

Remember when Canon used ML to film one of their 5D ads?

And I don't think that cinema lens made that much of a difference in this particular ad.

[mat33]

Yeah -I suspect they used a cinema lens because it looks cool on the movi.  And lets face it looks do matter -how many people have ended up giving in and buying a 'professional' looking camera to please/meet client expectations...

[Richard Bugg]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

All advertising is deceptive, it's the nature of the business.

Not really. Deception may be a common tendency, but as consumers it is reasonable to expect and to demand transparency and truthfulness in advertising. Consequently this expectation is reflected in the laws of many jurisdictions. See here for example, and here, and here. However, many of these laws do not apply to political advertising - hence the resultant nonsense. The notion that nothing said can be trusted leads to cynicism. And I suspect that people who think they are too smart to be conned by false information are often quite vulnerable to exactly that. Indeed, we all are vulnerable to being deceived by misinformation. That's why we need to point it out and not be tolerant of it.

[Eduardo Portas]

I agree with what was said above.

Marketing departments are catering more and more to what is called the "zealot group".

That's the hard-core evangelist kind of consumer. The one that will convince their friends

about his awesome new toy. They are absolutely vital to companies now a day, the 24-hour connected era.

The key here is that they are consumers, not paid or pampered professionals. 

Maybe the guys at Canon did not receive the memo with these new practices.

The video seems to cater to no one in particular. The absolute worst kind of public you can wish for today.

[webrunner5]

Video is the one and only thing that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in the long run. It is just about to explode and you had better be able to do it pretty damn well. Hear that NIKON!  There is about to be a war going on, and that is the mirroless, dslr makers pushing the hell out of the Pro video makers to to reach a price people with pay.

Canon, Sony Red, Arri are not going to sell 30 grand cameras that have a bit better codec wise that a 4 grand mirrorless camera can do 90% as good. The hell with form factor, I want a Great output for a cheap price!

There is only so much money to be made, and only the smarter company's will take the cake. Hell a  iPhone is no slouch now, what the hell will it be 3 generations from now!

[OliKMIA]

5 hours ago, Richard Bugg said:

 The notion that nothing said can be trusted leads to cynicism.

Not nothing in general however advertising and marketing material can not be trusted, thus the need for independent reviews.

[webrunner5]

48 minutes ago, OliKMIA said:

Not nothing in general however advertising and marketing material can not be trusted, thus the need for independent reviews.

Could not have said it better. The old "don't bite the hand that feeds you" stuff.

[Tim Sewell]

Quote

Video is the one and only thing that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in the long run.

Sorry but I can't agree with this - if you mean 'save' in the sense of preserving their current/historic size and market penetration. The fact is that there is certainly no technology available today that would let the vast majority of, say compact P&S camera users, produce watchable video. To produce anything of that nature still - and will for some time - needs practise and acquired skill. That majority of consumers neither want nor need to take the time and make the effort to build those skills.

Given the steady improvement in smartphone cameras, which very much allows consumer-level users to produce stills that look fine without skill or knowledge, I can't actually see anything that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in their current forms.

FWIW my prediction is that within a couple of decades we'll either have less than half the current number of manufacturers, or a similar number, but less than half their current sizes/values. Without the cash engine of a large consumer camera market we'll also see a relative rise in prices of the kind of cameras we want as fewer sales have to support the same level of R&D and tooling.