I review fly fishing the same way PetaPixel's Chris Niccolls reviewed the Pixii Max

[aw614]

The lack of mechanical shutter and interface are some of the issues that given me pause on the Pixii. Part of me feels I can get by with the interface, but feel the need to wait on eshutters to improve even more.

 

[Godfrey]

Okay, I'm going to be serious for a moment. What hacks me is this: I've shot more than 20,000 photos with a Pixii since October 2021, but (precisely because I know the camera really well) the internet commentariat dismisses my positive opinions as being those of a credulous fanboy. Meanwhile, Niccolls shoots for two hours with a borrowed camera, and his devastatingly negative opinions are considered important because his channel has 280K subscribers (and because he's personable and has great hair.)

I don't really mind that Niccolls doesn't like the same cameras I like -- in fact, I take quiet pride in liking things other photographers don't like. But I see this tiny blip as a microcosm of what's wrong with contemporary photography culture, in which we're relentlessly herded away from self-expression and toward an algorithm-driven mainstream defined by imitative imagery and opinion leaders whose primary qualification is being good at social media.

As a photographer, you're now encouraged to declare a "genre" (wildlife, action, astro, landscape, whatever), swear allegiance to Nikon, Canon, or Sony (or Fujifilm or Leica if you want to be a nonconformist), adopt an online guru, and dedicate yourself to making images that look like others in your genre. This automatically leads you down a sales funnel within which you can be targeted to buy, buy, buy ("You'll never win the Fish Lips Photographer of the Year Award unless you have our AI-trained fish-recognizing AF system.") It's potentially the only thing keeping the photo industry going, but is it really doing anything for us?

This process isn't just personal, it's highly consequential for the marketplace. One glimmer in L'Affaire Niccolls/Pixii was that another commenter was cheeky enough to suggest that Niccolls might have disliked the camera less if he had been introduced to it at a cushy influencer junket like those routinely hosted by the major manufacturers for the YouTube elite (I don't totally believe this myself.) Niccolls, who apparently cherishes his self-image as a fearlessly independent critic, was stung; he riposted that he had said equally critical things about heavily-supported major-manufacturer products such as the Sigma BF and the Leica SL3S.

One difference he glossed over: it's highly unlikely his remarks would have had any real effect on Sigma (given that the BF was a very-limited-production bauble already destined for JDM sellout status) or Leica (whose stalwarts tend to rely on Leica-specific reviewers for their info.) On the other hand, for the next several years, anyone who notices the Pixii in a B&H ad and is curious enough to search YouTube about it is going to see, as top hit, this popular 280K-subscriber expert telling them (based on his two hours of experience) that it's no good and they should buy a competitor's used camera instead. That might well be a significant drag factor on Pixii's long-term viability. And I don't care that some of you are yelling at your screens right now, "They should buy the competitor's camera instead; that's what I did!" My point is that this is a small example of how the commerce-driven photo-internet penalizes innovation and pushes photographers toward the big-brand oligarchy and in turn toward generic imagery.

I'm sure some of you are already thinking up what you consider to be devastatingly clever retorts, and I don't care; go ahead and have fun. I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I'm not taking any questions.

#chrisniccolls #flyfishing #petapixel #youtube

Most of what you have written here are your personal perceptions and opinions, and emotional reactions. I take them as such; they're yours to have even if others don't share them.

Personally, I don't participate in the "declaring a genre" or other stuff that you seem to feel we're pressured to do. I buy and test equipment for myself, rarely look at or depend upon a reviewer or reviews, and have been following my own memes for what to shoot and how to present it for the past half century. I don't care that others might find the PIXII delightful ... if they do, and they make great photos with it, more power to them! ... I found it lacking and returned it. I also don't follow or depend upon Leica reviews, or Hasselblad, or Fuji, or Nikon, or any other reviews have to say. If I get interested in something, I buy or rent the equipment I am interested in and test it myself. Period.

Why should what Chris Niccolls brief review said bother you? You already know the camera is working well for you, it seems. That review should bother the manufacturer, and they should act upon that bother by improving the product so that the Chrises of the world don't slam it so badly. When I returned the PIXII, I wrote the results and my impressions of what worked well and what didn't to the team at the company, four or five pages of notes and comments. We had a very cordial relationship, they thanked me for the input. I'm sad to hear (via Chris' article) that so many of my comments have remained issues with the current version.

Chill out and ignore these reviews. It's just a camera, one of many hundreds to choose from, and you already know you like this one and it works well for you. Concentrate on enjoying what you have come to like, and make great photos with it. Enjoy sharing your photos with others ... That's a much better use of your time and energy.

G