A few comments on Cinema5D’s DSLR gear reviews at FreshDV

FreshDV @ PVC

A few comments on Cinema5D’s DSLR gear reviews

Published by Matthew Jeppsen February 5th, 2010 in Featured, Featured Content, FreshDV, Hardware, News, Reviews

A couple weeks ago, Cinema5D posted an extensive review series of gear for DSLR video rigs. They tested various kits and accessories from eleven manufacturers in total. I was excited at first when I heard about this large review, but my excitement quickly abated when I dug into their opinions and findings. Much of what was stated in the Cinema5D review is in direct contradiction to my own experiences with the same gear. And a number of the statements made in the review aren’t just a difference of opinion, they are factually incorrect.

I cannot address every rig tested in this review, I’ll only speak about the systems that I’ve personally used. But knowing the errors and omissions in their review for the gear I have used, well, that calls into question the information they present on gear I haven’t personally used. Another concern: in the week following the review, information surfaced that indicated that when the reviewers first contacted manufacturers, a condition of submitting gear for review was that the reviewer got to keep the gear that won. Seriously? That’s akin to demanding a ransom if you want your gear reviewed. This was never stated publicly by the reviewers, until a company not participating in the review (Zacuto) outed the information.

Somewhere in the shakeout following the review, previous Cinema5D supporter Cinevate was banned as a sponsor. It’s unclear to me why that came to be. Some commenters have complained that the fact the stated winner of the review (Vocas) was a Cinema5D sponsor indicates bias. I don’t think that’s a fair point to make, it’s impossible to prove there was any bias as a result of a sponsorship (and Cinevate was a sponsor too, until they were banned) so it’s really a non-sequitur as far as I’m concerned.

At FreshDV, we know full well how hard it is to present a well-researched, thoroughly-tested review. In particular, it’s VERY hard to do a proper side-by-side comparison review where a single unit or brand is declared the overall winner. It’s almost impossible to address every concern for every unique configuration…and declaring an overall winner is rarely a useful exercise for filmmakers, as needs and uses vary so widely. It is not my belief that this Cinema5D review was biased or determined by any ulterior motive. It is my observation that they simply bit off more than they could effectively chew. The scope of this review series is ambitious, and I believe that they simply did not have enough time and production experience to properly evaluate and test each system. As such, it’s my opinion that their findings, and their final star ratings in particular, are inconclusive. Regardless of any bias allegations from the community, there are a few factually incorrect issues in the review that I’d like to address below…

Shortly after the review was posted, Redrock Micro requested that their portion of the review be removed, citing specific concerns with incorrect configurations used and faulty setup of their products. Redrock’s Brian Valente wrote a detailed list of his concerns, two of the most obvious which I will quote below:

- Not the Rigs we sent:
We never submitted anything the “tripod” category. In fact, we weren’t even made aware there was such a category until after the review was published. Apparently to fill the gap, the reviewers configured their own version of a Redrock tripod rig based on parts (some of which we didn’t even provide), and then were critical of what they created. What they ended up with does not represent Redrock, and based on the pictures they showed, I wouldn’t use or recommend what they developed either. Of the two rigs we did provide, the first was modified from the configuration we sent (see below), and the second one (theEvent) wasn’t even included in the review.

- Changed rig configurations provided:
One of the concerns stated the review on the eyeSpy rig was that it didn’t sit flat when put down, due to a single handgrip configuration. The rig we sent for review included two handgrips and the handlebar (which you can see in their picture on the “first contact” page) which allows it to be balanced when set down, but for unknown reasons this was later removed for the evaluation portion. In addition, no mention was made that the Redrock eyeSpy rig is the only one that can be directly attached to a tripod using the integrated baseplate in the shoulderpad - a feature we specifically designed to allow easy setting down of the rig and fast change between shouldermount and tripod. This misrepresents our product and its capabilities.

The faulty analysis wasn’t limited to Redrock. The product reviewers slammed Cinevate gear, calling it “a lot of cheap looking plastic parts, and unfortunately, poorly manufactured gear.” There are many ways to criticize and opine on all kinds of gear, and one is certainly entitled to one’s opinions. But calling Cinevate gear in general “cheap plastic” and “poorly manufactured” simply doesn’t jive with reality. Cinevate nearly always uses CNC aluminum and stainless steel components in their gear…it’s the opposite of poor manufacturing, and certainly not cheap to produce.

As a recent example, Cinevate’s Durus follow focus is one of the strongest, toughest follow focus systems I’ve ever used. It oughta be…it’s largely constructed of CNC aluminum! There are certainly flaws in any system, but low quality and cheaply built it is not. I encourage you to watch my review of the Durus follow focus and compare that to the Cinema5D review findings.

They also took a few shots at Cinevate’s carbon-fiber rods, calling them “poorly-crafted” and suggesting they would wear out sooner than competing rod designs. This is a direct contradiction to my own findings with Cinevate’s carbon rods. I know this, as I purchased a set of Cinevate carbon rods in 2007, their original hollow carbon design. After noting a few issues with inconsistent widths along the length of the rods, I spoke with Cinevate about the issue. They went back to the drawing board and completely replaced their stock of hollow carbon with solid carbon fiber rods. I’ve been using a set of solid-carbon Cinevate rods on a regular basis since then (over 2 yrs). They’ve never even so much as shown any wear, and their design, specifications, and manufacture is of excellent quality.

There are a number of other errors and mistakes in regards to Cinevate gear in that review, so much so that Cinevate’s Dennis Wood took time to respectfully but firmly address them in a video here. I encourage you to watch the Cinevate response video and compare to the opinions stated in the Cinema5D review.

Another product that was (in my opinion) unfairly maligned in this review was a mattebox from Genus. The reviewers called the quality and workmanship of the mattebox into question, complaining about noisy rattles, loose screws, and a french flag that would not adjust properly. Ironically enough, when this review went live, it just so happened that I was I putting the finishing touches on my own Genus mattebox review. And my findings are completely at odds with nearly every complaint they had. Notice a pattern here? I found the Genus system to be a delight to use, well-crafted, and basically everything the Cinema5D reviewers did not. It’s mindboggling how differently we see the same product. Contrary to their findings, I found the quality vs price proposition for the Genus mattebox to be perfectly balanced. I encourage you to watch my review of the Genus mattebox here, you can see me working with it, shaking things (it’s rather quiet, thanks), and decide for yourself.

I have a few other more opinion-related issues with the review in general. For instance, they lauded the ARRI MFF-1 follow focus with a lot more praise than I believe is warranted. It’s a good system, sure. But I personally find it more at home driving an HD camcorder like the EX1 than a full cine lens kit. In particular, ARRI’s arm design has (in my opinion) too many points of adjustment and can slip away from the lens. It’s not as solid as other systems I’ve used. It also requires both hands to adjust the arm, as it tends to flop around. Ironically, that’s something the Cinema5D reviewers dinged the Cinevate handheld rig grip design for, but they don’t seem to mind it on this follow focus. It’s a good example of the clear lack of consistency throughout the entire review. To me, that means this is less useful as a head-to-head, feature-to-feature comparison review, and really more of a large lump of personal opinions from a few self-professed filmmakers. Here is the Cinema5D reviewer’s curt response to criticism of his opinions and findings.

In short, and at best, it’s my opinion that the overall conclusions of this review series are inconclusive and lacking. Speaking for myself, I’ve taken the review as a whole with a larger-than-normal portion of salt. I encourage you to do the same. Opinions are fine, but reviews should be based on a consistent “yardstick” or standard measure. As users and consumers, we should demand a higher standard of gear reviews.

Editor’s note: This article was written as a response to what we believe to be an inconclusive, poorly presented review series by Cinema5D that presents information that may not be factually accurate. As FreshDV has been sponsored in the past by a few of the brands noted in this article, I think it’s important to reiterate that this article was not created as a defense for any particular sponsor or relationship. Any prior sponsor relationships had nothing to do with the impetus to write this article. Rather, my first concern is that faulty information was being presented to filmmakers. Secondly, I have a concern that reviews like this one will cast a bad light on reviewers in general. For FreshDV to be able to present gear reviews and information, we depend on manufacturers being willing to provide their gear for testing. They assume that their gear will get a fair and complete evaluation and that the facts be presented. I worry that when flawed reviews like this one are presented, it casts a bad light on reviewers in general, and I want to distance FreshDV from that. Our reputation for fairness and reasoned review analysis is very important to us. Finally, I cannot address every point I disagree with in this extensive review. So in the above article I simply refer to specific gear and products that we’ve actually used and tested first-hand in real production environments, and stick with addressing things that I know to be incorrect in the Cinema5D review.

19 Responses to “A few comments on Cinema5D’s DSLR gear reviews”

Feed for this Entry

1 tyro Feb 5th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

i gotta confessed till i watch dennis’ response i fell into “doubt area” about cinevate. Thanks to dennis video my doubts removed about cinevate.

I think Cinema5D bit something they cant swallow. Now everything stucked in their throat. I think they will be the first Forum BANNED by the rig producers and users.

I gotta mention Dennis Wood once more because i dont think nobody else on this planet, could handle that chaotic-bashing review as he did.

And Matt also thank you for writing this article about that terrible review. Yes some reviewers must be reviewed as well, if they do not know what the heck they review about. I always like FreshDV’s approach to reviewing a product. Matt may be you need to fly down to europe and teach them how to review a product? …
2 John Moon Feb 5th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

Good read. I think it’s always a good idea to get information on a specific product from multiple sources and make the best decision you can.
3 Matt Gottshalk Feb 5th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

The only thing that Cinema5d’s “reviews” did was cheapen anything they “review” in the future.

I felt as if I was reading poorly written High School term paper.

Fortunately, there are better websites out there (such as this one) to get better, more qualitative reviews.
4 Bryan Feb 6th, 2010 at 4:28 am

Thanks for this response to the Cin5D article. I found the article as I am pricing out DSLR rigs for a current project and was appalled at what I read. Everything. I did not read through all the comments, so I did not see Valente’s response to the review, but the way Cin5D wrote it, they made it sound like RedRock was whining and complaining about a bad review. The truth is nothing of the sort.

I’ve been shooting for 25+ years and freelance full time for 10+ and I am more and more annoyed by the people that buy a camera and call themselves “photographers”, “DP” or “Cinematographer”. No, you are a GUY that BOUGHT a CAMERA. Nothing more.

After this article from Cin5D, I imagine the site and reviews are run by all the 15 yr olds on DVXUser that call themselves “Director of Photography”. A VistaPrint business card with your name and “DP” doesnt make it so.

Thank for calling them out on their BS to help out those of us that are looking for good advice and factual information from people with more experience than just ordering a cam from B&H.
5 Mark Espina Feb 6th, 2010 at 7:49 am

What I got from the cinema5D review on cinevate gear was:

1) It took a long time to set up
2) It’s hard to setup (therefore the length of trying to set things up)
3) The follow focus is sturdy and good - but could be designed better
4) Cinevate gear is not really user friendly - especially for beginners
5) Product design in terms of functionality and ease of use could be better
6) Their products have specifically made parts especially designed for cinevate gear only and therefore not necessarily compatible with other stuff (this was about the baseplate screw)
7) Some of the parts were poorly crafted (the base plate cork)

I own cinevate gear, in particular a MP.1 Brevis, a couple of CF imaging elements, their old base plate with rod, Brevis to rails mount, 2 universal rails block.

The rails that I use are stainless steel rods from Redrock micro.

What I interpreted as the intention of the review of the cinema5D review was:
To look for gear that was easy to use, fast to reconfigure and disassemble on set. One that is made of high quality, and is user friendly and getting the most bang for your buck.

My opinon:
Firstly let me start off by saying that I have used cinevate gear on professional sets and have rented it out a few times.

I do not own the particular items reviewed on the cinema5D website, so I cannot comment on them specifically. What I can do is share my experience of using the cinevate gear that I do have and commenting on the principles on the usage of the gear.

The cinema5D was a harsh review - yes - but I do find myself agreeing with the principles of gear usage in their review.

Cinevate gear (most espeically the brevis) has a steep learning curve, and a lot of setup time. This is both the drawback and the advantage of being so configurable.
Whenever I rent out the Brevis + rig - I have to go with it - in case a different configuration needs to be done i.e. change cf imaging elements, changing from flip to non-flip configuration for low light situation, and also because my brevis stops every now and then and I have to “kick start” it.

Changing the CF element is also perilous. I have scratched my CF element more than once doing so even with outmost care.

Also, I use both large and small cameras on the brevis. It’s great that you are able to do that. But changing from one setup to the other can take ages and can be nerve wrecking on set where production time costs a lot of money.

Again, the review was not about the brevis itself but the principle of the gear’s function as reviewed was pretty spot on. They were wanting something that is pretty much ready out of the box - and to me the brevis takes time to get to know.

The good news is though that once you do get to know it - it can be your best friend.

Being so configurable means that it’s compatible with a lot of gear. And setup time can be minimized - although with some limitations.

I like my cinevate gear (although my brevis keeps stopping - I have to send it back to cinevate). And the people there are friendly and accommodating.

The fact that cinema5D banned cinevate does not affect my judgement on any of the two parties. It just means that cinema5D disliked the product and they were brave enough to stand by their decision and ban the product from being a sponsor - I think that’s pretty uncompromising. It tells me they won’t take your money if they don’t believe in you.

I do think though that they should give cinevate another chance, as their products, although with a steeper learning curve is worth the while it takes to learn it.
6 dennis wood Feb 6th, 2010 at 10:26 am

First of all, a big thanks to Matt and Kendall for their honesty and integrity which pervades everything they do on this site. Tyro, this whole experience has been an exercise in restraint and level thinking. It’s also created some great new relationships and very positive experiences for the entire Cinevate team. Thanks for noticing :-)

Mark, your take on our equipment is correct. Helping beginners, pros and everyone else is precisely why we spend all the time and effort with Cinevate’s Video University. It’s become very popular as folks look for visual instructions and tips on configuring their rigs. One of the problems in making our gear so compatible with different cameras, configurations, mount heights etc. is that there are (as you mentioned) so many ways to configure, tweak, etc. the setup. The reason we have six patents pending on various pieces of gear is because convention is something we don’t accept unless convention is the best solution for a problem. The gear we ship today (including the MP.2 lens adapter) is a far cry in terms of both quality and service from four years ago…and this is no surprise as in 3 years we’ve gone from a home-shop operation to 4000 sq. feet and eight staff.

There is always an internal struggle to manufacture gear for professional use, but also priced affordably. For example, on one side we have hobbyists complaining that our Durus FF is too expensive, and on the other, professionals comparing it to FF units nearly twice it’s price in terms of quality. One thing we do know 100% is that every single one of our professional shooters uses our gear for a rig that is customized to their needs…and for that, they love us. With Medusa and Uno just arrived, the options become nearly limitless. Add in Cyclops, even more. With the wide variety of shooters, genres, and abilities providing feedback on our gear, we have a staggering pool of folks providing us their wish lists these days…and all of it goes into our new designs.

Your take on the advert ban was also correct. Entirely bizarre, but correct. To illustrate how odd we found this, consider that the site owner refused to look at UNO describing it as unsuitable for DSLR use. Then let me present this review (and yes, Glenn paid for the gear!): http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/472170-i-finally-found-dslr-rig-me.html We have excellent relationships with nearly a dozen sites which as a whole have conducted themselves very professionally. We support them in terms of direct advertising, contest prize donations, and special event funding because we feel a corporate responsiblity to do this. If you look at our sponsored shooter campaign, it’s very obvious we care about the creative community and work tirelessly to help promote talent. We work with way too many positive, caring and creative people to even thing of getting embroiled in negativity.

This is why we value reviewers like Matt and Kendall so much. They call it like it is and present a professional review. The original Cinevate FF prototype was not designed by us, not made in North America, and was a piece of junk…Matt sent it back saying as much. I respect that. You’ll see we did a lot better with “Durus” which is 100% designed and made in Canada, with a few important components coming from the US.

The C5D review comments were not dismissed entirely. We have added the optional front base plate support to our DSLR kit (it’s no longer optional) and we do have a new quick-release base plate coming. The upcoming quick release base system had nothing to do with that review, it’s simply part of our continuous internal review process. Using Cyclops will be a lot easier with the new system, and all fasteners etc. are “captive”…so nothing to lose. So you see, we’re always listening :-)

Cheers
Dennis Wood
http://www.cinevate.com
7 Ryan Feb 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm

Thanks Matt, very valuable analysis. I too questioned some of the conclusions although I haven’t had the opportunity to use most of the equipment reviewed (I have a Cavision-based rig).

They seemed to really like the DVtec rig, to which they gave their “value” award. Do you have any experience with DVtec’s stuff? At that pricepoint it’s likely appealing to a lot of people, but if Cinema5D’s negative reviews aren’t 100% trustworthy, I’m wondering about their positive takes as well.

Here’s their verdict on the DVtec equipment:
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=1474&page=45

R
8 Matthew Jeppsen Feb 6th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

I have not personally used any DVtec gear, so I wouldn’t be able to speak to how it performs.

-MJ
9 Ryan Feb 7th, 2010 at 4:32 am

Thanks Matt for posting your thoughts. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.

Here’s my two cents.

I was looking forward to the review and when it went live I too was shocked at how poorly it was put together, and how incomplete it was.

For example, arguably the best products out there at any price for DSLRs are made by Hot Rod Cameras. Before I purchased one of those in December I shot with probably 1/3 the products listed in the cinema5d review. That Vocas rig that “won” is a second rate knock off of the Hot Rod CSH rig. Hot Rod has been getting written up in all the magazines for their innovative designs, and it’s appalling that they weren’t even asked to participate. Then the flimsy knock off of their design is the winner, convenient.

The other “winner” was DVtech. I used that rig about 3-years ago, doesn’t seem to be any different now except it has uglier grips. DVtech build is awkward and as far as I can remember, straight-up garbage. Either cinema5d is incompetent or the results were cooked ahead of time. Either way it smells bad for the cinema5d.

Ryan
10 Monty Feb 10th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Cinema 5D lost me when they started deleting comments which criticized their review. Talk about double standards. They can dish it out but they can’t take criticism themselves.
11 midnight oil films Feb 12th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

So in the end it’s opinions vs opinions, right. Many of the critical points made against the ‘review’ could also be made against this opinion piece. Zacuto rightfully pointed out a questionable request that the ‘winning rig’ is going to stay with the reviewers and doubted their neutrality. They have no problem though with having Philip Bloom tooting their horn on every occasion, being more or less on Zacuto’s payroll, and Phil still claiming he would never be influenced by money matters. Right, sure. Something pretty much impossible when the editorial and the advertising department consists of the same one person !

One of the interesting thing this review brings about is the question mark it puts on a number of those cozy blogger/manufacturer relationships and obviously that also goes for freshDV. Now that ‘blogging’ became a sometimes quite substantial income opportunity one seriously has to wonder about partiality. Very very few bloggers actually do what they’re supposed to, namely mention payments, gifts, incentives etc they receive from manufacturers.

Dennis video rebuttal was maybe well meant but didn’t make much sense as it mostly didn’t address the points made in the review.

Then there’s this company, RedRock, that asked that everything about them gets deleted. They were not happy with the opinions they had no control over. This is the pattern that should be talked more about in my view.

And somehow, this review here has its quirks too. I don’t recall that the Durus FF was part of the original review (correct me if I’m wrong please) but here it’s put on the table as proof against the accusation that the Cinevate product used cheap parts. Things like that put exactly the slant on this ‘answer’ the author pretends not to have!
The ‘editor’s note’ at the end is a bit of a tour de force having it both ways.

I’m not defending in any way the conclusions the original reviewers came up with because I wasn’t there, I didn’t have the opportunity to compare all these products side by side. I do defend though their right to have their opinion even if other people’s opinions are the opposite. To call the one side ‘flawed and faulty’ and the other one ‘not flawed, not faulty, not inconclusive etc etc’ is, hmm, hard to swallow.
12 Sam Morgan Moore Feb 12th, 2010 at 11:12 pm

I am the maker of the halfinchrails rig.

I too was a little disturbed by the C5d review - although my rig came third !

Firstly I think Seb from C5d is a nice man with no bad agenda.

I think his review however did fall over a little bit on..

Context.
Value consideration.
Misunderstanding the gear and configuration.

English is not his first language and his writing style fairly pointed - that did not help either

Basically he bit off a little more than he and his team could chew but the review was done in good faith IMO - lessons have been learned all round
—–

Context.
The professional operator who inputted has his favorite rig configuration - no doubt a valid configuration suitable to his needs -all rigs not in that configuration were basically marked down

My rig is for super small RnG - as is the Uno - super small RnG is a legitimate set-up

Value.
Did not appear to be factored

But what gets me most of all is the situation where neither reviewers or manufactuers are posting footage that can be created with their contraptions

Matt you are welcome to test my rig

S
13 Robert Ruffo Feb 17th, 2010 at 3:11 am

Cinevate’s follwo focus is the best I have ever used, and I’ve tried them all. Cinema5D reviewer is either nuts or paid off.
14 Robert Ruffo Feb 18th, 2010 at 2:09 pm

@ Midnight oil:

There is a difference between opinion and misinformation. You cannot validly have an “opinion” that differs from easily observable fact. For example, you cannot say “in my opinion Cinevate’s follow focus is made of plastic” because it is, in observabkle fact, all metal.

You CAN say “in my opinion the color scheme is ugly” or in my opinion this or that other gear just feels wrong in my hands and so on. There is a line between the subjective and the objective. When you cross it you are no longer a believable source of info.
15 midnight oil films Feb 19th, 2010 at 12:43 am

@robert ruffo:

i have no clue what you’re talking about. In the ‘test’ it is said: “The follow focus is really rugged, unlike the rest of the rig. Cinevate also gives a lifetime warranty for this unit. We like that very much.”

Can you read for crying out loud?

The reviewers stated very clearly what they like and what they not like - and anybody is invited to debate that. But constantly inventing things that haven’t been said (incl. Dennis on his ‘video’ answer to the review) is something that sounds rather wacky. And who can take lines like “Cinevate’s follwo focus is the best I have ever used, and I’ve tried them all. Cinema5D reviewer is either nuts or paid off” serious?
16 Dennis Wood Feb 19th, 2010 at 9:13 am

Mid, I am going to encapsulate my major issue with the review which starts with the first few lines. It suggests that we care about our customers, have a nice emotional web site, then describes the gear as poorly manufactured, using the words “We ended up getting a lot of cheap looking plastic parts”.

That’s just the opening paragraph. Now ask yourself if that is what the typical customer reaction is to our gear? Spending five minutes on Google looking at forum posts, reviews, blogs etc., you will be hard pressed to find anything similar. We don’t pay for nice feedback, nor do we suppress bad press.

The review gives folks the impression that we represent ourselves as a caring company which does not back up its reputation with solid product. Cinevate did not agree to hand over the entire rig for free if it won the review on the grounds that it was not ethical….although it was suggested this would be appropriate in terms all the great exposure we’d be getting from the review. I could go on, but I believe plenty has been said already.
17 JayDee Feb 28th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Thanks to Matt for being so righteous and professional.

The saddest thing for me is that after reading their so-called review, I still did not have a clue about what setup would be best for my Canon T2i…
18 Dennis Wood Feb 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

Jay, Cinevate’s UNO system is discounted for another week, and I have no issue (meaning 100% confidence) with extending a risk free look for 5 days. We’ve targeted this rig at cams like the T2. Sebastian felt it was unfit for DSLR use…Glenn Elliot disagrees strongly: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/472170-i-finally-found-dslr-rig-me.html

Cheers,
Dennis Wood
19 henry Mar 3rd, 2010 at 6:59 am

The whole ruckus concerning Cinema5D’s review first came to my attention while I was browsing someone’s twitter page and read this tweet:
“So what does reading this http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=1474&page=52 make you think of the RR guys [Redrock]“.

My initial reaction was that Redrock didn’t like the review and were acting up. But after reading Redrock’s Brian Valente response and then reading Cinema5D’s review, it became clear to me that this wasn’t the case at all. It was obvious that Cinema5D had trouble setting up several rigs and which probably resulted in poor conclusions. Nevertheless, I think it was only fair in Redrock asking Cinema5D to remove their review as it was misrepresenting their product.

Cinevate reacted very admirably in the whole situation; They made a really good ‘video response’ that clearly showed the facts concerning their rig. In doing that, Cinevate brought to my attention of a rig I previously didn’t know existed - The Uno. I honestly think Cinevate came across looking very professional.

If it is true that Cinema5D wanted to keep the ‘winning’ rig from the review, then I think in future they should put a disclaimer somewhere on the review page. They should inform their readers whether or not they are keeping he review items. It is called Transparency.

@midnight oil films
In defence of Philip & Zacuto;

1) Firstly, Philip Bloom was using Zacuto products before he even met Steve Weiss and was an ‘affiliate’ of Zacuto.

2) Mr Bloom has been very transparent with his affiliation with Zacuto and others; read his Ethics statement on his site: http://philipbloom.co.uk/ethics-statement/ You’ll see very clearly in black and white where he states his connection to Zacuto and others. To summarise his disclosure/ethics statement he clearly states the brands he’s affiliated with, but also stresses his commitment towards his readers. In short, he says:

“I will continue to remain as impartial as ever. Being an affiliate of Magic Bullet doesn’t stop me saying Color is great!”

As a regular reader of his blog I can honestly say his reviews back the latter statement. His track record speaks for itself. Go to his site and see for yourself, read his reviews of products he uses. He gives good reviews to products that rival those of brands he is affiliated with. Case and point, he reviewed several affordable follow focuses
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/01/09/two-very-different-follow-focus-systems-for-hd-dslrs/

He also goes on to say, “What is the point? If I recommend something that sucks then I will be eaten alive by you lot! Every ad on my site is for something I recommend and use myself.” It couldn’t have been put any clearer. Once someone begins to feed their readers BS, they will quickly pickup on it and they will loose their readers and credibility.