DSLR Field Test

scott erickson: | November, 27, 2009

yeah sadly I didn’t see much worth to the article. Sharing is nice but this billed itself as more than that. So the 5D is the best HD-DSLR out there, best chip, highest price, big surprise. The only interesting thing was the comparison to the RED one but then lenses used we’re drastically different. And Facebook video was terrible, Vimeo has this down. Anyway, this late in the game I’d expect more info than this provided, especially if the article is called a shoot out. Where’s Adam Wilt??

Richard Harrington: | November, 27, 2009

You can click the facebook text or the link in article to see in HD for the videos.

This is a real world comparison of footage and capabilities.  That’s all.

Jeff Kreines: | December, 01, 2009

I am curious as to why all of my comments have been deleted.  Who did this, and why?

Richard Harrington: | December, 01, 2009

I addressed all of your suggested edits.  It was deemed that you and I were in a flame war.

Changes to story were updated where appropriate.

Out petty arguments were removed.

keenast: | December, 01, 2009

I’m stunned bothered and bewildered. Who deemed that and who deleted those comments.
Who decides what’s appropriate? I’m more than curious!

PS. the guy who so much has troubles with my grammar is, so it seems, not in a flame war, right? I’m just joking of course.

Jeff Kreines: | December, 01, 2009

I am sure that there’s a committee on PVC that decides this sort of thing.  But who is on that committee, and what made them decide to do this? 

What I am asking, given Richard’s very passive sentences, is who did the deeming?  He writes as if it were an act of the PVC gods.

To me it appears that the committee of PVC gods decided that they should take it easy on the new guy.  Fair enough.  But is this the sort of thing that is done regularly?  If so, my respect for PVC is greatly diminished.

scott erickson: | December, 02, 2009

All in all, I sort of agree that things were flaring up a bit, in a tit for tat sort of manner. Whether it deserved to removed or not, I’m not sure I agree. No ones feelings we’re getting hurt, it’s just the internet after all.

The one thing I think that is at the core of the issue is that people expect more from ProVideo Coalition content. I love sharing, i think it’s part of what makes the internet so great. But here we want more than what we’d see on personal blogs or Facebook groups. I was excited to click on this article, I love techy, nerdy camera shootouts.  But felt i learned little more than seeing what they shot, and was particularly put off by the product placement. I know self-promotion is important but the Meyer’s, for instance, reference their work all the time but it’s subtle and they provide substantive information at the same time so I don’t mind. Anyway, just my two cents for the PVC gods.

Richard Harrington: | December, 02, 2009

Yeah your right…. I just whipped up all those things in about an hour…  I copied and pasted a few things off the net…  stole some pictures from someone else’s sites. [SARCASM if not clear]

Oh… yeah.. and the economy’s great… we’re flush with cash.

Lynda.com’s giving their stuff all away for free now too, right Scott?

Come on guys move on…  stop whining.

Jeff & Scott… the articles not for you…  I took your feedback and addressed concerns in the article… I wrote it for other independents and small businesses to share what we’ve learned from the cameras.  Their strengths and weaknesses.

It is not an engineering shootout…  I did test 3 cameras.  I shared what we found.  I talked about some gear that I liked.

I am hard at work on a 400 page book with 4 hours of video and a ton of profiles and case studies.  I think you’ll probably like it…  if you don’t…  that’s fine.

No… I can’t take things from the book and post it for free…  yes, I’d love to give everything I do away for free… but I can’t.

I felt the last comments were out of line… I addressed the concerns.  I asked the editor of the site to edit or remove the thread because it was heated.  It was removed.

If you’d like to take the time (in this case it was about 30 hours of manpower to do the shoots and write the article… go ahead. 

I find it amazing… how flush with cash you must think a author for a niche website is.  I did this to share…  the cash I’ll make is about enough to take the wife out for a nice dinner and pick up a box of Legos for my son.

So… PLEASE MOVE ON

If you have additional comments or questions about the facts of the article.. I am happy to discuss.

If you want to just sit here bashing the site, comparing one author to another, or whining about your expectations…  MOVE ON

keenast: | December, 02, 2009

Why not get rid of the ‘comments’ section altogether, so no more of those ‘bashing, comparing and whining’ can happen. And no more need for censuring the readers and whiners who might think that the above article doesn’t exactly meet somewhat professional expectations - it’s a commercial for an audience that I didn’t know provideocoalition is targeting - it is amateur by all means. And there’s nothing wrong with amateur but this site calls themselves….PRO after all.

It is a sad day for ‘provideocoaltion’. I think it’s time for the owners/runners of this site to explain the reasoning behind this rather absurd ‘it was deemed that….’ and so on. Hell, an apology to all who comment here would be not bad either.

scott erickson: | December, 02, 2009

Well I was gonna add something about not taking it personal but didn’t think it was necessary.

Richard, I love this site, I use it all the time and refer others to it all the time. I want it to get better. My first comment might not have been the best but I was trying to give constructive feedback as fan of the site in my follow up.

I don’t expect you to give all your work away for free, again I just thought it was misleading. And quite honestly, I respect you for making the changes that you did.

While this article might not be for me, that’s what these comments are for, feedback and discussion. I think that’s what’s happening here right? Or at least thats what the steady stream if email alerts feels like….where’s that check box again?

btw, look at the last line of the first page real quick for a typo…just trying to help

Scott Gentry: | December, 02, 2009

This all sounds like perfect fodder for a discussion in the forums…

Chris Meyer: | December, 03, 2009

“I am sure that there’s a committee on PVC that decides this sort of thing.”

Actually, there isn’t. PVC isn’t a magazine or some other media monolith; it actually is a “collective” of individual writers. Each writer maintains his or own channel in the way they see fit, including posting content and managing comments. Each article and blog channel is the work of the author(s); not of “PVC.”

That said, the writers do regularly discuss common ways of handling situations, and I occasionally step in and edit a piece; I made some edits to this one before it was posted. But in general, I try to exercise a light touch and leave it to the writers to decide how they want to carry themselves - and to the readers to decide whether or not they want to follow a specific writer.

So although we do try to gather a collection of interesting, useful writers for you to read, it would be inaccurate to think that the actions of any one writer represents all of PVC.

That said, feedback on how you would like to see PVC writers carry themselves in general is useful input for when we do get together and discuss if there’s any standards and practices we could or should be following.

Chris Meyer
so-called Editorial Director
(Cat Herder may be more appropriate)

Jeff Kreines: | December, 04, 2009

Chris Meyer writes:

” Each writer maintains his or own channel in the way they see fit, including posting content and managing comments. Each article and blog channel is the work of the author(s); not of “PVC.”“

Ah, that is interesting.  It means that Mr. H was being somewhat disingenuous in writing this: 

“I addressed all of your suggested edits.  It was deemed that you and I were in a flame war.

Changes to story were updated where appropriate.

Out [sic] petty arguments were removed.”

The implication is that this was done by someone other than himself—“it was deemed”—when that is apparently not true.

Fine for him to delete any comments that might reflect poorly on him, but he should at least be honest enough to say “I didn’t agree with what you wrote, so I deleted it, because this is MY channel.”

That would have been more honest than hiding behind passive sentence construction.

Jeff “remembers Chris from the old PAN days” Kreines

Chris Meyer: | December, 05, 2009

Hi, Jeff - still doing music?

“The implication is that this was done by someone other than himself”

In the interest of full disclosure, I and the “publisher” Scott Gentry do work behind the scenes to delete posts we deem to be spam (for example, ones that link directly off to another site selling something - particularly if they are unrelated to PVC). Some of this spam is fairly tricky, apparently commenting on the article, while containing a spurious link. I err on the side of asking Scott to delete them (and to block the poster). Richard, to be fair, errs on the side of being helpful, answering many of those posts.

As for a general policy, I don’t like censorship. But neither do I like flame wars. I agree that patience and transparency are the best options. But I can also empathize how hard it is to be patient when you feel you are being personally attacked.

So I ask everyone to be civil in their disagreements. For example, ‘wsmith’ was constructive with his/her criticism; ‘keenast’ wasn’t with his/her initial comment (the later ones were better, although the tone may have obscured some of the substance). The former is more likely to effect positive change than the latter. And at the end of the day, all of us want more, better information, right?

- Chris

Chris Meyer: | December, 05, 2009

(sigh)

In the interest of further disclosure, I just learned that it indeed was _not_ Richard who deleted the posts in question; he conferred with the site’s publisher Scott Gentry, and Scott deleted the posts. So it is not fair to hang this completely on Richard’s shoulders (and I apologize for adding to this perception - I didn’t see the background correspondence, and therefore incorrectly assumed that none took place). Hopefully Scott will get a chance to get up here and share his reasoning.

In the meantime, this has been a good lesson to all of the PVC writers to be even more diligent about transparency. Thanks to everyone who added constructively to this discussion.

- Chris

Scott Gentry: | December, 05, 2009

The idea behind PVC from the beginning is that it’s a collection of great writers each maintaining their own content and managing their own site.  By aggregating everyone together we can approach the market with strength in numbers, and supply readers great content from the best writers all in one place.

Chris is correct, we are still learning how this model works.  It’s not like traditional magazines where there are managing editors overriding content and assigning stories.  That’s what makes this site strong.  However, it’s a learning process in this new model as well.  It was I who made the move to delete a few comments I felt were too personal and not necessarily in keeping with a constructive nature.  I am against censorship and will only take those down that cross a line or get vulgar, because that’s just not the site we want.

Collectively I and the writers will open a discussion about the best way to handle non-constructive comments (if at all).  Often it’s best for the community to police themselves. 

I really appreciate the comments we’ve been getting because this is how we get better.  We’re still less than two years old as a site.  Our ultimate goal is to deliver the best content available, your constructive comments often make for the best reading.  Please keep it up!

Scott

Scott Gentry: | December, 05, 2009

As an addendum to the above, my sincerest apologies to Richard, Chris and the commenters whose posts were removed.

I’m searching for the best punishment now.