Reid Reviews and a7r

[fotografz]

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

 

[tashley]

I agree with everything you say Marc, aside from the bit about paying, where I fall into the 'this site costs less than a decent UV filter' camp - so I have no problems with paying, at all.

Having decided to pay, I totally agree with you that it's not a popularity contest. The pay site that is richest and deepest happens also to be run by a person many consider to be pretty arrogant and prone to vendetta, but that largely goes over my head: I just cough up and read the content, which along with a couple of other sites, has helped me make some decisions. But I do wish that the 500lb gorilla of reviewing, one M. Reichmann, was as active as he used to be. I like his style of gear review even if there's now too much about video for my needs and despite the fact that some of his aesthetics article contributors are, well, let's just say 'not to my taste'...

 

[Chris C]

This forum flatters itself as being a generous place. There's far too many bash-Sean agendas surfacing in this thread. It's not to my liking; I'm gone.

……………….. Chris

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I agree with everything you say Marc, aside from the bit about paying, where I fall into the 'this site costs less than a decent UV filter' camp - so I have no problems with paying, at all.

Having decided to pay, I totally agree with you that it's not a popularity contest. The pay site that is richest and deepest happens also to be run by a person many consider to be pretty arrogant and prone to vendetta, but that largely goes over my head: I just cough up and read the content, which along with a couple of other sites, has helped me make some decisions. But I do wish that the 500lb gorilla of reviewing, one M. Reichmann, was as active as he used to be. I like his style of gear review even if there's now too much about video for my needs and despite the fact that some of his aesthetics article contributors are, well, let's just say 'not to my taste'...

Hmmmm, not sure about MR. I've heard him referred to as the Ken Rockwell of the rich set and I have to admit the justice of it. That and the fact that some of the articles there written by a friend of his are ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[Jack]

This forum flatters itself as being a generous place. There's far too many bash-Sean agendas surfacing in this thread. It's not to my liking; I'm gone.

……………….. Chris

Bye. But for the record, I don't see anybody here bashing Sean himself, but rather "bashing" the way his site is built, organized and marketed -- and those are very different things... (In reality, my post comes the closest to bashing, but my point was directed at his marketing methodology and not him personally.)

Cheers,

 

[Dale Allyn]

@Chris C

Actually, a lot of the posts in this thread express appreciation for Sean's efforts, and extend respect to him personally. The main issue lamented here is the horrible delivery of the content.

Some are opposed to paying for review content. So what? Others are not. I enjoy reading a broad range of views on some of the equipment I'm considering (cameras, computers, software solutions) and take each source with a boatload of salt.

I can't speak for everyone, but I feel that most here are simply suggesting an update to Sean's website, and doing so may bring in more subscribers.

 

[bcf]

I do agree that Sean's web site is rather unplesant to use (understatement). Nevertheless I have been subscribing for some years, as his view on things is rather different from more "mainstream" photo sites.

But... Do not forget that Sean seems to have been experiencing serious health problems for some time (MR as well, for that matter). He probably has other priorities than upgrading the site.

 

[Godfrey]

Sean Reid has just published the first of his articles comparing the Sony with the Leica M - eight more to come. Very interesting reading, I recommend the site. (It's a pay site but well worth the modest fee.)

I had a one year subscription and let it lapse. I find his site unusable and cannot be bothered to try to read his editorials. Not that I found much of any real value anyway. Personally, it was a waste of money.

I learn much more about the equipment I am interested in by using it myself. Reading reviewer opinions is just entertainment. They sometimes come up with a little detail that I might miss, but overall I get very little value out of any of the review sites other than the manufacturer specs and some pretty photos of the equipment. The manufacturer specs and photos of the gear are the most important part far as I'm concerned.

G

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Bottom line and what many do not understand. Reviewers are dealing with OEMs and a bad review does not get you testing gear in the future. Now read between the lines. Capice

As for Mr Reid's site it is setup so YOU cannot ask questions and question his opinion. It's not setup like a forum for discussion. Capice

Lol

I have lot to say about this but it's background and not for the public. He is no longer a member here. Enough said from me.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jack and Bob delete my comments if out of bounds but I refuse to silent

 

[jaree]

Not sure why people are being so touchy as to "leave" the forum!

I don't see any bashing of the person here, it is the product that the opinions are being expressed about. Mr Reid is offering a product that requires you to pay to use it, i.e. to read his reviews you need to pay. Like any product that is available for a price, it is fair to express opinions about it - good bad or ugly, it is fair game. And yes, it is fair to question the objectivity of reviews, esp the ones on paid sites. Why is it ok to make fun of KR but not question other reviewers?

In any event, I appreciate Guy, Jack and Bob for operating such a wonderful forum. I personally have learnt a lot from all of you and continue to do so. And I do blame all of you for getting me hooked to MF - two years back when I saw the stunning pictures in the MF forum, my eyes popped out and I decided to get a MF kit when I could afford it.

-- Eeraj

 

[Bob]

One major feature of a pay-site is that if you do not think the contents/presentation/format/whatever are worth the price or you decided to drop cameras in favor of hamsters, you just don't pay for it again.
Messages are conveyed to the owner by the rate at which money flows or does not.

Leaving a free forum is even less costly.

"That's all."
-Miranda Priestly

 

[nostatic]

As they say in the car biz, "there is a butt for every seat." And there is a forum/site for everyone's taste. I continually marvel at how idiotic most of the larger forums (*cough* dpr *cough*) have become. The interwebs is a fascinating thing, and digital communications has created more problems than it may have solved. For those with 15 min to kill, I gave a TEDx talk on this last year (cue shameless self-promotion - Analog soul - digital world: Todd Richmond at TEDxVeniceBeach - YouTube).

One interesting phenomenon is the inevitable "I'm leaving..." post on forums when someone gets offended. As a moderator of a very active "off-topic" forum at a car site, I've seen it all and those posts usually draw the ire of the regulars. Again, another interesting dynamic of the interwebs.

Mr. Reid and Mr. Chambers are selling their expertise and opinions. Everyone is free to buy it or not. Customers are also free to express their displeasure with the way that material is presented or the price or the bias. That is part and parcel of what someone signs up for when they charge people for their content. The only thing the customer can't do is violate copyright (e.g. cut and pasting paid content other places). Beyond that, once you start selling you have to expect "feedback." The various communities will determine if it is reasonable.

I've said it multiple times - this forum is a particularly good balance of information, encouragement, criticism, and talent, all delivered with a mostly upbeat and friendly atmosphere. There are gear whores here, but few fanbois. There are pros here, but they don't look down on the dilettantes (he typed, looking in a mirror).

 

[jlm]

simply offering your opinion, not even selling it, is asking for criticism and feedback

 

[ramosa]

Ditto. I have nothing bad to say about Sean as a person. (I don't know him!) My biggest gripe is his web design. Instead of getting a headache from trying to manage his web design--and paying for it--I will, instead, rely on all of the free information online, including from this forum.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Game time. Go Denver. Lol

 

[jonoslack]

My trouble with all the bloggers who make a living out of it - whether by traffic like KR and Steve Huff, or with paysites like Lloyd and Sean, is that it seems to me that they have to spend so much time blogging that they no longer really have time to be photographers (perhaps Ming Thein is an exception here).

Meh, this all seems a tempest in a teapot.

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.

Just to get it straight Marc - I wasn't criticising their skills as photographers, just their ability to get to the bottom of actually 'using' a camera. I'm very aware, even with my limited experience, that spending too much time testing different cameras makes it increasingly difficult to get to the soul of any of them. Too easy to end up obsessing about CA in the corners or high ISO ability, or how easy it is to add exposure compensation and forgetting that one wants a camera that gets out of the way and lets you take good photos.

 

[Bob]

There is only one reviewer that I care about, and that is me
All the techno-innovation claims and so forth do absolutely nothing for me if the camera just doesn't feel right.
I posted my checklist in the Sunset Bar. http://www.getdpi.com/forum/564269-post4.html

I have no idea how to review a camera without laying hands on the patient and no third party is capable of doing that.
Some have accused me of getting a strong opinion of a camera within five seconds of picking it up.
That is true, for a negative decision. Positive decisions take more time.
Bottom line is that your most trusted reviewer is yourself in partnership with a dealer or friend who lets you play with the gear or a rental house.
-bob

 

[fotografz]

Just to get it straight Marc - I wasn't criticising their skills as photographers, just their ability to get to the bottom of actually 'using' a camera. I'm very aware, even with my limited experience, that spending too much time testing different cameras makes it increasingly difficult to get to the soul of any of them. Too easy to end up obsessing about CA in the corners or high ISO ability, or how easy it is to add exposure compensation and forgetting that one wants a camera that gets out of the way and lets you take good photos.

That comment wasn't aimed at anyone specifically Jono … if you re-read the thread, there are a few comments regarding Sean's photography. That "collectively" is what I was reacting to, not your comment.

I think judgements about anyone's work is a slippery slope on a friendly site like this. Glass house, and all that.

I will agree that it is difficult to access the "soul" of any sophisticated tool in one day of testing. Especially if you are doing it a lot, with a lot of different cameras.

However, "soul" is a very subjective and extremely personal thing to try and quantify. It is usually based on a longer term interaction with a camera … while reviewers tend to be of the moment when a new camera hit the streets. It is the nature of the beast.

While reviewers may obsess about some pixel peeping aspect, we are free to ignore it if it isn't an important aspect to us … yet, read the comments here on this site … lots of obsessing about CA, corner sharpness, and high ISO capability.

The question then is, would many of these techno-obsessed recognize "soul", even if it bit them on the face? I'm not one to say they would or would not. That is their personal and subjective call to make.


Tempest in a teapot, IMHO.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

There is only one reviewer that I care about, and that is me
All the techno-innovation claims and so forth do absolutely nothing for me if the camera just doesn't feel right.
I posted my checklist in the Sunset Bar. http://www.getdpi.com/forum/564269-post4.html

I have no idea how to review a camera without laying hands on the patient and no third party is capable of doing that.
Some have accused me of getting a strong opinion of a camera within five seconds of picking it up.
That is true, for a negative decision. Positive decisions take more time.
Bottom line is that your most trusted reviewer is yourself in partnership with a dealer or friend who lets you play with the gear or a rental house.
-bob

As I said Bob, it's all very personal. One person's this, is another person's that.

Most of these reviews are of just breaking news, and those interested generally are early adopters. Face it, a review of the A7R that appeared 3 months later would attract close to zero interest.

Plus, most of the time, new gear is in short supply and getting a hand's on demo isn't all that easy. The brick and mortar stores have given way to mail-order, where it's a PITA to try something then send it back.

Personally, I've become a bit more open to innovations that on first grasp may not tick off previous criteria, but I'll give them a whirl. I did that with the A99, which was quite a departure from my A900. I've come to like it now. Didn't at first. Different strokes for different folks.

However, I do agree that the only real test in the end … is using the stuff yourself … and long enough to make a decision relative to what you are trying to creatively accomplish.

- Marc