A Brave New Chris and Jordan

[Tim Sewell]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

... a site like EOSHD which does not follow the ad based revenue model.

Have you ever considered pro-actively going after non-industry advertisers to pull in some relatively easy cash? You have high page impressions, a large number of regular registered users and an audience mainly composed of solvent men with relatively high disposable incomes - there are a lot of companies who would definitely like to get in front of such a bunch.

[Andrew Reid]

No.

[Tim Sewell]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

No.

Come on. Rolex ad above the header'd look luvverly!

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

No.

Dammit.

I was just heading down the bookies to put a quick tenner on this and...too late, the results have already been announced 🤑

[Tim Sewell]

Time to give up and go home, anyway

[Tim Sewell]

Cinema camera's what? Jeez. Guy can't even write English.

[ntblowz]

For that DJI promo he said he use R5 most of the time and little bit of Red, I found i still use R5 on gimbal all the time even we got 2 C70, I did tried C70 on gimbal when we first got it, but then reverting back to R5 because there is still size and weight difference, and with clog 3 the colour is all the same anyway. Just the dr and highlight roll off is not as good as c70 but most of the gimbal shoot I did doesnt really need good DR, but need nicer AF.

[Robert Collins]

17 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It all boils down to two models:

There's the ad based business model

And the paid content model.

Every time a YouTuber comes out with free stuff or clickbait it undermines everybody's ability to earn money by doing a site like EOSHD which does not follow the ad based revenue model.

So eventually you are going to lose the non-advertiser friendly, non-shills entirely from the internet.

I totally disagree with this conclusion.

Yes, we will always have a 'paid content model.'

But we will also always have a 'non-advertiser friendly, non-shills' model.

That is because we all like to express our opinions - it is human nature - and we will tend to express our opinions whether we are 'paid' in one form or another or not. Now that the marginal cost of presenting your opinion is effectively zero, you dont need a revenue model.

[JurijTurnsek]

DPreview has it figured out - they provide evidence in the form of a standardized studio scene, photo examples and every reader can come to their own conclusion. Even if they could be interpreting the results through "rose colored glasses" or give a subjective assessment, their written reviews give enough details to form one's own opinion based on your expected use case.

For sure this is not possible for a newbie, but even then I feel like they don't skimp on the cons even for the highest rated cameras. Video reviews, although easier to consume, really can't hold a candle to a real written review, although the video format is handy to give concrete examples of how some feature is improving or hindering the camera. Also, a written review cannot rely on a charismatic personality to give you a soft sell by downplaying the cons.

[Andrew Reid]

7 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I totally disagree with this conclusion.

Yes, we will always have a 'paid content model.'

But we will also always have a 'non-advertiser friendly, non-shills' model.

That is because we all like to express our opinions - it is human nature - and we will tend to express our opinions whether we are 'paid' in one form or another or not. Now that the marginal cost of presenting your opinion is effectively zero, you dont need a revenue model.

So are you saying you don't need revenue to run a site like EOSHD?

Because if you believe that you are even more clueless than I expected.

[KnightsFan]

10 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I totally disagree with this conclusion.

Yes, we will always have a 'paid content model.'

But we will also always have a 'non-advertiser friendly, non-shills' model.

That is because we all like to express our opinions - it is human nature - and we will tend to express our opinions whether we are 'paid' in one form or another or not. Now that the marginal cost of presenting your opinion is effectively zero, you dont need a revenue model.

Without revenue, there will be no reviewers who test enough different models to have a meaningful opinion. The best, most unbiased reviewer in the world can't provide a meaningful opinion on the Z6 vs. S5 unless they've tested both.

 

Professional reviewers are invaluable due to their experience with many different models. I understand the dislike for people who spend more time reviewing than using gear (see the Gerald Undone topic), but there isn't enough time in a day to both review every camera and lens released, and also have a career as a videographer. No one should listen to only one source before buying. I'd always recommend both general comparisons by pro reviewers who have an overview of everything out there, and specific reviews from pros or enthusiasts who have used a given model regularly for real work but have only owned a half dozen cameras.

I'm not defending all of the practices of paid reviewers/shills/influencers. I'm just saying that reviewers who have actually used every camera out there are very useful, and that no one will be able to do that without it being a near-full time job with a revenue model.

[Robert Collins]

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So are you saying you don't need revenue to run a site like EOSHD?

Because if you believe that you are even more clueless than I expected.

Nope, I am arguing the exact opposite.

I understand that EOSHD needs ad revenue to exist.

However, independent content and opinion will continue whether the likes of EOSHD exist or not.

[Robert Collins]

10 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Professional reviewers are invaluable

Seems a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

[kye]

On 7/8/2021 at 11:45 PM, Tim Sewell said:

Cinema camera's what? Jeez. Guy can't even write English.

Neither can most "journalists" who write articles for news sites....  if you're expecting higher professional standards from a guy talking about cameras on YT than we get from people writing about foreign policy, well, I'd suggest that's... unrealistic.

[Andrew Reid]

On 7/10/2021 at 3:14 AM, Robert Collins said:

Nope, I am arguing the exact opposite.

I understand that EOSHD needs ad revenue to exist.

However, independent content and opinion will continue whether the likes of EOSHD exist or not.

EOSHD doesn't need ad revenue to exist.

It has revenue from the paid content to exist.

Which is how it has existed now for 11 years.

No adverts or sponsors.

Fuck me, it's like arguing with someone with water for brains.

I wonder what have you been looking at the whole time? Just your own comments and opinions in the threads and nothing else?

I'm not a charity, just trying to put quality stuff out there.

If the audience - that's you - is ok with the absolute cancer of the rest of the internet with slow loading pages that invade your privacy and give 90% of your screen space to advertisers, then not much incentive for me to try and be better is there?

So as long as stupid people like you exist, the most popular product will always be a barrel scraping advertising platform like a rumours site.

And your point about "opinions" not needing revenue is presumably a reference to social media where there are plenty of free platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit where you can offer your worthless comments, free of charge to anyone unfortunate enough to waste time reading them.

The difference is at the EOSHD forum, I am the one paying the hosting fees and funding the creation of the content.

Whist you're basically a parasite with nothing useful to add.

[majoraxis]

@Andrew Reid Looking forward for your next insightful video. Though it has not been the format for late: https://www.eoshd.com/news/eoshd-tv-episode-1-photokina-2018/

It would be interesting to see you do another interview video.