Reviews

[Bill Pierce]

Photo oriented web and youtube sites seem to deal with equipment reviews more than any other topic. That’s understandable. One photographer may take pictures of sports evens and another of trees, but they both use cameras. It’s good to know what’s out there that may be of use to you.

But one has to say that the quality of the reviews is all over the place. The printed press of the past with its limited number of competing magazines hired who they thought were the best. Popular Photography’s Norm Goldberg was a consultant to not only camera manufacturers but the United States military. The British Journal’s Geoffrey Crawley would take half a year to review a camera - and everybody would wait for that review, considering it the final word.

The Internet has produced a very high volume of reviewers and, in a sense, demanded that they work quickly, often getting out reviews before the equipment is on the store shelves. No wonder that there are good reviews and god-awful reviews and everything in between. But the good reviewers are valuable resources, especially in this world of rapidly evolving digital technology. I thought it would be useful if we listed the reviewers we have found to be truly informative and accurate in this rapidly changing world of gear so at least our choices can be fairly long term, if not the often life long choices of the film world.

I’m going to start the list with Dustin Abbott’s Youtube channel

https://dustinabbott.net/category/photography-reviews/

and his website

https://dustinabbott.net/category/photography-reviews/

What are your suggestions?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Reading, watching reviews could be not very informative, but entertaining.

I'm not familiar with reviewers from printed past. Half-a-year was very reasonable approach during film era, IMO.

Personally, I was jumping from one film camera to another quickly if I did not liked them.
Yes, they looked great on reviews, but no cigar in hands.
For cameras and lenses I was not turned off from first days I kept them for one year. To try all four seasons, weather and such. Especially film gear. To have enough time to print. Without rush.

M8, T snafus and many others labels on digital cameras on first release teached me one simple thing. Never buy anything which has initial firmware after first release. No matter how good reviews before and after initial release are.

Best reviews comes after one year or more after first release. I just have to google the "camera name + review". Or just camera name and forums threads will come out.
I prefer late reviews on older cameras. And if here isn't many reviews sometime after camera was released it is also clear message.

To be honest, after more than decade of reading about digital cameras I knew how it is going to perform. What I don't know is how camera behaves and feels.

I like Kai W reviews for it.
How to identify bad video review? Open it and scroll. If you will see nothing but talking head, skip. More camera in hand you are going to see, more it will tells you how camera behaved and feels. Kai W takes cameras in hands and goes out. This is best way to show the camera. And I like how he talks. No swearing and no typical Leica leaking by cliches like legendary "quality". This is first sign about reviewer been clueless.

For the rest read dpreview and it will show you camera pictures and all specifications. Compare it to camera you have and think.

DPR has one of the most consistent, long lasting studio test for cameras ISO test, BTW.
You could open up to four cameras and check how they do in RAW, in JPEG1 on exactly the same objects. This saved me a lot of money. I was looking at X series pumped out cameras on this test and it was no reason to upgrade from my 2009 Canon 500D for many years. 🙂

 

[das]

I am old school and still prefer a good written review. However, I feel like there are far too many positive reviews of things - especially older equipment. I get that folks (myself included) get really excited about trying out new and different gear, but there are too many superlatives used. The Leica M4 is not the "best camera ever" or the "only camera you will ever need." Or lens reviews that only look at that lens in a vacuum without meaningful comparisons to other lenses. But overall, film camera info is plentiful now -- and the time and effort that many people spend (often with no "monetization") to research and test an item can be really remarkable and does everyone a great service.

 

[splitimageview]

So many youtube videos meander, taking forever to provide any definitively useful info, so I just haven't gotten into them.

I'm sure there are good ones, it's just that so many are essentially unwatchable, I just don't want to spend hours trying to find the good ones...

 

[Tim Read]

Thanks for drawing my attention to Dustin Abbott Bill. I went to his site and read and watched a review he did on the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 lens, a lens I am thinking of getting, which I found informative and enjoyable. I thought he matched relevant images to points he was making very well.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I’m not a huge consumer of YouTube camera reviews, but I found this particular one to be thorough, insightful and practical (as well as being calm, unhurried and drama-free):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl9TCB-GPU0

As someone who shoots with a 907x, this video obviously caught my eye. But the fact that it’s by a respected, talented, working photographer makes it all the more relevant to me. I think this may be the only camera review he’s ever done.

As far as ‘back in the day’ goes, I appreciated the wit and wisdom of Herb Keppler and his reviews.

 

[raydm6]

Although I haven't been buying anything new for quite some time (I tend to buy older/vintage equipment), I find the anecdotal experience and pseudo-mini-reviews on RFF and other photography forums (and select articles) valuable; albeit, taken with measured consideration.

I respect peoples opinions and insight here and elsewhere.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Matt Granger
Random example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4UY4q4Y0dU

Most of his site is technique oriented, but he does a lot of reviews as well. He’s intelligent and a good photographer as well, and the reviews are fast paced, and generally cover usability details as well as the quality of the results one might expect from a given item. Not a generic fanboy.

 

[John Bragg]

As a film photographer, I am not a huge fan of a lot of the sheer nonsense that is pedalled in the guise of a youtube review ! The worst sin is just showing camera porn with a music track and no verbal information whatsoever.

 

[JoeV]

I am intrinsically suspicious of reviewers who get access to a pre-release camera. And more so for these so-called YouTube Influencers who get invited to all-expenses-paid camera review jaunts, paid for by the manufacturer. It's about as ethical as congressmen who get invited to weekend jaunts in the Bahamas by lobbyists.

 

[Range-rover]

There everywhere on youtube I think it's called armchair reviewing.

 

[Dogman]

Since I don't buy new gear, I don't look at reviews of new gear. I might come back in 5-10 years and read the reviews if I'm interested in buying at that time.

Didja ever notice how the internet now almost totally revolves around commerce? Everybody is out to sell something. Even the video reviewers are celebrity wannabes, selling themselves.

 

[raydm6]

Since I don't buy new gear, I don't look at reviews of new gear. I might come back in 5-10 years and read the reviews if I'm interested in buying at that time.

Didja ever notice how the internet now almost totally revolves around commerce? Everybody is out to sell something. Even the video reviewers are celebrity wannabes, selling themselves.

Yes, web monetization.

 

[das]

Today, many (obviously not all) people are, rightly or wrongly, unwilling to put in serious effort into internet things unless there is some possibility of fame or remuneration. I think back to the late 90s / early 2000s, when many pros and savants wrote a great number of fantastic pieces on the web relaying the camera knowledge he/she had acquired over the decades -- like showing off collections, impossible-to-find accessories, hard-to-find documentation, inside knowledge of manufacturers' decisions, etc. Because people took the time to preserve and present that information (as defunct camera company records are not generally available), it still exists today (as long as their hosting keeps it up). There was no money in any of it.

The phenomenon of the "paid reviewer" has always existed in some form or another. No one could say that Popular Photography was not influenced by manufacturers' advertising in its magazine. Like folks said above, what irks me is that paid reviewers often do not disclose that they were paid or received a junket from the manufacturer. So, it's hard to know what to believe sometimes. Like the endless "reviews" of Leica-mount "TTArtisan" or "7Artisans" lenses. I do not even need to read them to know that the reviewer will ultimately conclude that those lenses are 99% Leica quality at 1/10 the price.

That is not to say that money is not a good motivating factor. There are some very good sites that make at least some money from advertising that do an incredible job of preserving and presenting information. Like lens-db.com and others.

I think maybe an affinity for YouTube may be that some people simply process ideas and concepts better through audiovisual than writing. Each has its place.

 

[splitimageview]

Everyone has an opportunity to profit from one's efforts, whether that be via blog, forum, or youtube videos. Or even photography itself. 🙂 All good.

I'll be checking out the presenters/reviewers listed in this thread to see if they are worth bookmarking. Thanks for the reviewer reviews.😀

 

[jsrockit]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of self-proclaimed and self-appointed experts on the internet and a lot of people who do not know any better than to follow their advice. The advice is mostly harmless since most of the cameras sold these days are pretty good tools that are great for general photography. Those of us that don't need the reviews to figure out what we buy aren't harmed either.

In the USA, many people used to go to stores that have salespeople who don't know much but offer advice anyway. I would imagine this has existed forever in some form.

 

[Rayt]

The brands have “ambassadors” pushing their products online. Many youtubers are open about it while some are not. I know one guy who only reviews Fuji products but in real life doesn’t use them. If anyone is into high end hi-fi nearly all reviews are by shill marketers.

 

[splitimageview]

Pretty much everything is pushed/marketed/sold, and always has been. There are just new ways of doing so these days.

😀

 

[puxmep]

For me it's particularly hard to navigate through camera reviews because modern cameras have so many functions that different people use and review different aspects of it. For example many reviewers put a lot of emphasis on video features, and it's understandable since that is what they use for vlogging. I don't care much about video, and so on. In fact i found shooting film very liberating in many respects including not caring about camera reviews.

 

[rfaspen]

The brands have “ambassadors” pushing their products online. Many youtubers are open about it while some are not. I know one guy who only reviews Fuji products but in real life doesn’t use them. If anyone is into high end hi-fi nearly all reviews are by shill marketers.

High end hi-fi is often a truly comical world. Leica fanboys have nothing on these guys.😎

And yes, I appreciate hi-fi. Learned about the ultra hype years ago and I'm happy with my system...much of it built or restored by me.