Our Toys

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:26 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
A large number of the popular photo websites deal primarily with equipment reviews. Some have arrangements that allow them to profit from responses to the reviews; some do not.

All of us have a little bit of the equipment nut in us and enjoy, sometimes even benefit, from reading about gear. But, in the race to hit the web with the latest, newest arrivals, a lot of reviews hit the web with so little time to use the equipment, sometimes without the ability to process the raw files, that they risk being a bit of a puff piece if they do more than list the camera’s basic specifications and features. They are really sort of advertorials.

And, of course, there are sites that are the opposite, take their time using the cameras and testing the performance. Most of the folks here know my respect for Reid Reviews. Yes, it’s a pay site, but you get the advantage of a reviewer who can take his time to do a very thorough job that includes not just the best features of the gear, but its limitations, too, from someone who is “gear knowledgable.”

Of the free sites that deal with a range of manufacturers, I’m a Dustin Abbott fan. Once again, he won’t have the first review of a shiny new piece of gear, but when his review appears, it will be extensive and thorough. And, occasionally he will just reflect on the experience of using the camera and show he’s one of us.

One of the weaknesses of the web is that anyone can pontificate and infer that they are knowledgable experts. Some are; some aren’t. And there are a lot of folks in between. Who do you trust with evaluating and telling us about our toys? And, I suppose, who don’t you trust?
 
Oh, I know this could start a flame war, but I'm a big fan of Ken Rockwell. There, I said it! He's a troll and a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek wise guy, of course. But he has the right perspective on the whole equipment thing: buy good stuff, don't believe all the hype, and go make photos. Which, at the end of the day, is pretty much how I function. Plus, I'm a sarcastic wise guy, too, which helps.
 
I like Roger Cicala's teardown blog posts and bench tests with comments on lens MTF and aberrations because they're more scientific and less subjective than most. I figure that there's plenty of room for subjectivity and emotion in the craft of photography itself, but I reserve most of my emotional equipment purchases for vintage gear which are as much collectables as working cameras and lenses. There's some crossover of course: The shortcomings of older lenses can have their own aesthetic charms! I enjoy visits to sites like ksmt.com, and could see myself totally geeking out over publications like Vintage Lens Life.

I'm alright with sites like DPR being more advertorial, because I appreciate some consistency in the way reviews are presented, with their standardized product shots and tables listing features and specifications, whereas I'm not terribly interested in whether the reviewer made an emotional bond with the things, because such moods tend to be fickle.
 
As we move into the future, almost every single digital camera with an APSC or larger sensor has good enough IQ for me and what I am looking to accomplish. I also like high ISO but most gains these days are super incremental. I do not need a review to show me that. Also AF and all the other specs they peddle are good enough for me too. That leaves me with ergonomics and haptics. I am a big fan of cameras that feel right and have traditional controls. For me, that is anything that is RF shaped with shutter speed dials and aperture rings. Lately that is the Fujifilm X100V, X-Pro3 and GFX50R. My cameras always have to have normal lenses too: 40-55mm in my favorite range. I am also always searching for a high quality pocketable camera with a normal lens, so anytime those come out I am interested. I have the Ricoh GRIIIx on order. In other words I am not a big review guy. I hate video reviews in general and especially from people who cannot photograph (self appointed experts), so I guess it is a site like dpreview for me since I view it more like news for new products and they have a forum and comments section.
 
Last edited:
My favourite reviewers are the kind that review the gear in use, rather than in theory. The best reviewers on youtube, for me - Samuel Streetlife, Ulysses Aoki, Willem Verbeeck, and Negative Feedback.
 
I'm kinda settled into the gear I have now with no real desire to buy any new camera technology that's been coming along recently. My preference in cameras is for the older, proven designs that continue to work after years of use. Unlike some, I don't really think an old digital camera is obsolete or that digital camera's electronics are doomed to self destruct in short order. And I really don't need all the improvements in performance in newer cameras to take the simple-minded photos I take and love to do.

I do like to read reviews of lenses from a user's perspective. The most popular review sites for lenses are lab-based so the information is of limited practical value for me. Some of my favorite lenses do poorly under lab evaluations but perform outstandingly in a practical sense and some that do well in the lab are pretty lousy in the field from my subjective viewpoint. However, there are some sources that are more function than findings based. 35mmc.com seems to be pretty reliable in evaluating the performance of lenses that are important to me. Also phillippreeve.net and alikgriffin.com are good sources for gear in field use from my past experience. I also enjoy some camera-brand specific sites but these wouldn't mean much to a wider audience outside the respective brands.

Video reviews are a waste of time for me. I might watch a video every now and then but most are tedious at best. If the reviewer is unable to collect his thoughts well enough to write or is too illiterate to do so, I can't trust his judgement on any subject.
 
Reid Reviews is my main resource. He doesn't cover everything but shares my preference for window-finder cameras and Ricoh products. It's well worth the modest fee. Other than that, no real preference. But I do enjoy reading and watching all the different perspectives on this or that gear.

Oh, one more I value: Mr. Leica on YouTube. Especially his focus on legacy gear.

Joh
 
I use a widely read gear website and forum. It can not be named or this post will be deleted by moderators.

I also follow Roger N. Clark and the Lens Rental blog.

I do not read review blogs by photographers with relationships to camera companies . The Leica M8 IR filter debacle changed forever how I those bloggers and review sites.

I also check review web sites such as LensTip, PhotoReview, and OpticalLimits (formerly Photozone).
 
Don’t know much about these folks or their credentials. Usually, within a minute or two I can tell if the ‘review’ contains any useful information for me personally. So, there are quite a lot of them that I click off within that two minute window.
A shout out for some of our own explainers right here on rangefinder forum. Too many to mention by name but they often have a great depth of knowledge and share it generously.
 
Since my equipment purchases are rarely of the newest stuff (I'm usually a production cycle or two behind) I gravitate to mostly reviews by folks who have been using production units for a while, not the pre-production reviews where someone has the camera for a week and then has to send it back. I do watch those though for a quick run through of the features, but I want to know just how folks are getting along with their gear after say at least six months, or if they gave up after a couple of weeks. Though I don't do photography for pay anymore, I like to keep up with how today's pros are doing, and pick up the little tips one won't get from those First Review reports. Camera settings are one thing I pay more heed to these days, and every once in a while something pops up in a video or blog that gets my attention.

PF
 
For film gear and Leica lenses - forums. I learned a lot about Leica and rangefinders here. Mostly here. It was good times of google search working...
Everything related film gear on YT, they are all clueless bozos.

For digital gear I read DPR mostly first. Specifications, how it looks like, test pictures.
I also google the gear and use whatever comes as video. Same dudes usually comes. Some frog's lips dude, some groovy hair dude, bulldog dude and fake yahoo dudes from DPR.
But, again, they are not real users. Just a clicks hunters. They have no clue about G9 heavy magenta cast on faces under low light, not about G9 EVF distortions. For real user knowledge which reveals bugs, I rely on forums via google search.
 
I try to research the cameras I buy, but just reading this thread shows me I'm pretty limited in my searching.

I'm with Retro-Grouch in that I like the KR review approach. I also get off on some of the more technical sites too.

I wouldn't say I 'trust' anyone person more than any other. I try to read/listen to as much as possible about a camera/lens and then form my own opinion about them. Most times I'm able to get it right as there hasn't been a recent purchase I haven't been pleased with making.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Oh, I know this could start a flame war, but I'm a big fan of Ken Rockwell. ... He's a troll and a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek wise guy, of course. ...
Click to expand...
My impressions are the exact opposite. I don't think he's sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek at all. He's dogmatic and writes exactly what he believes.
 
Bill Blackwell said:
My impressions are the exact opposite. I don't think he's sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek at all. He's dogmatic and writes exactly what he believes.
Click to expand...

Bill, if you don't think Mr. Rockwell is ever sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, please read his howler about the Leica-man. I'm afraid I can't make the link to it work, but it's worth googling it!
 
Although I don’t like his oversaturated high dynamic range photos, Rockwell is indeed just having fun a lot of the time. I especially liked, on a series of lens tests where he photographed some trees across a ravine about 300 yards away, he referred to the trees as something like “specially grown organic resolution targets” or somesuch.

One thing he has done very well is review a lot of older Nikon and Canon lenses, plus a few film cameras. His review and actual image comparisons from Nikon and Leica 50mm lenses, 35mm lenses, and other focal ranges are worth reading. His Nikon Lens Compatibility Chart is the best on the internet for readability, accuracy, and detail.

But being mostly a film-camera person, about 20 years ago I first started reading MIR, Cameraquest, and Karen Nakamura’s Photoethnography site - they’re still around and still valuable. Occasionally I’ll read 35mmc and a few others, but mostly I’m guided to a site when I’m researching a camera or lens.

I cannot stand dpreview. Actually, the site and the reviews are fine. What I can’t stand are the measurebators: those who comment and complain about equipment which isn’t the very latest, the fastest, the most technically sophisticated. They know the frame rates of all the cameras, the sensor sizes, the stabilization modes, the autofocus patterns, the market share of their favorite brand, and they are quick to tell everyone else why their choice sucks, but they wouldn’t know a good photo in front of their face.
 
A while back, I watched a YouTube 'reviewer" bloviate for 10 minutes about the Kowa Super 66. Now, I'm one of probably three people in the world who shoots with these cameras, and a fine camera it is, if you know and respect its quirks and treat it gently (pretty basic instructions for any 50 year old camera). The fool in question, who by his own admission had never handled, loaded, or shot with the Kowa, proceeded to beat the daylights out of it, in the process doing everything that any Super 66 owner knows is liable to damage or break that camera. To the Kowa's credit, it survived, but the hipster who was wandering the Bronx (of course) with it, doing "street photography" with this loud, very noticeable camera, declared it not to his liking, and not a camera he intended to keep.
Such is the level of most YouTube reviews.
 
A factor that has caused the current review situation to arise is that now there are so few brick and mortar camera stores where we can handle equipment and form our own opinions. I believe an interesting poll would be to ask members if they have a local, well stocked camera store within reasonable distance (No, I don’t know how to establish the meaning of ‘reasonable’.)
Not willing to take the all day slog up and down the I-5 parking lot to handle a camera. And now days some good sized cities no longer have any camera stores, well stocked or otherwise.
 
Retro-Grouch said:
Oh, I know this could start a flame war, but I'm a big fan of Ken Rockwell. There, I said it! He's a troll and a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek wise guy, of course. But he has the right perspective on the whole equipment thing: buy good stuff, don't believe all the hype, and go make photos. Which, at the end of the day, is pretty much how I function. Plus, I'm a sarcastic wise guy, too, which helps.
Click to expand...

I, too, like Ken Rockwell reviews. I find them more informative and useful than reviews I used to find in magazines.

I, personally, can get lost in the shades of gray, while Ken Rockwell tends to present information in more black-and-white form. So, while I don't always agree exactly with what he has stated, at least without caveats, I generally agree with the point he is making.

As with most sources of information, I know Ken Rockwell well enough to filter/interpret his statements into information I can use.

- Murray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom