EduPortas

Thanks, interesting site. Seems like YT is the best option right now, but it's a huge time waste since most new videos are AI slop. Parsing for a "human take" on the camera is like searching for a needle in a haystack. I stand by my opinion that the first one to build a site with this specific theme will become gangbusters.

I'm sure it's a great camera, but what the REAL difference between it and the FX3 or A7S line, other than AF algos? Can anyone notice the 2.3% better highlight control at midday with no ND? Camera and videomakers have entered the "bore zone".

*Bump*

Hey ya'll! I was wondering if by any chance anyone knows a good site that reviews older DSLRs and MILCs? Yes, I know this is a bit of a strange petition, but nowadays reviews have gotten stale since every modern camera can perform 99% of what every other camera does. Specifically, I'm looking for a site that reviews older gear from 2026 perspective, a modern view of vintage gear, if you like.And no, parsing reviews from 2016 of Canon's 5D Mark IV is not very useful. I want the modern take, with today's technological ecosystem, of this older gear. IMO, the market for these slightly older cameras is ripe for the taking. Vintage sells and overall prices for these cameras is very respectable now that they have depreciated. Anyone?

So basically a 1-inch video cam in a bridge body. Not so attractive to me. The previos 2.8 continuos lens of the OG and the II version of the same model truly gave it an original photo differentiator over Panny and Canon models Mercer mentioned. This newer model seems to be competing with Sony video cams. I owned a Panny superzoom camera about 20 years ago and the 2.8 "beer can" zoom was a huge boon.

Congrats bro, any channel that is not trying to sell me some new piece of Chinese crap gets a pre-approved follow. As others have said, the background music is too loud. Try to lower it by 6db so your voice stands out. There's also a clear hum that's only visible when you speak. Could be your mic cable touching metal. Other than that it's a great start! If it's any use there's a huge appetite for retro-reviews right now. We are swamped with fantastic video and camera offerings from the DSLR and early MILC eras that probably solve 99% of every pro-user's needs. Same for lenses and sound gear that go for very attractive prices instead of the new gear retail.

Some Woody Allen films, maybe?

Yes, they knew 100% what the heck they were doing, as well as the place and technique better suited for that place. As for the TikTok videos having huge impact? Yep. Are they art? No way. "Content" is not art. Never will be.

I agree. It would be unwise to try and gatekeep it. Personal tastes factor in and everyone has the right to produce or consume whatever artistic product feels right. Just to clarify, it's not what appeals to "me", it's just the concept of art in general. There are canons and 1000s of books written about this subject. I'm just saying art should be a category reserved for something truly special, epoch-making, just like the ancient murals discovered thousands of years after they were drawn you mentioned. I've seen the larger examples of these ancient cave paintings in Europe 4 to 6 meters wide drawn 10 or more meters above cavern floors and they are truly awe-inspiring. Anyone entering those places will never be the same thanks to that experience. It's soul-moving and deeply spiritual. I'm not sure a 30 second reel has the same profound impact on the soul though LOL

Sorry friend, but in 100 years neither G.U.'s videos nor your doodles will be interpreted as art pieces. The first aspect of any artistic endeavor is of course the personal emotion or intent, as Andrew said. But that's the bare minimum. It's all uphill from there (technique, movement behind it, people you know, trends followed by the masses, etc.). That's a less than 0.01% chance of actually making something the world will remember, generally by channeling a huge amount of personal pain into something concrete. And it's ok. That's why artists are so special and, generally, tortured souls.

There's a place for in-depth analysis like G.U.'s channel. It's useful. But it's kind of difficult to place it at the "art" level when he himself distanced his channel from more opinionated spaces by offering a "just the facts" approach and basically zero emotion or personal aspects of his life related to the object being reviewed. Not every piece of digital content is art. I'd say it's less than 0.1% right now.

That's the definition of artist. Clearly, G.U. is not one. It's not a sin, though. Not everyone has the sensibility to become one.

I'm sure the owner of this site would object to that statement LOL Camera reviews are not art. They are content. There's a huge gap that exemplifies why this sort of youtuber just fades away. At no time during the past 10 years did I see one of his reviews and said "wow, now that's art right there". There's no soul, just data. Clicked on a video, saw it, and 5 minutos later forgot all about it. It's NOT his fault, it's just he's made from a different material than artists. I repeat, it's NOT a deficiency, it's just his way of presenting his videos: cold, clinical, analytical, operational. Curiously enough, his pal from Camera Conspiracies has had some very artistic videos where he actually shows some soul. His technique is dreadful, but you can see HIM and his EMOTIONS through the video. Cheers.

That's bc the man is not an artist nor a journo. He's just some dude who speaks English (this is relevant) and got really passionate about cameras during The Great MILC Video Expansion of 2014-2024. Since this is a hobby for him and not a job, the passion just ran out.

That each camera owner of a particular brand buys, in this case, 1.7 lenses for his camera. From memory, almost all brands are below 2. So that means the aside from the kit lenses, buyers rarely ever consume another lens for the camera body.