The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

Getting tired of Diglloyd

DougDolde

Well-known member
Have you visited his page lately? It's plastered with ads for OWC and B&H which he apparently is a paid shill for. Looks pretty awful.
 

Bernard

Member
Have you visited his page lately?
Not lately, but last time I was there he was posting paid reviews for Zeiss, which made me lose respect for him, and for Zeiss.
The motivation is understandable from DL's point of view, but I can't imagine why Zeiss wants to get involved. It makes them look like a fly-by-night, not like a respectable firm with a 170 history.
 

doug

Active member
The best of these has always been Consumer Reports. They do actual lab tests (for dishwasher capabilities) with real dried-on sticky food, and they maintain a very useful data base of car reliabiity and maintenance expense. I usually subscribe for a year each time we need to replace a car. In the areas that they consider, they are trustworthy. Just like camera reviewers, you use them for what they know, and ignore what they are known not to consider.
OTOH many years ago Consumer Reports recommended the Miranda Sensorex over the Nikon F. Their recommendations can be useful for the average consumer but of limited value for a specialist.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
The best of these has always been Consumer Reports. They do actual lab tests (for dishwasher capabilities) with real dried-on sticky food, and they maintain a very useful data base of car reliabiity and maintenance expense. I usually subscribe for a year each time we need to replace a car. In the areas that they consider, they are trustworthy. Just like camera reviewers, you use them for what they know, and ignore what they are known not to consider.
I would sort of beg to differ... I worked for a consumer research firm in college that conducted surveys on behalf of Consumer Reports... without going into too much detail Consumer Reports reviews aren’t worth much IMO. They employ some questionable practices as well. I didn’t use to think that but there are some skewed aspects to what and how they make recommendations that aren’t apparent to the Consumer.

For automotive advice I find Edmunds much more valuable.
 

jrp

Member
Well, whatever it is he is doing, he seems to be surviving. However, whereas, in the past, he used to produce rounded critiques of new products, he now seems to generate only click-bait. To take today's front page at random, the (unreleased) A7R4 is declared useless because it does not offer lossless raw compression and because it is only 60Mpx, compared to the GFX's 100. Even that camera is not without its flaws, however. And so it goes. :banghead:

For some therapy, you could try the likes of: https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/3/7/what-i-learned-from-acquiring-too-many-gear
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Well, whatever it is he is doing, he seems to be surviving. However, whereas, in the past, he used to produce rounded critiques of new products, he now seems to generate only click-bait. To take today's front page at random, the (unreleased) A7R4 is declared useless because it does not offer lossless raw compression and because it is only 60Mpx, compared to the GFX's 100. Even that camera is not without its flaws, however. And so it goes. :banghead:

For some therapy, you could try the likes of: https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/3/7/what-i-learned-from-acquiring-too-many-gear
Nice girls but way too much text and theory IMO and always the same subject (even they are pretty).
I agree about digiloyd as well though. boring and only searching for the salt of grain in any projects.
 

jrp

Member
(His latest blog explains why he always shoots the same subjects, but not how he manages to make all that gear pay for itself.)
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Well, whatever it is he is doing, he seems to be surviving. However, whereas, in the past, he used to produce rounded critiques of new products, he now seems to generate only click-bait. To take today's front page at random, the (unreleased) A7R4 is declared useless because it does not offer lossless raw compression and because it is only 60Mpx, compared to the GFX's 100. Even that camera is not without its flaws, however. And so it goes. :banghead:

For some therapy, you could try the likes of: https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/3/7/what-i-learned-from-acquiring-too-many-gear
Everything he writes MUST be taken in context . His interests lie in obtaining the absolute best image quality given his preferred landscape tests . These tests are by design used to highlight the weaknesses in any system . In this context he is saying .....why would you select the New Sony A7R4 when the Fuji 100 is near perfect .

He points out that IF YOU ARE FOCUS STACKING .....the Fuji 100 is highly productive yielding best in class results and with a high degree of certainty . The Sony by comparison is a B&tch to record a stack leaving the process to your ability to control every capture .

The lack of an effective raw file compression just creates a potential bottle neck in processing and storing the many captures associated with focus stacking .

Those seem to be two very relevant differences between the Sony and the Fuji .....IF you anticipate that focus stacking will become a part of your capture process. :banghead:

In my case I do not anticipate doing any focus stacking (mostly street and travel shooter ) ...so those differences are not relevant .
 

Chris C

Member
I'd like to say something positive about Lloyd. Whilst he seems to have abandoned Leica he did get an M10 in his hands and gave it a brief review. I have read many M10 reviews, and on-line threads about it's glory. He is the only reviewer I have read who spotted immediately that if you want to use an M10 with the EVF live histogram, the default Leica setting requires you to view your EVF image with Leica's inflicted crop of the top and bottom of your EVF image before accessing the live histogram [done by half pressing the shutter]. [And don't get me banging on about the stupidity of only being able to view the EVF 'Level' [M10-P, M10-'upgrade'] with that same EVF crop mode].

The point is Lloyd spotted it and wrote about it, and criticised Leica for their ridiculous, obstructive, crop-feature, and rightly so. I value that honesty.

For the record; I am not a Lloyd subscriber, I do have an M10-'upgrade', I have written to Leica about their infuriating crop-feature, and after all this time since it's launch, Leica have still not updated the camera firmware so the inflicted 'header' and 'footer' crops can be disabled.

............... Chris
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I in turn am tired of the endless bitching about Diglloyd s blog . If you have never subscribed then I suggest you STFU for you add nothing to the discussion . If you have subscribed and find his detailed reports adding little value ...so be it . He has his perspective and bias just like any other reviewer . It is as yours would in turn ..based on what is important to him in his work . I am not sure how knowing you didn t find anything worthwhile is productive ands its certainly not interesting . Want to debate a conclusion ..like Sony verse Fuji for focus stacking ..great we can use that type of discussion .

Almost everything he values is based on “getting sharp images “ and producing the very best image quality . He backs up his findings with an incredible amount of detail and you can view the test images and draw your own conclusions .

He talks about things like “focus shift” and “field curvature “ which are damn important if your goal is best image quality . Every try to calibrate a 35 summilux on a Leica M and find that focus shift precludes any hope at f2.8 thru f4 . Wonder why the files look great to you but the edges look soft in a detailed test ...ever consider field curvature ? Why does a best in class portrait lens perform poorly for landscape ?

His experience with range finder cameras is deficient ....they simply do not provide the degree of focusing accuracy to insure maximum image quality . NO KIDDING ... RF cameras have plenty of advantages particularly for street work but focusing accuracy is not one of them . I just ignore anything he posts about RF cameras .

The next generation of cameras will all rely heavily on artificial intelligence (AI) built into the firmware . This is what allows for the automated focus stacking on the Fuji GFX 100 and the pixel shifting on the Panasonic S1/S1R . In short done well it makes possible image quality beyond what we have had . These are subjects that Lloyd gets into .

His conclusions are NOT ALWAYS correct ..he leads with his chin ...often drawing conclusions before all the facts are available . He has many traits that are irritating but don t "throw the baby out with the bath water “ there is plenty to learn from his reports . Compare his findings to Jim Kassan or Sean Reid and you will find a high degree of agreement ...but Lloyd provides a huge amount of samples to review (helpful for those that don t believe anything they didn t produce ). :facesmack:
 
Top