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!
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.Have you visited his page lately?
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.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.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.
Nice girls but way too much text and theory IMO and always the same subject (even they are pretty).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 .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