Sean's reviews are well worth their modest subscription price. I look at them kind of like public radio and television (in the U.S.)--they go into areas that the mainstream media doesn't . The funny part is that basic photographic performance is often considered esoteric now. Mainstream is weighing bells and whistles.
For one thing, Sean is rangefinder-oriented. Do any of the "mainstream" press give a rip about rangefinders? How many R-D1 reviews did we suffer through where the main content was "Gee, it's not a DSLR. What, no autofocus? How retro. How quaint." Duh.
Did dpreview or Steve's do a review of the R-D1? Sean did. How about extensive A/B comparisons of Leica, Voigtlander, and Zeiss RF lenses as they actually draw an image? Sean did. Etc.
What makes Sean's writing especially valuable is that he takes a photographer's approach to his reviews. The feature-by-feature approach is well represented at other sites. The latter is valuable, too. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd take Sean's reviews, simply because he looks at the same things I would look at in evaluating a camera for myself. He also is very careful to indicate his own preferences, and consider how others might differ.
The Internet is filled with people who think they know exactly how everybody should run their business. Sean is providing a valuable service, and doing it in a way that works for him. He's got to make a living, he can't write for free. So we pay him a bit, he can afford to do a couple less weddings a year, and we get really valuable insight from him. Well worth it.
DISCLAIMER: I'm quoted on Sean's site as appreciating his reviews. And I paid for my subscription like everyone else.
--Peter
