Meh, this all seems a tempest in a teapot.
I've occasionally subscribed to his site to get any additional info I may "think" I need … but take anything he says with a grain of salt. It merely points up things to keep an eye out for if I'm seriously considering something he has reviewed. I currently subscribe because of the Sony stuff.
I did have a running battle with him regarding missing (or not reporting) the IR issue on the M8. Being one of the first to get one in the USA, I discovered and reported it on the LUF immediately after shooting a wedding featuring tuxedos made of fabric not found in nature. If he reads this post, it will surely piss him off (again), but to me it was simply a lesson in caution when reading anything on the web … let alone anyone who depends on cordial relations with the manufacturers to get the gear to be tested regardless how vehemently they may deny it.
Of course you can have the opposite … when some of these paid reviewers (or ones that rely on traffic for sponsors) don't get first status consideration from a manufacturer, an overly critical vendetta can ensue that can last for years …
Frankly, I see skewed bias here also … but: 1) chalk it up to subjective disagreements or differences in need, and 2) I'm not paying anyone for their subjective opinion no matter how well it is presented in the guise of scientific methodology, or not.
Whether some reviewer is a good photographer or not, or isn't as good as someone else, isn't my place to say. Since I live in a creative glass house, I balk at tossing stones at anyone else's work.
Whether someone is good or not is fraught with potholes since the web can propagate as much of a popularity contest as any real photographic merit. As a creative director in advertising, I learned that the best creative minds weren't always the nicest people, and the best one I ever knew was a flat out arrogant prick.
Probably not going to be the most well received post on this thread … but "What Me Worry?", I recently upgraded my Kevlar suit … :ROTFL:
- Marc
I've occasionally subscribed to his site to get any additional info I may "think" I need … but take anything he says with a grain of salt. It merely points up things to keep an eye out for if I'm seriously considering something he has reviewed. I currently subscribe because of the Sony stuff.
I did have a running battle with him regarding missing (or not reporting) the IR issue on the M8. Being one of the first to get one in the USA, I discovered and reported it on the LUF immediately after shooting a wedding featuring tuxedos made of fabric not found in nature. If he reads this post, it will surely piss him off (again), but to me it was simply a lesson in caution when reading anything on the web … let alone anyone who depends on cordial relations with the manufacturers to get the gear to be tested regardless how vehemently they may deny it.
Of course you can have the opposite … when some of these paid reviewers (or ones that rely on traffic for sponsors) don't get first status consideration from a manufacturer, an overly critical vendetta can ensue that can last for years …
Frankly, I see skewed bias here also … but: 1) chalk it up to subjective disagreements or differences in need, and 2) I'm not paying anyone for their subjective opinion no matter how well it is presented in the guise of scientific methodology, or not.
Whether some reviewer is a good photographer or not, or isn't as good as someone else, isn't my place to say. Since I live in a creative glass house, I balk at tossing stones at anyone else's work.
Whether someone is good or not is fraught with potholes since the web can propagate as much of a popularity contest as any real photographic merit. As a creative director in advertising, I learned that the best creative minds weren't always the nicest people, and the best one I ever knew was a flat out arrogant prick.
Probably not going to be the most well received post on this thread … but "What Me Worry?", I recently upgraded my Kevlar suit … :ROTFL:
- Marc