Why the camera press need to grow a pair of balls

[Andrew Reid]

15 minutes ago, Michi said:

Yes it is. The technical specs of the HDMI-signal have nothing to do with the crop factor of the sensor. You of course know that too.

Sorry no. I am not reviewing the tech specs of the HDMI signal in isolation to the rest of the camera.

I am as disappointed with the HDMI output as I am with the rest of the camera, because of what comes out of it.

The Z7 I am not disappointed about in the least bit, either the HDMI or the internal codec, again because of the END RESULT.

I don't care about the HDMI spec in isolation, I care what kind of image I am getting from it. Fact is it is 1.8x crop via HDMI. It is not full frame like the Nikon.

Why would I review the HDMI port?! Based on how many pins it has or what bit depth it supports, when there is that massive elephant in the room of the image being 1.8x crop from it?

Quote

Now I won't argue about the fact that the HDMI-signal might be useless for some users when another crucial feature is missing on that camera. I can agree with that.

But my point was about the editorial differences in covering that one specific feature. 

Like I say above, it's not about "That one specific feature".

I can say GREAT it's 10bit. What use is that without mentioning it's a 1.8x crop image?

That is not how journalism works.

You have to give the full picture (pun intended).

Quote

Not trying to make excuses for Canons decisions. Take it as a cheap joke in a tense environment. It is an underwhelming release, that's for sure.

Take my other comment this way Mr. Reid: I do enjoy reading your articles and I do learn a lot doing so. Your knowledge about camera tech is way bigger than mine and your perspective often refreshingly more critical than that of other camera related sites. But please just keep a healthy professional distance to the topics of your reporting (as every journalist should) no matter if the news are good or bad. For me your articles about the EOS R lacked that distance. They were unnecessarily emotional and furious. And that's something I do not associate to professional journalism. You're better than the people in the dpreview comments-section!

It's not a dry tech fact-finding mission style blog. EOSHD is partly a personal blog and always has been about my own opinion and use of the cameras.

The moment Canon stop being disappointing, I will praise them for it. Although they have generated a massive lack of goodwill with me, there's no bias without justification.

[Michael Steiner]

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's not a dry tech facts-only blog.

This is partly a personal blog and always has been about my personal opinion and use of the cameras.

The moment Canon stop being disappointing, I will praise them for it. Although there is a lack of goodwill from me towards Canon, there's no bias without justification.

Fair enough. Although it's not about praising Canon or not but more about me expecting you to be the camera tech-worlds NYT, BBC or WSJ instead of Fox News, The Sun or Daily News...

[Andrew Reid]

EOSHD = Fox News?

I think you'll find more facts in one EOSHD review than in a whole year of Fox News.

[tomsemiterrific]

I'm going to hold out for an X-H2! I purchased the X-H1 and I'm smiling ear to ear at how much I love the image, how fantastic the film simulation colors are, and just how much frigging fun it is to shoot.

Too bad the X-T3 doesn't have IS.

fuk

[Dave Maze]

I know for me right now, Im having a hard time trying to figure out the balance of being true and honest, with also receiving demo units. Getting the demo units means I get early access to stuff to help me grow my audience more on YouTube. But when I receive early access products, they expect a good review. If I make a review that maybe would hurt the company, then they don't want to work with me anymore, therefore I don't get early access meaning I don't get to build the largest audience. 

It's a Catch-22 I am finding. 

With that being said, you guys are going to love my Rudy Winston EOS R Spoof video. 

[BTM_Pix]

I think the pulling punches route might grow your business in the short term @DaveAltizer but the honesty route will grow your audience in the long term.

 

[Andrew Reid]

I don't think early access matters.

Most of the time people can wait a week or two for a review, especially if it isn't even out in the shops to buy yet.

[Nrubloc]

Unfortunately, many were neutered long ago… and partially that is what marketing through social media platforms is about.

Periodically when catching up on what is new with various changing tech categories or if looking to replace some gear, there are at times just to many reviews to wade through to get at what is useful. Some (very few) reviewers do provide good information and others mainly just nice production value with little substance. It seems even more difficult for the “camera press” to grow a pair, when many have never had to in the first place. When there is no real standard, it’s a bit of a race to the bottom.

I don’t mind also waiting for any real quality type of reviews, where people have actually used and tested a product to some decent extent as well. I don’t have time to watch several little tidbit reviews by someone who barely knows how to turn on the device either. Sometimes when a device is so new, the reviewer will often give wrong specs or information, then others parrot the same misinformation for months.

Almost 40% of the reviews I have seen lately have this problem to some extent. It doesn't really even matter the price point category either. Sometimes reviewers discredit seemly lacking features or design issues and say the obligatory, Hey “insert manufacturer name here”, I hope your listening to me as you should have done this or that”, when all the while it already does what they are wanting, but they just literally do not know how to use the functions or customization's properly. They just opened the box I guess, and it shows. That of course is not all reviewers but I see it more often now.

Another 25% just skim over or not even mention some important details, which may shed a negative light upon a product. Sometimes they even just try to sell the shortfall. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if I heard something like this in the future…. “I know this camera has a massive crop factor, but while most people would find this worrisome, I think it is absolutely fantastic for the 5% of those who plan to use this “feature” for the image capturing of soaring birds, distant nature or even moonscapes!”

There are a few sites that put all of their advertising partners logos at the front of their videos, and as working industry professionals, they generally provide accurate information often accompanied with samples. If a reviewer is hired solely for their marketing services, I do understand their need to accentuate the positive attributes since they are contracted essentially as a wing of the larger marketing campaign. Maybe they should all put a big logo at the beginning of any review that is sponsored though. I don’t mind that, but I could just go directly to a company’s main webpage to watch and read their advertising materials there as well, especially if is only about general features without any real world examples given. Thorough and reliable sources work best, and if it takes more time that’s ok. It’s better than half-baked information hurried together just to beat the next reviewer that has similar access, but unfortunately the same approach is reflected in the evening news and with online information everywhere. It is all an opportunity to sell sell sell. Companies really have it made and for cheap these days in relation to advertising and access. It’s bonkers.

So yes, it seems some would need to just grow a pair as they were maybe told they didn't need them in the first place, while some others are currently being squeezed, but once neutered it’s kind of hard to grow them back.

[Andrew Reid]

18 hours ago, Nrubloc said:

There are a few sites that put all of their advertising partners logos at the front of their videos, and as working industry professionals, they generally provide accurate information often accompanied with samples. If a reviewer is hired solely for their marketing services, I do understand their need to accentuate the positive attributes since they are contracted essentially as a wing of the larger marketing campaign. Maybe they should all put a big logo at the beginning of any review that is sponsored though. I don’t mind that, but I could just go directly to a company’s main webpage

It isn't the logo that's the problem really, it's the relationship which put it there.

As soon as you have a personal friendship or a business relationship, you have inherent bias.

I don't expect these relationships not to exist, it would be very unrealistic.

However the internet is clearly evolving in a worrisome direction, where the sites with the most followers have the prime positions in our research via search engines and on YouTube, are the sites MOST under the influence of the manufacturers. I think the influence of the content with 'lifestyle aspirations' is eroding credibility as well. There's a reason so many hands-on sessions now happen under tightly controlled conditions organised by a PR company - so they can shape the editorial visually, and make it glossier. Again here there is a balance to be had. It is unrealistic to expect the DPReview team to post only pictures of ducks.

When a camera company once reached out to me, they invited me to such an event and I said no. I told them I'd rather just have the camera on my desk, that's all I need. They said it "isn't something we do". I think that was Sony. Once, Canon reached out - after a more positive blog post - and gave me a 5D Mark IV to review for a few days. Honestly it was very nice of them, but because I didn't feel like trashing it and throwing their effort back in their face, I just decided to send them back the camera and say nothing. I think you all know my opinion of video on that camera anyway. It's not good. And I don't need any pressure on my to either say nothing, or only the positive stuff (that would have been a very short blog post).

I think if negative reviews are to be extinct, customers less knowledgable (what's a 4K 1.8x crop?!), brands more powerful and marketing disguising itself as editorial to the point where it is absolutely normal and accepted, then the internet has basically been bought by the corporate world. And we cannot allow that to happen.

By the way, the absolute worst site for corporate influence for cameras in my opinion, is Cinema5D.

[Robert Collins]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think if negative reviews are to be extinct, customers less knowledgable (what's a 4K 1.8x crop?!), brands more powerful and marketing disguising itself as editorial to the point where it is absolutely normal and accepted, then the internet has basically been bought by the corporate world. And we cannot allow that to happen.

While the sentiment is admirable it probably is totally unrealistic. The corporate world will buy up the internet. I think there is already vast evidence of far more disingenuous marketing tactics on the internet being used to influence our choices than the rather blatant bribery of youtube influencers. 

[CyclingBen]

To see where all of this is headed in the video/photo/creative professional space online, go and read some “mom blogs” and forums for a half hour or so. Corporations have been doing the things we are starting to see in regards to “lifestyle” and blurring the lines between in-house marketing and fans of the brand / product for 5 to 7 years. 

Its the reason why a $2 dog chew toy can be sold as a $30 teething soother (Sophie for those of you who haven’t tried to raise a kid in the last 8 years) your child can’t survive or learn how to do long division without. 

[Andrew Reid]

9 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

The corporate world will buy up the internet.

I don't think so.

To do that they will have to control 100% every individual providing content on the internet. That is the unrealistic notion, not the other way around.

Getting back to the crux of the topic...

I am saying camera and tech journalists need to get a spine. They need to resist the PR machine better than they are doing. I say this as a reader not just as a journalist with my EOSHD hat on. I don't want to have to watch and read more and more obviously watered down stuff, until the point where it becomes an inflight magazine or a catalogue editorial. It shouldn't even be a controversial opinion. Nobody wants this to happen. I question how sustainable it is on the motivation side of the creator also... becoming a poodle, unable to speak their mind. It's as boring to create advertorial as it is to read it.

[christoph van der bij]

When watching all the Youtubers hanging out in Hawaii, you know it smells like a full on bribe in the face of camera justice. It's simple, we're living in the age of me, myself and I. Grab what you can grab and a free trip to Hawaii is of course a great grab. Free! to Hawaii! Are you kidding me? I would do the same. I would even throw in an amazing review. Live from Hawaii to show the world how awesome I am in this camera world. I would be inner circle and rub shoulders with the hardworking people from Canon and not to mention the rest of reviewers on Youtube. Hell, I would make new friends with other 'grab this opportunity' reviewers. Wow, live doesn't get any better......

Unfortunately, the cameras sometimes don't get any better either. I guess we need you, Andrew. We really do. To give an honest, critical and technical sound review of a camera and its possibilities. I thrive on our opinion. And I know about spending money for trips to Iceland. It's worth every penny to invest in those experiences. As I learned from a wise american a long time ago: Free is not a concept.

[Mattias Burling]

And lets not forget Sony's Las Vegas adventure. Its everywhere.

Food for thought: What if the latest online hate storms and video attacks will make reviewers on the next Sony adventure or Canon resort hold back. So in order to not be accused of being to positive they will fake negativity instead?

Will we then ever know the truth?

I have in the past been suspicious about some negative reviews, by the channels that also sell cameras. It sometimes feel like they throw a couple of safe models under the bus. Maybe.. if one is fond of conspiracies, to seem credible for top sellers.

Just a fun conspiracy theory

But in the end its not easy. I buy all the cameras I review but is still constantly accused of being paid or whatever. And affiliate links... thats $10/month tops for me. No exactly worth it. Plus I always tell people to buy used.

[webrunner5]

Well there has been some negative reviews from the Northrup's, and Chris and Jordan as of late on the Canon. And they all went to Hawaii.

[jonpais]

And Sareesh got a free loaner from BMD and his review of the P4K was impartial.

[CyclingBen]

@Mattias Burling it’s going to turn into “this camera doesn’t check all of the boxes, but I had an exclusive interview with XYZ manager and he/she said that this great feature is coming in the A7iii Xtra! So buy this camera now cause it’s awesome, and then upgrade to the next one too!!!! You’ll have two great cameras!”

[Andrew Reid]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:49 PM, christoph van der bij said:

When watching all the Youtubers hanging out in Hawaii, you know it smells like a full on bribe in the face of camera justice. It's simple, we're living in the age of me, myself and I. Grab what you can grab and a free trip to Hawaii is of course a great grab. Free! to Hawaii! Are you kidding me? I would do the same. I would even throw in an amazing review. Live from Hawaii to show the world how awesome I am in this camera world. I would be inner circle and rub shoulders with the hardworking people from Canon and not to mention the rest of reviewers on Youtube. Hell, I would make new friends with other 'grab this opportunity' reviewers. Wow, live doesn't get any better......

Unfortunately, the cameras sometimes don't get any better either. I guess we need you, Andrew. We really do. To give an honest, critical and technical sound review of a camera and its possibilities. I thrive on our opinion. And I know about spending money for trips to Iceland. It's worth every penny to invest in those experiences. As I learned from a wise american a long time ago: Free is not a concept.

Cheers Christoph.

It comes down to people not realising their own strength.

Chris and Jordan are entertaining and could have stayed on YouTube with their own completely independent channel and been as popular, but they chose to move to DPR so that's the game they must play now - go to all the events, shake hands with all the PR people, miss out Photokina because 'the boss says no'.

Don't realise their own strength.

All these YouTuber's chasing demo units and relationships with camera companies - they are falling over themselves to be slaves.

Don't realise their own strength.

Let's just remember... Kai can leave DigitalRev and maintain 700,000+ views on each video. Who needs a fucking boss? Who needs a camera company PR event?

I like a free glass of champaign like the next man and sometimes these exclusive events are interesting... but when you look at it soberly in the cold light of day, the core business of this blog is the truth, it's not the business of drinking champaign. Why trade your core business for the odd party? Why trade real friends for fake ones at camera companies? Why?!

Fair enough, do it for access, but then at least have the balls to write the truth about camera X and camera Y, otherwise, what do you need access for? What is the access doing for the reader? Is it buttering you up, so that you become a mere salesman to your readers whereas they previously saw you as a filmmaker? Not a wise trade is it?

It's very common and unfortunately you can see the impact everywhere you look on the internet. Should be illegal.

On 10/7/2018 at 10:14 PM, jonpais said:

And Sareesh got a free loaner from BMD and his review of the P4K was impartial.

Yeah, well we'll see how far that impartiality gets him.

He will never get another.

On 10/7/2018 at 10:09 PM, webrunner5 said:

Well there has been some negative reviews from the Northrup's, and Chris and Jordan as of late on the Canon. And they all went to Hawaii.

Not seen the Northrup one, but the point is that the negative stuff gets softened if you're doing it from a swimming pool and you show photos of beautiful models and some amazing footage in the same breath. Was a normal review from Chris and Jordan with balanced good/bad points but people are beguiled by setting and content. All the glitz and gloss of shooting a review at a PR event gives the criticism no weight, no authority. It shouldn't even be allowed because it's subliminal advertising. Mark it as sponsored content, the whole thing.

[jonpais]

Every YouTuber should be so bold as to get sent a review copy then immediately release a video of the fifty reasons why to buy the competition’s camera. 

In general, what I’m also seeing is that favorable reviews and tests tend to get republished, quoted and shared on other blogs, websites and forums far more often than unvavorable ones.

[webrunner5]

31 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Every YouTuber should be so bold as to get sent a review copy then immediately release a video of the fifty reasons why to buy the competition’s camera. 

 

Yeah either pretty ballsy or pretty stupid. Not too sure I would have done that. I mean you can do that about damn near Any camera. I guess they really pissed him off LoL.