Michael Steiner

Thanks for this article. I did not know about this policy. Do I understand this right: someone could cause you serious harm simply by claiming copyright violation on three of your videos? No "in dubio pro reo", no nothing? For me too this is a reason to consider alternatives. But are there any with comparable features? Let us know if you've found a convincing alternative.

Dear Mr. Reid. The other day you wrote the camera-press needs to grow a pair of balls. True that. And true too that your blog is often more critical and more honest than others I follow. The bigger the balls, the more it hurts when somebody kicks them. I guess you got a taste of that. I can only imagine how pissed you feel right now. But even if it feels like a catharsis for you writing down all this, I too (as seanzzxx) would advise you to take a deep breath and relax for a day or two. As anybody that follows the news knows, it is very easy to destroy the credibility build up in years of hard work within minutes when things get to emotional. My humble advice: Don't do this publicly, there's nothing you can win out of this but a lot you can loose.

Fair enough. Although it's not about praising Canon or not but more about me expecting you to be the camera tech-worlds NYT, BBC or WSJ instead of Fox News, The Sun or Daily News...

Yes it is. The technical specs of the HDMI-signal have nothing to do with the crop factor of the sensor. You of course know that too. Now I won't argue about the fact that the HDMI-signal might be useless for some users when another crucial feature is missing on that camera. I can agree with that. But my point was about the editorial differences in covering that one specific feature. Not trying to make excuses for Canons decisions. Take it as a cheap joke in a tense environment. It is an underwhelming release, that's for sure. Take my other comment this way Mr. Reid: I do enjoy reading your articles and I do learn a lot doing so. Your knowledge about camera tech is way bigger than mine and your perspective often refreshingly more critical than that of other camera related sites. But please just keep a healthy professional distance to the topics of your reporting (as every journalist should) no matter if the news are good or bad. For me your articles about the EOS R lacked that distance. They were unnecessarily emotional and furious. And that's something I do not associate to professional journalism. You're better than the people in the dpreview comments-section!

I agree with the general message of this article. But I also think it's kind of ironic this criticism comes after a series of articles on the EOS R that arguably aren't demonstrations of professional journalism either. Mr. Reid seems to take the release of this camera personally, as if canon created the EOS R only to offend him. To me the EOSHD articles about the EOS R are more rants or subjective opinion pieces than sober journalistic reports of what was released. To give an example Mr. Reid wrote this about the HDMI-out signal on the EOS R: Regarding the same feature on Nikons mirrorless offerings only a few days earlier he wrote this: For Nikon it's a non essential "nice-to-have" feature, for Canon it's a stupid thing to do and maybe – based on no facts at all – even a scam. Same feature, two completely different conclusions. Unbiased reporting looks different. There's no need to write positive about the EOS R but it would not be a bad thing for EOSHD to report at least a little bit less emotional and more down-to-earth. It's a camera release, not the end of the world. And the 4K-crop at least lets me use my beloved Sigma f1.8 Zooms on this camera, although it surely would have been nicer if it was not the only option...

So what‘s the deal with Mr Reids frustration/hate towards canon? As a passive reader of this blog and happy user of EOS HD C-log for some time now (although it reveals some really ugly artefacts in underexposed parts of a frame on my M50) I dont get this excessive negativity towards Canon. This new camera is already doomed because of a rumored MP-count similar to that of the 5DIV? Come on... Why is it that bit depth, crop factor and fps are the mandatory specs for a camera created first and foremost for stills work? In a time when video content created with it will mostly be watched on 5-7 inch, 8bit smartphone screens. In a time when grading often just means putting a lut on your log-content... Judging from the content of many Youtube-vloggers (even those reviewing camera tech) to me inferior focus pulling, bad audio quality and uninspired framing are more comon reasons for a not-so-nice result than a lack of slomo and shallow depth of field. The first problem is best taken care with skills or DPAF, for the second none of the current and expected MILCs provide a viable in camera solution and for the third there is no technical solution at all... I dont understand why the bit depth and crop factor are rated so much higher on the specs sheet than for example AF capabilities and color science. The effect of the last two factors is way more perceptible. For me ihat is a reason to rate those factors higher and so from my POV canon is not doomed... To each it‘s own, I think. But seriously: how often do you watch a video on youtube and think „This could have been a great video but it lacks those 4k60p shots.“? cheers