Personal View site logo
  • 109 Replies sorted by
  • @shian I'd love to watch a feedback review by you on the SLRMagic anamorphic!

  • actually, they should just give one to me - [waits for the collective gasp.... especially those who know my stance on product reviews.... Honesty, no mercy... make a great product and impress me, and I'll will sing my tail off to praise you. make a crappy product, and... well you know me... it ain't gonna be pretty]

  • I don't understand SLR magic's intentions either. I feel SLR magic's best move at this time would be to find storytellers who would take this anamorphic lens and create engaging content that would convince me of it's value and inform me of it's shortcomings as a filmmaker. Please, no more 'test' footage. Testing products is for the manufacturer, not the end user. SLR magic should be doing their own test footage in-house and have confidence in the results of their own products before bringing them to market. Show off a great little story shot in SLR magic anamorphic, not test footage. Marketing approach should be: find right people to sell the sizzle, not the steak. My 2 bits.

  • lol! Remember where you are - this is Thunderdome, and SLRMagic is listening, and will take the first man that screams.

  • Thunderdome!!!!!

  • The clamp cobbler sure is, however nonsensical it ultimately is.

  • @Aria

    You are way off here. As @slrmagic is good friend of P-V for long time. And I do not see any kicking here.

    I also do not understand were you got anything about someone needing protection.

  • SLRMagic is not Satan. They're one of the few companies out there that are actually trying to make products that we users want and care about. Why do we have to keep kicking them in the teeth over such BS? It's so freakin petty.

    Members here are adults and if they choose to enter into such a program knowing the terms so be it. Let them decide for themselves and bear the responsibility for themselves. They don't need protection like children.

  • @endotoxic

    It is ok, not your fault. As I myself have very hard time understanding @slrmagic communications and intentions.

    I am sure we'll fix it and will come to some solution.

  • @endotoxic it's not the end my friend, you'll see! SLRMagic wants to figure this out too, if you have any ideas or suggestions to help with the anamorphic venture, you can PM them, they will hear you out!

  • is very sad this end up like this.


  • Unfortunately, my suggestion doesn't address the problem of no-refund (but still good warranty), which is their current insurance policy against people 'test-driving' the earliest copies of their anamorphic lens. The issue: people who 'buy it' on credit with the full intention of returning it before paying interest on their credit card. This cost SLRMagic in the past, because often it adds wear and/or damage to a lens that is then sent back in for a full refund. For a small company like SLRMagic, I don't think they can realistically be expected to absorb these types of costs, they just don't have the huge sales figures that the big boys have to cover this type of situation, and they currently have no real way to resell a damaged or worn and used returned lenses.

    This is the core of the issue that needs resolving for their early phase. Since they are exploring a new company venture (even, dare I say: pioneering it a bit), I think we want to help these guys not only stay alive, but grow. They can offer film makers a lot; I think it's amazing that they directly engage in conversation with their target demographic, so I think as a film makers community, we have the ability to help them navigate this.

  • @slrmagic What about a slightly different approach that still offers you some insurance, while hopefully filtering out the scammers and maximizing feedback & review material.

    For example: A purchase/deposit with a catch: You could ask for a deposit that covers your manufacturing costs of the items and then offer a return or percentage of return for different review material produced by the reviewer. A written review could get a certain amount of the deposit back, a video review gets a bigger return, maybe both gets all your deposit back. That way those who don't do reviews end up paying for the items if they don't return them to you, and reviewers who want to keep the lens will make both written and video reviews in order to keep the lens, you can treat it like a marketing expense and have the marketing material and exposure to justify the expense.

    You could also add a few requirements:

    1. Only offer a limited amount of lenses to the review/feedback project (that way you can be careful not to over-invest).
    2. Applicants should have a webpage, blog or perhaps demonstrable network/exposure to your target market and demographic (DSLR film makers).
    3. Consider an option for those that don't require the taking lens.

    If an applicant is a big enough name and is known as trustworthy, you should consider waiving the deposit, as they are likely to give you the best feedback and get the most review exposure.

    Another 2 cents in the pot! Personally, I think it's really great that you guys are getting into the anamorphic world and I'm excited to see where it leads!

  • @slrmagic I think we are mixing topics now.

    I assume everybody here REALLY appreciated the fact you heard users opinions about your forthcoming product.

    That's great, and that should always be the way a company works.

    Here the complain is not about the quality of your products (Vitaliy went clearly off topic), nor the price, but the way your volounteer campaign is planned. Not allowing the return/refund and forcing to buy the whole set is not a good way of promoting the quality of your product!

    If so many people are criticizing this market strategy there could be something true about it, right?

  • @davjd All improvements that needs to be made is already made during prototype testing period. Volunteers are testing the pre-production lenses which are the same as our final lens design.

    @endotoxic was posting with intention for general chat only but it sounded like a link to a sale so to avoid the grey area misunderstanding. We want to maintain a good relationship with PV.

    Thanks all for the support and @Vitaliy_Kiselev for offering this platform for us to find out what ANAMORPHIC lens to make.

  • "People who are not sure about the actual quality should not join the program and wait till the lens goes on official sale where they can see samples from volunteer testers."

    So does slrmagic consider to make any improvement to their product before going on sale? A volunteer should know before spending money. Besides that I appreciate we can speak to the company and have all the answears at any time. I perhaps will buy the 35mm lens and the adapter, but I think I will wait and see the results :)

  • @endotoxic

    I understand.

    But I am really frustrated by @slrmagic, including numerous issues with quality of their products.

  • @slrmagic @vitaly_kiselev my intention was only for general chat.

  • voldemort footage - not very sharp - I don't think Andrew purposely shot everything that soft... And compared to the Panny LA7200 anamorphic it's not very sharp

    could just be the diopter

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev Probably it was our issue.

    Reviewers who send a passionate email about reviewing our lens with a big plan that turned out to be a scam.

    We trusted the wrong reviewers. We learnt and moved on.

  • It was about some reviewers not reviewing or responding to emails after they received the review unit in the past. We do not plan on listing names of the people/reviewers who did this but the problem is not everyone cares to return items upon "demand".

    I think it is not reviewer issues, more like yours if you select such guys.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev We think you misunderstood what we meant. It was not about we did not demand to return any items reviewed.

    It was about some reviewers not reviewing or responding to emails after they received the review unit in the past. Some even told us they have already sold the lens before they have even reviewed it. We do not plan on listing names of the people/reviewers who did this but the problem is not everyone cares to return items upon "demand". We are here in Hong Kong and they are in a different country. What do you suggest we can do?

    We did not post a link here to be selling any lenses to be clear. Not sure why it was directed to us. @endotoxic copy and pasted a post on P-V and we did not tell @endotoxic to do so. Intention from @endotoxic seems to be discussion based as the starting statement for the thread opened was "This thread is dedicated to new product from SLR magic. The Anamorphic adapter 1,33x."

  • @slrmagic

    I have no problem with usual approach used by big manufacturers were they demand to return any items reviewed.

    If you so like to sell test items, do it in the close mode. Send proposals to the testers you like. Sell them lenses. And wait for reports and reviews.

    To be short. Selling or promotion of selling of SLR Magic lenses on P-V is prohibited from now on. In no way it relate to products discussions, they are all welcomed.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev We have been doing that since 2011 starting with the 12mm F1.6 volunteer tester program. In the beginning we offered review units to selected individuals and quite a few people just kept the lens and had no footage and some did not even bother to reply to email. This is very sad and they know who we are talking about. Back then we have a very limited budget to promote our first lenses and it is a very hard hit when reviewers just keep a lens without any review. Our tester program is not like promotional programs where people pass out flyers that does not need to be returned and can be kept for free. Because of these individuals who abused the tester program in the past, we only offer copies where testers buy the product. In this way, more people benefit from the offer as well rather than lets say 5-10 selected individuals.

    Since testers are commenting on their experience with a product they actually paid for the reviews are kept very honest too. In the past we have lent lenses to a reviewer and ended up people said his review is biased as people think the reviewer gets paid to review. When the reviewer paid for their own copy of the lens, there is no pressure at all to comment honestly. Sometimes we get a good review and sometimes we get a bad review.

    Some companies can afford to give out free review units and some companies can afford to loan out hundreds of review units for free at once. We are not that kind of company. We did not reserve such budget into the price of our lens as we want to keep it affordable.

    People who are not sure about the actual quality should not join the program and wait till the lens goes on official sale where they can see samples from volunteer testers.

  • @slrmagic

    I am not comfortable with approach used.
    Where testers buy product and are not very sure about actual quality or that service they will get in case of issues.