If someone has clear journalistic integrity they ought to publish what might be a "negative" review of a product.
A clear example:
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss
Do take a look the conclusions and the discussions.
There are far too many promoters who have championed this lens in the guise of a "review".
In one forum, the DPR tests are now being questioned for having been tested with a substandard sample (either way it does not bode well for the makers)! :bugeyes:
Being critical of a product does not equate to be "trolling". People may not buy a product (or "preorder" based on sponsored "reviews") for various valid reasons. This is NOT anti product development.
I understand all of that but it's the questioning of people's integrity that causes me to pause. Implying that everyone is a promoter because they are provided with early samples is wrong.
Maybe there's excitement when there's a newness to reviewing but once seasoned, that wears off... Trust me... I've been there on both sides of the coin. That being said there were times where I've chosen to not publish terrible reviews and there are time that I have published less than favorable ones. In both cases the PR teams appreciated the feedback, some disliked it, some sort of knew they were mailing trash to be reviewed, some were forced into deadlines by managers answering to bosses answering to shareholders.
I get it all. I just guess I've compassionate for reviewers as you ARE a part of the PR process and a part of that companies team. Mature and stable companies tend to be more accepting of critical feedback. Smaller or more unstable companies could fold with bad enough feedback. This is why companies go with respected (maybe not by you) reviewers or people that have learned to balance community engagement, valued opinion, and professionalism to articulate the issues experienced... That's the part the public doesn't generally see from reviewers.
People assume that someone is taking an oath and that people are actually journalists. In many cases they are journalist but let's be real finding little information or few pictures taken with certain gear says a lot. The same rules usually apply that you get what you pay for. Buy cheap (unless you're manufacturing yourself) and you will get result in line with cheap materials. But quality and there's usually a price to pay.
I think there's a level of reviewing where people can be critical without being overly negative based on comparison to the competition. I believe many products can stand on their own and many will dislike them because it doesn't fit into what they want... Sell it or don't buy it. Saying its constructive criticism when it doesn't coincide with the direction a company is very clearly going doesn't make it so. For instance, Sony is very clearly going after the pro mirrorless alternative market. The lenses they release. The rumored and tangible bodies they're releasing suggest such. I believe at this point it's clear that light and small isn't their primary focus although I believe they will offer SOME of that stuff where they can like the 28/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, and Loxias...
I absolutely think there's a way to frame a comparison review to be less negative - for instance the Sigma Art 35 or 50 are so good they make you question the rationale for spending significantly more for incremental improvements. These improvements may be worth it to those seeking "character" or a particular color rendition due to different lens coatings.
Anyone and everyone is free to buy a domain and start a review site if they're unhappy with what's out there and want to do "better."
Of course people will STILL take issue with a review that went those routes and didn't say that a lens was "bad", had trouble focusing, etc. I find most reviews will say already if the user finds it to be true that but many are so caught up in and angered by the fact some people are enthusiastic about life, gear, etc.