October 24, 2014, 09:55:36 AM

Author Topic: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video  (Read 4731 times)

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2014, 02:18:41 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews.  Can you link us to one?  Thank you.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2014, 02:18:41 PM »

Vivid Color

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2014, 02:42:19 PM »
Thank you for all for the comments and the feedback.

I tried blogging but it's more frustrating than vlogging. I think this is a better format for me to use. I understand how tediously long a video can get when doing something technical like comparing lenses but it's hard to make a video brief when doing.

In reality, I compared two lenses on two bodies, at all apertures, plus added IS tests and my opinions in under 30 minutes on video. I'm very satisfied at managing that.

Still, most of the time it's better to view this on a stills webpage but I like the connection that can be made through video.

@RL: I forgot to add my thanks to you for not only taking your time to make such a comprehensive review, but also to take your time to make the video and share it with us. As I said, your video convinced me to buy Canon's new ultra wide.

The only unfortunate thing is that this is such a good lens, and the demand will likely be high, so there will be little incentive for Canon to put this lens on sale or offer a rebate in the near future. This is one prediction in which I really hope I'm wrong! :)

No Mayo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2014, 03:04:58 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

While I do not feel that your criticism is "asswholish," I do recognize a tone of entitlement in your response. RL has gifted his time and energy to anyone who may choose to accept it. It is what it is and you can choose to invest half an hour or not. It is presented in a conversational way as if we dropped by his house and wanted to see his findings first hand. Your desire for a more published book report from him (for free) so that you may enrich yourself with his findings while not drawing attention to yourself in the workplace is arrogant at best.

No Mayo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2014, 03:20:48 PM »
RL, thanks for the info! It is very much appreciated. You may have covered this, but while the differences in IR performance at the wide end were more similar than you expected, these tests were performed on a crop sensor that was effectively eliminating the weakest portion of the 17-40 lens. I wonder if the difference in edge/corner performance would have been more dramatic if IR tests were done with a full frame sensor. Thanks again!

fish_shooter

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
    • salmonography.com
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2014, 03:27:50 PM »
Thanks for the vids!! I think video was a good way to exploit the compare tool in Lightroom. It might take a lot of 100% snippets to show the same thing in a static format. If you spent hours if not days doing re-takes and editing you might have a produced more polished product but I am not sure of the cost/benefit ratio, especially if you wanted to get a review out asap. I noticed the clock in your IR camera is way off.
Cheers from Alaska!
Tom (BTW I have the 16-35/4 L on order!)

Khalai

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • Let there be (flattering) light!
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2014, 05:04:45 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

If the review is narrated, you can just also listen on the background while doing other stuff :)
6D | 7D | 16-35/4L | 24-70/2.8L II | 50/1.4 (release 50/1.4 II already!) | 100/2.8L | 70-200/2.8L II

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2014, 05:57:24 PM »
if RL is anything like me, one of his reasons for doing this was for the experience and to try something new

isn't that what life is about?

« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 07:58:44 PM by Northstar »
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2014, 05:57:24 PM »

quod

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2014, 07:31:11 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews.  Can you link us to one?  Thank you.
You must be a sensitive person.  Opinionated too.  I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2014, 08:05:01 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

You're right...assholish.

I'd love to see one of your reviews.  Can you link us to one?  Thank you.
You must be a sensitive person.  Opinionated too.  I couldn't watch it at work, either, but I sure would have enjoyed the brief review in text form.

No, I just love the sense of entitlement.  If you're not happy with his (free) review you can do your own text review and post it.  We'll look forward to it.  And when you post it, we'll also bitch about it how it wasn't the way we wanted it.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2014, 08:16:15 PM »
I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison.  It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well ;)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3934
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2014, 08:56:10 PM »
I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison.  It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well ;)

It's the worst! I can't believe you even thought it made sense to bother writing it! Jeez!!!!

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2014, 09:12:53 PM »
I'm planning a 16-35 f/4 IS to 24L II, 24-70 II, TS-E 17, & TS-E 24 II comparison this weekend and since I couldn't do a video review to save my life, it will necessarily be a written comparison.  It won't be nearly as detailed as RL's, but I look forward to hearing people complain about my free write up as well ;)

It's the worst! I can't believe you even thought it made sense to bother writing it! Jeez!!!!
LOL ;D

weixing

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2014, 10:33:32 PM »
Hi,
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.
   It's about personal preference of the author and what he think his target audience prefer... some like video, some like written review... Or may be doing a video is easier for the author than doing a written review... For example, why making a movie instead of writing a novel?? Because some people prefer reading a novel and some people prefer seeing a movie... best if the author got time, do both.

   Anyway, video review got their advantage because you can see the "real" item in the video. For example, when I wrote the the AF speed of the new lens is 0.5s faster than the old lens in a written review, then you might think that 0.5s improvement might not worth the amount of price increment, but when you see the old lens AF speed vs the new lens AF speed in video, you then realised that 0.5s faster is a lot faster than you think.

   Have a nice day.
     

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2014, 10:33:32 PM »

dpclicks

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2014, 11:39:58 PM »
My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4

SoullessPolack

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2014, 12:05:16 AM »
Thanks to those who replied to my question, it makes more sense to me now, and I appreciate your insight.  Sometimes it's hard to understand why people enjoy a certain thing when you much prefer the opposite, and is why I was curious and asked.

To bdunbar79, any sense of entitlement you perceive is your own creation, because there is none.  I apologized in advance in case anyone misjudged my tone, and explained why I prefer a text version, and was seeking an explanation "from the other side", so to speak.  Apparently you just enjoy causing arguments, of which I will not give you the pleasure of.

No Mayo, where did I ever say I was not trying to draw attention to myself at work?  Not being able to watch that long of a video does not equate to trying not to draw attention on myself.  I explained numerous times how I wanted to find out the reasons for a video instead of text.  Obviously, I prefer text.  When did it become wrong to try to see the other side?  Where I come from, that's admirable, not arrogant. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2014, 12:05:16 AM »