RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
- Thread starter RLPhoto
- Start date
Here is part 2 with an IQ and IR test.
Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …: http://youtu.be/9NkyRMdM6k0
Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …: http://youtu.be/9NkyRMdM6k0
Upvote
0
I watched it on my phone which is just sad, but your narration and examples were great and I could even see the difference on my little screen. Thank you for the review it's very well done and informative. The IR part was really interesting to see, too, and it seems like IR really puts a lot of demand on the glass.
Upvote
0
Thanks for making this video. I liked the IS tests. 1s exposure is long enough for most of my shots. Goodbye travel tripod!
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Ramon, first of all, I think your profile pic is awesome man, great job and cool perspective. What camera did you create this video with? Thanks, Eric.
Upvote
0
SoullessPolack said:
First, to RL, I'd like to say I thought your videos, especially the second one on IQ, were well done and I found the side by side comparisons compelling. While watching the video, I kept thinking how glad I am that I decided against buying either the 17-40L or the 16-35 f2.8 II. After reading other reviews and seeing this video, I know it's not a matter of if I will buy this new lens, but when.
As for Souless' question, I too generally like printed info over video for some of the reasons you stated, but I'm in the baby boom generation. We had a discussion about this at a training class at my office last week and we were told that videos are preferred to print by the younger generations. Of course this is a generalization but I find it a better explanation than people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. (One could also say writers love to see their words in print.) Also, perhaps the reviewer feels more comfortable with the medium of video than writing a review. And, finally, I think there is room for both print and video reviews as each have their own strengths. In this case, as I said, the video comparisons were compelling and even more so than just a printed review. It's one thing to say something is sharper, it's another to see it. Hope my explanation helps.
Upvote
0
I generally prefer to read/see comparisons like this on a web page, too, primarily because it's faster, but I think RL did a nice job. I'll admit to sighing a bit when I saw it was around 30 minutes long, but I respect RL and wanted to give the video a chance.
As I watched the video, I realized the advantages. By scrolling around as he narrated, his comments were directly related to what was on screen. There was no scrolling back & forth to wonder if the words were about the photo above or below them, and I was able to hear his detailed thoughts while he zoomed in and pointed them out.
RL has given me a new appreciation for these types of videos, but I think that has less to do with the format and more to do with how well he put it together and the fact that he is offering intelligent opinions when he speaks.
As I watched the video, I realized the advantages. By scrolling around as he narrated, his comments were directly related to what was on screen. There was no scrolling back & forth to wonder if the words were about the photo above or below them, and I was able to hear his detailed thoughts while he zoomed in and pointed them out.
RL has given me a new appreciation for these types of videos, but I think that has less to do with the format and more to do with how well he put it together and the fact that he is offering intelligent opinions when he speaks.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
SoullessPolack said:
You're right...assholish.
I'd love to see one of your reviews. Can you link us to one? Thank you.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:
@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!
Upvote
0
SoullessPolack said:
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.
Upvote
0
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!
Upvote
0
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!)
Cheers from Alaska!
Tom (BTW I have the 16-35/4 L on order!)
Upvote
0
