Okay I do get your point, but I believe we do have eyes as well, and when they do show sample images I can decide by myself if I like them or not. I don’t think we need any more of those rant videos especially from other creators who are also doing sponsored videos or get gear sent. I would’ve love much more to see a review from you where you say why you don’t like them and won’t use them, instead of bashing your colegues!
So glad you made this video. I was just watching a new creator's video abou some new anamorphic lenses and the videa was titled "These lenses changed film making" and I thought to myself; how the hell can that be true when they're not even released yet
I've done reviews and shared experience but don't get paid, it's generally for the learning and sharing of others use. I think your points are mostly valid but each persons motivations will be different, for example some as you say are full time YT ppl but others like myself share videos and thoughts when I have time. Some ppl were very generous with me when I was first on set sharing info and I've found YT being a way to both give back and be creative at times.
I really enjoyed my experience with the CATOs. I had created the film "Gold Bastard" using them. I am really happy to have access to anamorphic lenses with that amount of character for such a low price. I know this video is directed towards filmmakers who are also influencers and my addition to the launch was solely a standalone film - not a video about my opinion/experience, but I just wanted to say that they were really quite lovely lenses! They are possibly the most creatively stimulating addition to my kit since I first bought my Alexa Mini. They remind me of the 32mm 2x CCI Kowa lens from Keslow Camera (original modded by Clairmont - Kowa 40mm + a large wide angle adapter). I agree it's definitely important to make people aware of biases when watching gear review videos though of course. Also, you and I feel very similar about the Arles Primes from DZO. I was watching your videos about them nonstop early on because I was just as excited when they were announced haha. Those are absolutely incredible lenses and I ended up buying the original set of 5. I still can't believe I own a set of T/1.4 sharp FF primes and didn't have to spend $100K+.
LOVED your film Gold Bastard was super cool! Did you feel the lenses were a little soft in the center? Also how the F did you do the gold flakes in water shot--amazing!!
Hey Matt! Thanks so much for the kind words. You do outstanding work, and I'm not trying to criticize any particular product or person. I'm only saying that we as consumers should be more careful in how we receive new product information. I've seen too many product launches where ALL the information is about how great the new product is, and EVERY review concludes that the new product is a revolution and destined for greatness, only to be forgotten in the next six months. Personally, I haven't seen any low-budget anamorphic lenses that I would want to keep. It's true that even the cheapest lens can be used to make fantastic art, and I'm not trying to say otherwise, but personally, for MY dollars, I'll stick with what I have ... for now. Again, I think you do really great work, and if you make different choices than me, it's not only okay, that's a GOOD thing. Strong opinions make for strong art, and our differences breed variety.
@@nick_salazar No problem brother! I appreciate the kind words too. I enjoy watching your videos and I’m always happy when I see a new one pop up. I completely agree that it would be quite a boring artistic world if we all had the same creative instincts. Imperfect Anamorphics with a ton of character, fall off, and barrel distortion are exciting as hell for me - but definitely not the case for everyone. In many gear reviews, especially when bias is present, there can be a degree of sensationalism. Reviewers may either overly praise certain aspects or minimize shortcomings due to brand sponsorships, brand loyalty, and even something as simple as personal preference, which can lead to an unrealistic expectation of the product for the viewers. It’s very important that people take that into consideration. I just wanted to say that I genuinely really loved the lenses and found them really creatively stimulating. Wasn’t trying to challenge you or anything - just wanted to express it :)
@@MattBendo-CSC-AIC Thanks Matt! I didn't take your comment as a challenge or combative at all. Thanks for being here, it's a privilege to have people like you watching what I do!
The main thing I'd criticise which is a dealbreaker for me is the horizontal squashing on the sides or cato and remus lenses. Its pretty terrible, and nobody mentioned it
I am with you ... There is no reason for 2x anamorphic on a sensor that is not reading open gate. So much is trimmed down and zoom in to fill the screen. Blazar released some new 2x lenses and very lightly here and there is mentioned about how much footage is lost because of trimming
I don't get how Blazar would 'let' reviewers use them on a 16:9 sensor. There are already quite a few comments saying the footage looks way too wide and stretched so no thank you, but it's just content shot in the 'wrong' format. If it hasn't been shot 6:5, or at the very least 3:2 and cropped for delivery, it's a bit misleading, and we don't get an idea of the real potential of the lens. That's why I generally hate it when these brands post showcase material, but don't say what camera and what format they've shot in. Quite often when I ask, it turns out to be an s35 camera showcasing a FF lens... To be fair, Cam has mentioned the 3:2 vs 16:9 point though and shown the difference with Brady.
Hey Nick I appreciate this review and I agree with most of what you said. I do want to touch on the notion of content creators/filmmakers needing products to make content. That's not entirely true it's part of the process and as you grow companies do want to throw prodocuts at you. But its not the only stream of revenue for a channel. I plan to make a video expanding on this. On my channel I focus on giving real-world results of said products sent to me or I ask for, that fit within my workflow. The relationship I have with brands and how they view my content I am able to give real feedback that has sometimes altered the end product for other customers. But keep up the good work and I watch your videos. I'd love to chat sometime 😊
Hey Joshua! Thanks for the kind words, and I’m happy to chat any time. Your channel is great! I watch it often. But it’s interesting that so far, the only people making your point that reviewers don’t “need” products to review, happen to be reviewers themselves. I’m not trying to criticize anyone in particular. I’m glad the review space exists. But to deny or hide the symbiosis in the brand/reviewer relationship does a disservice to the audience. Even if your feedback has altered products doesn’t mean you’ve always been completely honest (again I’m not saying you specifically). When you’re paid for a review (even if it’s only via RU-vid views), a bias exists. No one is immune. Every channel has some kind of agenda. I’m just encouraging folks to find that agenda and figure out how it might color the content. 1- find out what’s in it for the reviewer, and 2- don’t be afraid to disagree with the reviewer group. That’s all I’m saying :-)
Bro, this is definitely the Blazar Catos. Can't lie, the footage looked terrible to my eyes. There was some weird warping that was going on as the video panned. It was almost like a vertigo effect or something. I thought to myself, If anything, I'd purchase the Remus. Man, no other way to put it, I just don't like any of the Cato footage I saw. The warping in the edges is even pretty extreme for the Remus too. I'm still hoping that the anamorphic autofocus they have coming out later will be good, though. More so than anything else, I wish they would just take their time and focus on being known for having one set of solid anamorphic that people flock to. If they took their time, they could remain in the budget anamorphic space and charge around 3K per lens. That's still a steal for anamorphic. I just wish the performance was better. I actually think the image I get from my Sirui Saturn 35mm is better. The only "problem" with them is the pin-cushion distortion at the edges rather than barrel. That can fixed in Davinci, though.
What people think looks good is super subjective, but I have to disagree with you here. Most members in the anamorphic facebook group think the Sirui lens are far too clinical and lack anamorphic character and I agree with them, plus pin-cushion distortion is gross. Also the oversaturated blue flares on Sirui products honestly look like a cheap adapter. Even the best DIY adapter setups like Kowas have EXTREMELY WARPED edges, but once you crop in and apply the fix in resolve it's not that bad and a part of what gives the lenses character and the unique look. I understand from thje perspective of people used to spherical lenses and a super sharp image that it might look weird, but if you come from a DIY anamorphic background you've pretty much accepted that that's apart of the look unless you spend 30k a lens for a Arri Master or something. Go watch shogun, literally tons of warping and imperfections in shots but I thought it looked incredible.
@@timekeepermedia5142 Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your position. I specifically like the Sirui because they are a little cleaner. Flares are subjective, but honestly the way I shoot, I don't generally end up with much of them. I do like the bokeh though and feel that the lens gives me enough of the anamorphic look without going overboard. Also, as noted, the pincushion is an easy fix in Davinci that I learned from Anamorphic on a Budget's channel. The warped edges from the Catos isn't my biggest problem though. I guess I didn't know how best to describe it. There's like a vertigo like effect going on and not just on the edges and I guess that because of the panning, I dunno. What I mean is this on Anamorphic on a Budget's channel : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3tYdKJuyLcM.html I don't mind distortion but wow, when panning/dollying that effect there is just too much. It's almost dizzying.
@@MichaelAndrews-rp2od If you watch shogun, all of those artsy shots with super distortion/compression are from a fixed camera angle, they're not panning or tracking with handheld movements and that's for a reason.. even with super pricey, wider anamorphics. The 55mm Cato is definitely something you want stationary and if you want to pan, you use the 85mm. Again though, these are tools for specific jobs and looks and not great all arounders. Sirui does offer something that's in that middle ground of true anamorphic and spherical reliability and sharpness which might be good for some, but for me I either want one or the other.
@@timekeepermedia5142 Thanks for the education on that. When I think of it, when I shoot anamorphic, I have tended to have still shots. Maybe it's present on the Sirui too, but just never noticed. That makes total sense, though, to use the longer focal lengths for panning as they are normally better controlled than wider lengths with regard to edge distortion. As I mentioned in my original post, though, I'm interested to see how well the anamorphic autofocus lens they are developing turns out. I shoot Panasonic because I actually do like anamorphic, but I like having some control. To be honest, the anamorphic lenses I really want are the 75mm Pavos and then that 45mm Mercury. Man, if I had the money, lol...
I was about to make a video about Blazar lenses… Thank you for making this. I love their 1.5x lenses but those 2x lenses look bad… very bad. The top and bottoms being out of focus is disgusting. The Remus are pretty tame and have used them on many projects
Firstly, I thoroughly enjoy your content. I'm happy that you're speaking up because I find it very disappointing what's happening in the youtube space and I have as a result unfollowed a bunch of these guys. Thanks for keeping it honest.
Blazar is a weird one. I was really interested in the Catos, but there was absolutely no footage or reviews up until they went up for preorder, and the preorder discount only lasts for a week. PLUS, the 40mm won't even drop until February. This leaves no time for anyone to rent or test these lenses before taking advantage of the sale, and having to just hope that one of the lenses in the set performs well without seeing any real-world use. Just a really strange approach that seems very much intentional. While I'm still interested in them, I can't justify spending a few grand on a set of lenses without any ability to test them at all. Hopefully this just opens the door down the road for other companies to keep pushing the boundaries of affordable anamorphics. It's getting there, but not yet.
@@LOMISFILM Drives me absolutely nuts. The Arles are a perfect example. Even the SP3’s are geared towards the photography market, which makes absolutely zero sense. I love Cooke and agree with their decision, but give us a 20/21, a 40/42, 65 etc…, and then I’ll show interest. Cinema lenses should come with cinema focal lengths. It’s clearly a marketing tactic used to lure people who wouldn’t necessarily pay these lenses any attention in the first place. Super disappointing. Obviously, focal lengths are subjective, but there are some expectations that aren’t being met. I’ve stopped investing in these products as they don’t have a long tail.
@@schoolstuff5235 DZOfilm seems to be on the right path though. I'm going with a set of Arles next year instead. Seems like a much wiser investment. As much as I'm dying to get some anamorphics, I don't trust Blazar, and everything else worth the money is too expensive for an owner/operator that doesn't primarily shoot projects that warrant it. It'll get there one day, but not yet.
@@marklholloway Hahaha. Fair. If you go back 3-4 years, I was much slower at it. It's more of a running joke now to see how fast I can go and see what RU-vid closed captioning picks up. My favorite is "Hey what's up, Skywalker bear here"
Thank you for making this. Filmmaking RU-vid is becoming a slopfarm for gear reviews only and yes I get the narrative that “We HaVe To PaY BiLlS” but you also don’t have to sell out your audience at the same time. This forced narrative of “the companies don’t get a say in my review” is ridiculous and almost patronizing. Obviously if you say something atrocious about the product the oil well runs dry; that’s why you always get these great features then these small little nitpicks to make the review seem fair and unbiased. The sector as a whole has a huge problem right now. You actually don’t even see much “filmmaking “ at all anymore
I just saw a review opened with "This camera was not given to me for free, so I'm not biased in any way". That last part, where someone can even consider himself "not biased in any way" really doesn't land well.
How about dzo Arles? Every RU-vidr saying it’s almost as good as signiature primes or cookes. Maybe they’re that good lol or maybe they just had a big ad spend.
THANK YOU. The 55mm Blazar Cato is hot garbage unless you keep your subjects perfectly centered and never move your camera. You move the camera even a little bit and the edges look like you’re in a fish bowl. And RU-vidrs are calling it “character.” lol I call it unusable.
A worthwhile discussion to be sure, but respectfully, while I hear what you're saying and agree in theory with a fair amount of it, 5 years ago, your average anamorphic cinema lens was 30K to 50K per lens... Calling a spade, a spade, lenses like the Blazars are 1K to 2K per lens, with differences by and large only perceptible to seasoned, working DP's (not your average viewer or content creator). Your average viewer on YT or IG won't know the difference between those and the vintage anamorphics used on Rebel Moon. That's all there is to it. That's the "game change". 5 years ago your average solo shooter pretty much couldn't shoot anything but a well-budgeted commercial or film with anamorphic cinema lenses, and now they can. Quality of the lenses aside, that's utterly insane when you think about it. Re creator biases, though there's certainly a benefit to being in the good graces of brands who send free products (which quickly has diminishing returns once you realize the time and effort investment... no one can eat lenses), at the end of the day, products that were only available to big budgets and steep rental houses, now being available to own for 1-2K is pretty hype-worthy if you ask me. I think there's also some onus on viewers to read between the lines *which I think is probably your main point). If a reviewer gave too many disclaimers of their bias, though, I would laugh and click out. I think you're right though that there is definitely a draw to gear in order to fill the topic/idea void. And it can be a little cringey when creators are just gassing up brands. But I mean... I think that's pretty obvious at this point.
Hey Scott, thanks for the comment. Maybe bias is already "obvious" to everyone else as you say. But it isn't always obvious to me. I often have to shake myself and be like "WHY is this product getting so much attention? I would not want to work with it." It takes a little time to remember that even people whose work I ordinarily trust can get caught up in their biases, and the group hype, and publish a review that isn't quite connected to reality. Also, I strongly disagree that $30-50k lenses from five years ago are roughly equivalent to $1-2k lenses today. There are a couple gems, but WAY more duds. And the problem is that every reviewer wants to include their latest product review in the former category rather than the latter, to get more clicks. That becomes a danger to consumers, who get pushed towards each new product as if it will solve all their problems, when that's just not true.
@@nick_salazar that's fair, but don't you think differences in lens fidelity are largely imperceptible to your average viewer or even content creator? And even if they aren't. Fidelity is a bit of a moving target. Huge names like Greig Fraser are often chasing those lenses w optical flaws or "character". I totally agree that these lenses aren't "clean" by a million miles, but what's the intended look of the project, you know? Thanks for your reply, btw :)
@@ScottJeschke I'm not sure I'd use a word like "fidelity" because that's not really defined, and therefore not really measurable. Resolution is measurable. Abberrations are measurable. Distortion, close focus distance, bokeh characteristics, flare, veiling glare, corner softness, field curvature, etc etc. If your question is "do budget lenses perform well relative to expensive ones?" the answer is SURE. But there can still be big differences to the actual work you do with them. If all you care about is RU-vid content, then sure, go with the "it doesn't really matter" school of thought. But I'm interested in big screens, narrative work, and I do care what it looks like in 4k resolution in a viewing environment where I can distinguish that many columns (meaning at least a 30-degree field of view). In those cases, my experience is that this stuff matters. I sold my NiSi Athena lenses and bought the Arles set because I notice a HUGE difference between those two. If I had an unlimited budget, I might take a look at Cooke, or Leitz, or Zeiss glass. But at the moment, my main spherical set is Arles because for ME there is a HUGE difference between them and the others they compete with. They're one of those "gems" I mentioned above.
@@nick_salazar yep. Exactly that. By Fidelity I just mean lacking characteristic flaws. And I totally agree there is a big difference. I'm more saying that I think the hype is more around the democratized aspect. That being said, I think one issue with the RU-vid landscape is I think there are sort of three categories when it comes to filmmaking gear review 1. Solo Creator (who sometimes dips their toes into narrative and commercial) 2. Tech reviewer (who will simply lay out these specs and the facts) 3. The industry day players (who are more looking at how the gear impacts the project they are being paid for). The issue as it regards to those three categories is that the creators tend to get prioritized, (which makes sense, because they are essentially influencers) and they by creating content w the gear, are essentially marketing it and selling it. Which again, is not inherently wrong, but I tend to find all three categories are of equal value when I'm looking at gear.
Love this . What about the blazar anamorphics or the laowa nanomorphs ( i like those because it has a natural flare And it is not very in your face it’s way more subtle than the other budget ones )
I always steer away from videos with titles like “game changer” “only light,mic,camera,lense you will EVER need” “this change filmmaking forever” …. And so on. And it’s always the same 5 -6 channels that do this and they recently collaborated on a short film to introduce a new camera and how it does open gate and at the same time the blazar remus. Didn’t they say that that was a game changer? And now this new blazar cato will change filmmaking…. 🤦🏻♂️ I don’t know if they are really filmmakers or just sales man.
Reviewers also seem to be blinded to the reality that their reputation is on the line. Their egos are so inflated by the hype from fans that they ignore the immorality of promoting products, taking advantage of the ignorance of viewers.
The same could be said to any youtubers. I put bias label on ALL of them without discrimination. However, they're still valuable source of information. I always skip what reviewers think about the products. I don't care what they think or feel. It's my money that I spend, not theirs. All I want is data. Gullible people fell for hype, it's emotional purchase not objective one.
Cvp is great and yes transparent. Honestly I love Christopher frost also. He does reviews on all photo lenses unfortunately I wish he would do cinema lenses which is fairly rare.
Rant away Nick, and totally agree about CVP. To me it's pretty obvious these reviewers rely on having products for reviews, so I keep that in mind. What has surprised me about the release you must be referring to though is how much content's been shot on 16:9. Let's cut off a chunk of the vertical FOV to showcase our product - like I'm scratching my head.
Interesting and good points. I think it'd be interesting for you to rent some of them and then discuss what about them would make you not want to use them. It is true that it feels like people are often sharing them because they depend on the review for money. I think it'd be great to hear the why and why nots from you
It's hard to enforce complete honesty and transparency because the cost is less relationships with companies because what company wants to send products to someone who could genuinely speak their mind? Regardless, "review channels" are just doing their job of "reviewing" a product, and that's not necessarily wrong. The issue is that a lot of review channels don't know how to best utilize the products they get and a lot of the audience don't know what kind of look they want. Aspect ratios wider than 2.66:1 are going to look ridiculously wide if they're not cropped so why are reviewers just leaving that uncropped footage in? Barrell distortion is fine when it's subtle but there is such a thing as too much distortion so why are reviewers just leaving it uncorrected? 2x anamorphics only really work on Open Gate sensors so why are reviewers using it on 16:9 sensors? All of these things can work if they're used with intent but 99% of the time they're not. And the reason they're left in is because they need to get the video out in time of the embargo and to not get left behind from everyone else who got that same product doing the same thing. On the other hand, a lot of viewers of these reviews don't know the look that they want to make. They just want to make their videos look more "cinematic" but don't understand that it doesn't come from a lens or a camera. It takes learning how to light, how to make motivated camera movements, how to color grade PROPERLY, how to block your subject, how to write good dialogue, etc. and once you have all of that, THEN you can look for the gear that will get you the look that you want. But the fundamentals aren't sexy, so they don't watch. The responsibility falls on both "reviewers" being informative instead of hyping and the audience being educated on what they NEED to get the look they want.
Hola!! If you say we are 5 viewing congrats I’m number 6!! lol Jokes aside, great to see your content and big thanks for coming forward to talk about this, indeed CVP are one of the honest and straight on this matters. Brands also add to this problem since they don’t want to get criticizes, and what I’m not sure is that if they realize that on the long term is not good for business as well. Thanks for sharing!! Cheers.
People might be a bit smatter than you think. A clear legal disclosure, of free gear, loner gear, or sponsorship, puts the viewer on notice for bias. That's not the issue in this space, it's the 70% that don't give a clear legal disclosure, or any disclosure at all. Just a side note, once a channel is a certain size, the free gear is a nice bonus, but mostly irrelevant. The channels that get 90% of the views in this space don't really need it.
Hey Mark, thanks for commenting. I enjoy your work and I’m not trying to single anyone out. Maybe other people are smarter than me, but I personally have to shake myself and be reminded of these things. Anyone who is consistently paid to review product has a bias. No one on RU-vid is saying “I have a financial incentive to make exciting reviews” but that incentive exists. Which video gets you more revenue - The one talking about a “new low budget game changer” or one talking about “another similar middle market average lens”? Reviewers have an incentive to sensationalize, so they do. That’s my point here. This particular launch I’m talking about has been vastly sensationalized, and it’s NOT a sensational product. New? Yes. Unique at its price point? Yes. Game changer for filmmakers? Absolutely not, but it’s being touted as such by folks who know better, to an audience that might not.
@@nick_salazar I agree with most of what you said in the video, and is this comment. My point of difference was really the disclosure. Your disclosure example, in the video, was a clear and legal disclosure. The idea that RU-vidrs should then go on to give extra information on top of this is really impractical. I don't think that's the main issue at all. I know the videos you are referencing, and I did not see any that had a clear and legal disclosure. If every one of those videos had a clear disclosure in the first 60 seconds, it would be very easy for the average viewer to understand what is going on, but that didn't happen. As someone that's BTS on this, the real issue is non-disclosure of free gear, loaner gear, paid videos, paid trips, etc. 70% of videos are not disclosing, or not legally disclosing. I totally agree with your comments on the RU-vid review hype train, and you should make a video like this to shine a light on it. If everyone gave clear disclosure, paid video, free gear, etc, it would be easy, or at least easier, for an average viewer to work this out.
@@markwiemels I'm not sure what you mean by "disclosure" versus "legal disclosure." Also my point is that, despite that "standard line" you often hear, there's still an important bias that people tend to either forget or outright deny. The bias is that review channels tend to be overly positive, reviewers have a hard time publishing anything negative. So the reviews are NOT neutral, not even (and especially not when) they claim to be. Reviewers are virtually always biased towards the positive based on their chosen career. Very few people understand that, and virtually no one admits it.
@@nick_salazar Look up FTC disclosure guide. It's pretty clear, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not disagreeing with you about the bias, or neutral aspect, at all. If everyone followed the FTC laws, the macro picture of all this becomes very clean to the viewers. I think the average person is smart enough, that if given a proper legal disclosure "Free product, paid video, flown to Japan" and then they go on to say "This is a totally unbiased video" - they can make up there own mind. The majority of these review videos are illegal. The videos you are talking about, in this video, all of them that I watched are illegal. If all of those videos started with a disclosure of sponsorship or free gear, etc, the viewer can then be on guard for the bias. The viewer then sees 10 of those videos, all with legal disclosure, it gives them a clear big picture of what's going on. As for the fact that review channels need to get people excited about every new product, that's a reasonable thing to say. This is not something that is covered in the disclosure, I think it's good for people to talk about that, and I'm glad you made this video about it.
Which spherical budget lenses do you think are the best? I need to pick up lenses for a team that does not have the opportunity to use the rental. And so far we have chosen Sirui Jupiter Macro.
The boring, frustrating, true answer is that "it depends." Depends on your budget, your crew size, and your goals. What look are you going for? How many people do you have to help? What kind of support/stabilization equipment do you have? How much money can you spend? Etc, etc. There are LOTS of great options in the spherical space, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure what led you to Sirui Jupiter, but that's a pretty specific choice, so maybe you already know what you need.
@@nick_salazar Yes, a good description) What led me to these lenses was their price on the secondary market. $350 apiece would allow us not to expand budgets. But of course, if there is a more interesting alternative, then you can expand the budget.
You are spot on 💯 and what hurts the most is there were several ‘Tubers I like and now their channels are exactly what you’re describing 💔 Building trust with your core audience should be the top priority and will provide longevity. Once they sense you’re cashing out it’s only a matter of time before you lose your core base and it becomes hard to reverse that.
Totally disagree with you. The Blazars, especially the Remus 1.5x lineup, are some of the best lenses in the market and being used by professionals as well. I don't have any at the moment but eyeing for the B-set + 33mm lens.
I appreciate your honesty however please don't speak for everyone. Don't use the phrase most folks when you say I Think. Because you think doesn't equal you know. I get your point of the possible bias towards certain things when it comes to money and reviews. However, something you don't like doesn't mean someone else doesn't like. So I appreciate you saying this because I too have also thought about this (especially when it comes to adobe) before and other brands, and how it creates this false idea for needing something or wanting something when you current gear is still relevant and great. So I don't hate you however when you speak for MOST FOLKS you loose a bit of credibility in your argument and it turns into the perception of you complaining with no real hard facts other than your experience (Though valid for you ) and thought process. Just saying it would have hit harder if you didn't include unknown other people in your thoughts.
Haha thanks. These PTC shots are usually pretty impromptu, just done whenever I have a spare moment. The clip on mic is way easier than setting up a boom. Sorry it ruins it for you!
I feel the same way you do. I saw 2 reviews on the blazars Catos and I wasn't sold at all. The binocular pan that I saw in those reviews are terrible! I'm not really sure how it goes but sometimes the company will reach out to a list of creators right? If that's the case I'm sure most of the more reliable and non bias ones turned down the offer for review because they know. And now we are left with a hand full who are not doing a good job of selling these things because they're not good at all... I'm just saying 🤷🏾♂️
@@timekeepermedia5142 never, but you're right,can't expect much. I'm just working with what my eyes are showing me, and personally I don't like it. Too distracting.
Dude! The industry in Los Angeles is collapsing because of what you say in your basement. Basement people are the future. As long as you are not living with your parents because that would be unfair.
Hee hee, I bought these lenses and was aware they have flaws. I love the lenses, and I believe they are great for me at this price point, to have a play with anamorphic lenses, i can't justify 5k a lense to have a play! I get what you are saying and all the emotional words used to describe these lenses. But let's be real here, all products are doing this, and I feel the disclaimers are fine. It is buyer beware. You can't protect people from themselves. I watched the videos, specifically from cammackey, bought them, and I am happy with the purchase. I have also done RU-vid videos showing their performance and flaws. You do your research and buy at your own risk.
If you're happy with your purchase, that's all that matters (for you). But there's a difference between idea of "you can't protect people from themselves" and having a reviewer disingenuously push you into something you might otherwise skip, because they're lying to their audience about their motives and incentives. Buyer beware indeed - question your sources of information, and don't be afraid to disagree with the group. That's all I'm saying.
Dzo Arles don’t fall into this camp? I got so hyped up about them cause everyone is glowing talking about them but it makes me wonder if maybe it’s not just a marketing push.
Most products fall into this camp, including Arles. My point is to be skeptical of the messengers, and don't be afraid to disagree with a whole crowd of reviewers. As far as Arles goes, I was really excited by them when they were announced. I flew out to Cinegear on my own dime to see them, I pestered DZOFilm for a loaner to review, and LOVED them. So I eventually bought the A-set of five lenses with my own money. The Arles are definitely the right choice for me. But they might not be for you. If you're contemplating them, try to look at lots of sample footage, rent/borrow one if you can, etc. Just don't take anyone's word for it that they'll be good for you.
Different folks like different aspects of anamorphic lenses. For some it’s the shape of the bokeh. Or the softer less perfect image with specific kinds of flaws (falloff, distortion, aberrations). For some it’s the overall nostalgic feeling of older films made with them. Personally I love the complex flare from rotating astigmatizer designs (Panavision, Caldwell, Xelmus). But good anamorphic lenses always have significant drawbacks (size, cost, and/or fragility). I tend to agree that in general, spherical lenses are more attractive for most projects. Once in a while anamorphic can be lovely, but FAR less often than RU-vid influencers would have you believe (in my opinion).
Different strokes for different folks, and while anamorphic might be great for one project, it may not be for another. For me they make me want to go out and shoot, and that's largely down to the separation and kind of textured background you can create with them, even at t8+. Focus fall-off around the edges also helps make subjects pop off the background a bit more. Whether you like that look or not is a different question. Personally I do. I'm doing a promo video for an artist at the moment, and the way he paints, if I shoot on spherical, the content doesn't really link with his style, whereas anamorphic does. It's down to the textures in the backgrounds, the imperfections, distortions. Spherical looks more 'perfect', but that's not how he sees the world, and to convey this aspect, anamorphic works great. In this case. If you've watched Killing Eve, the look they created in Series 3 is simply gorgeous. Shot on spherical. I may be wrong, but in series 4, it looks to me like they introduced quite a lot of anamorphic shots, and to me, series 3's look was more pleasing for the content.
Of course RU-vidrs will lie about the products they endorse. There is always a bias because if you go against that grain, no brand will work with you. Thats just how brands are.
Bro I literally was thinking yesterday while shopping for gear that I can’t trust any of these RU-vidrs because no matter how honest they say their being, they aren’t, especially if the product was given to them and not purchased. Do you honestly think a RU-vidr who is growing still would want to give a bad product review for say a company like DJI to potential lose that partnership. Absolutely not. So when l look for gear reviews I now look for people who have actually used their own money and used in real life to make an unbiased opinion
I'm not trying to pick on any particular person or product here, I'm just illustrating a lager point. But to answer your question - yes, I have used the lenses whose launch I mention in this video. It was brief experience with pre-production samples. So feel free to say my opinion about them is irrelevant 🙂 My personal opinion is not the point here.
Interesting thoughts! Definitely truth to what you're saying, but its also a can of worms. There really is no such thing as an unbiased review or "take" on anything. Everyone has an angle, everyone is shaped by their own world view. But yes geberally brands will want to work mostly with people who generate poaitive coverage. But also - a lot of reviews are taking into account the pricing of equipment, like a review of a £2k lens is definitely going to consider that as part of the review. I think the term "review" is also very open to interpretation and like you say you get technical reviewers like CVP and others who go out and use them and feedback on their expeirence. The thing about technical reviewers... I don't want to watch lots of those videos. I'll watch maybe one or two and then I'll mostly watch videos from people who will use the equipment in the field with creative application and talk about the experience of shooting with it. My understanding is that creators are pretty much swamped with gear opportunities, they're not really that desperate for kit... I guess in most cases if a product isnt good enough it just doesnt get featured - it doesnt get expsoure. Creators are often partnering with brands that they align with. As for thr Cattos most of the videos I've seen on them have done a good job of pointing out the flaws, the sharpness, distortion and the CA and stuff like that - same with the Remus and its the reason I havent bought any yet, thats all down to the videos I've seen by the big RU-vid creators. I dont think I've seen anyone saying that they challenge £5k or £10k 2x anamorphics. But they are sharing the excitment at the fact that there simply has never been a sub £2k 2x anamorphic option before... So I kinda share the excitement of many of the influencers who have made videos on them because they are exciting lenses. They arent perfect but for the price I think they're very interesting! There is also a really significant point here about the democratisation of production kit - giving people access to equipment they could never have dreamt of previously. A lot of people are not shooting at your level with a RED, nor viwing their work on large screens, everyone has different needs and more importantly different tastes. No one starts off shooting on £30k cameras with £12k lenses. But you can pick up a £1200 LUMIX cam that can now shoot open gate. Are the lenses perfect? No - but I do think they're emblematic of a "moment" where we're getting access to some crazy equipment at crazy prices. I think that vibe is what many creators have captured really well whilst still being honest about the limitations of the lenses. I guess the difference is that you're not excited by them, you wouldnt use them professionally, which is a totally valid take, but also there are a whole group of people who are pretty hyped for them! Theres definitely room for both groups on RU-vid. I would love to see your take on these lenses though!
Hey Ed, thanks for taking the time to chime in. So, you're in the review space, and you understand that the vast majority of reviews will be overall positive, and overall suggest that product X is worthy of existence and purchase. My point is that the general public doesn't always understand that, or understand WHY that is. On its face, we want to believe that product X is great. But as you've said, it's much more complicated than that. My point isn't to say any particular product is bad, or that any particular person is dishonest. It's to show people that ALL of the reviewers are going to say something is great, regardless of the total reality. Yes, I'm glad budget anamorphic lenses exist. That's great! But there's a very false sentiment that they are better than they are. If I'm the average consumer, I'd rather have someone say straight to my face: save your $1500 on this lens or $4500 on this lens set. Save up for a while and just buy ONE lens which is awesome. You'll get much more out of it. But no one on RU-vid ever says that. Yes, I'm lucky to play with fancy stuff. But half of my content is shot on a $3k camera with a $199 lens. I point this out in the video above. I'm definitely in favor of broader access to good gear. (Not everyone is, by the way. There are interesting arguments against the "democratization" thing.) But I'm NOT in favor of pretending like that any particular new product is better than it really is. You say that no one is comparing new budget options to $5-10k lenses. But that's EXACTLY what almost EVERY video suggests. Tell me you've honestly never heard the phrase "punch way above their weight" or "competes with lenses costing 5-10 times more" in at least a dozen videos. That's a RU-vid staple which I personally hate, but it's the marketing language that brands feed to influencers, and most people just repeat it. Again, I'm not trying to criticize anyone in particular. I've watched lots of your videos, and enjoyed them. I'm not suggesting that reviews aren't valuable. My entire point here comes down to two things, which I tried to make clear. 1 - as you watch a review, question what's in it for the reviewer. And 2 - don't be afraid to disagree with a massive wave of opinion contrary to your own. That's ALL that I'm trying to say. Nothing else really.
@@nick_salazar yeah I totally get that, and I don't think you're saying anything controversial! We should promote critical thinking, I come from a science background so it's naturally drilled into me. I tend to always suggest people watch as many videos as they should and make up their own minds. I don't think I'd ever explicitly tell people to go and buy something but I will offer my own opinion. I think it's rare to ever have a truly bad product these days and if one is then people just tend not to feature it. As for the Remus / cattos I do genuinely think you have to bare in mind the quality / price ratio... (also Fun?) But yes these are important discussions to have because they lead to greater clarity and understanding in this space.
Always look at people actually doing REAL WORK that you want to do and buy what they're using in that work. If you want to make commercial work with highly-produced interviews, buy what they're actually using in their real work they trust for their clients. Content creator reviews are worthless. Just copy the pro's as much as you can, they are the ones doing actual work. There's content creators I even like their work, but they're all sponsored and get paid or sent free gear that's overkill on projects. You can't buy what they have and expect everything to be the same for you.
Cheap anamporphics are TRASH. I'm a commercial DP and I'd never put any of that crap on a camera. I understand the market for it but for anyone with a clue about what they are doing, no chance in hell we are using them.
