difference between laptop reviews and photo gear review

[MArk Le]

I'm upgrading my laptop and (for the first time I admit it) I wanted to take a look at the review sites for laptops.
Now since I'm used to the photography related reviews I was expecting the same kind of info but BOY was I wrong!

They actually test the computers, and report every single problem they may have. Clearly. The hard drive in the wrong position, all teh design mistakes.. the ports missing, EVERYTHING. It was "illuminating".

in comparison the photo reviewers look like "amateurs" to me now.

just let's remember the Canon 1D mark III autofocus issue: NOBODY was able to notice. Only Galbraith.

That tells me that the photo-reviewers only work for the manufacturer, giving more pictures of the products they sell but don't work for the users and potential buyers . They don't really test the gear. And it shows.

I don't know if this is because they don't know what they are doing (most likely that could be the case) : still we (the users) should start laughing at them (a little bit). because if any of you gets to check on the laptops' reviews you'll see the difference, immediately.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Mark,

This topic is interesting and addresses an important topic. However it is not what's considered contraversial here as this wont offend a single person and I won't get a single compalint about our lax "free speech" policy!

Many magazines rely on MFRS adverts for much of their income. So the material comes in, several images are taken and that's the review. Then, guess who gets the next batch of cameras to review? Not hard to figure that out!

Rob works! So he tried to use the camera in sports assignements in the same way he shot with his Canon 1DIIN. That's the only way he could have even imagined such an issue. Then came the birs photographers who said the same thing despite orthers saying it was nonsense. When Canon finally allowed that there was indeed a problem by quietly issueing firmware updates, that didn't really work and then a sub mirror assembly unit, we knew it was a very real problem.

A site like DPReview is set up for standard and rigorous testing in return for big advertizing and click throughs to purchase. They found no faults since anyway they are not photographers but article producers. Everything fits into a template.

Only real use shows otherwise. Read the comments about the 50 1.2L Canon lens, a favorite of mine and target of poor focus complaints when wide open. Well we discussed this at length and Bart pointed out that this field curvature is in fact part of the inherant trade-offs in making such a lens.

All I can say is that we look at gear as tools to get a job done not parts of an Excel spread sheet who's purtpose is it is to draw :eyeballs" to adverts and click-throughs to purchase.

I see a lot of critcism of placement of trpod mounts, no button for ISO or mirror lock up, dropping of RAW and so forth so I think maybe you are a liitle harsh on the reviewers, but your sense of the matter is obviously right on!

Asher

 

[MArk Le]

they do it professionally , don't they?

I am talking about Phil Askey (mainly) since Dave Etchells did indeed report with more "professionalism" in the past but even him was unable to review both the canon 10D and 1D mark III properly (professionally I mean.. we understand what that means). dave was the first to "report" on the "looks" of the 1D mark III thanks to the Canon's PR people (Chuck Westfall actually). But reporting on the "looks" works for the teenagers (reading the review. Not even for them. They (the teenagers) do buy laptops and can benefit from "reviews" from another level of "professionalism".

In any case I had a 40D for a few days and I was pleased to find on the Dave Etchells review a little note (not from him but from a real photographer testing the camera) reporting mistakes tracking , mistakes not found on the 20D. I had the 40D and I did find the same exact problem. Then I go to the DPReview "review" and ... not a word about it.

It won't be the end of the world unless all you do is "review cameras". In that case I will start laughing, and loud.

Now it takes a photographer to understand that shooting a 50 1.2 or 35 1.4 wide open is not like shooting a 2.8 lens. By the time you press the shutter and the actual shutter mechanism opens the frame the movement of the camera alone (or the breath of the photographer) may shift the focus plane or distance or both.

But it takes a real photographer to notice a constant failure focusing under standard conditions.

Is Phil Askey a photographer? I'm asking because I believe he's not. So what does he do for a living? The reviewer?

is that so?


what I see now is some sort of "extension" of the brochures from the manufacturer or distributor. Nothing more than that (really)

it doesn't work like that. I mean.. up to a certain extent .. the reviewer or critic once caught not testing or hiding will shift to a different position )or line of work).. naturally. And the lack of real info is evident within the "professional" critics and reviewers of the photography business.

because if I review a book and then you (asher) find out that I didn't even read it... LOL

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mark,

Phil's wife is the photographer. I've seen some nice image. His job was to build a database of standardized tests and link that to advertizing. He has been a visionary so to speak in providing some means of comparing myriads of peblles on the beach in such a way that people rely on his reports for coosing which pebble to skip on the water.

His reviews are easy to understand and well done withing the limits of a cookie cutter approach. There is no actual use on a wedding shoot or in a sports stadium or on a trek through some wilderness.

Some of tbhat you might get from Michael Reichman who has a simple aproach. He just uses the camera for what he likes to do, which seems to be mostly travel photography in exotic locations. so he's concenred about how practical the camera is for his purpose. So if he's in the Anatartic or even in frozen Montreal and one cannot adjust a camera without removing ones gloves, that might mean he just wont bother. A camera must after all fit in with what you want to do.

OTOH, Galbraith is looking to get perfect sports shots everytime as near as possible. So why upgrade if one isn't, for sure, increasing the % keepers from the perfectly usable 1DIIN?
So yes, he's tough too but in a totally different way than Reichman. Each one could very well have no interest in what bugs the other. This is not because they are paid of, because that is not happening! It's simply because they can use whatever camera they choose, and the new camera better fit in to their style and/or needs or it rightly gets bad marks.

So one cannot rely on any one reviewer. Each can only deal with a small wedge of the pie by which the camera could be described.

Asher

 

[MArk Le]

correct of course

since my brother is a lawyer and automatically I am a lawyer too

the laptop reviews go straight to the point, pretty much all the time, regardless of the distributor. The movie critics most of the time tell the truth. So the theater critics, the food critics and so on. Only with the photography critics we see this "amateurish" cut to that (laughable) extent. Odd. Isn't it?

the camera reviews rarely tell what we need to know. They become so attached to the distributors and their brochures but also only tell what's not important (and easy to report). It's a strange process, for a relatively new industry (the digital photography industry): they created the standard which is mainly an extension on the marketing brochures. Most importantly they don't test the gear but take pictures of it and pass all that as a professional review.

that's all I'm saying. Since I am the user and potential buyer I wanted to point that out. Because everybody can see it.

Asher , this business is based on knowledge , experience, contacts, client list : but one thing I see: there is no room for individuals entering the community with such a superficial knowledge of the matter. I don't see this happening anywhere else (in this business): only on the internet review sites of digital photography and gear.

But there is more: if you look closer you'll agree that the real reviews come from the users in the forums. And that's odd, again.

I can give you many many examples: important things the reviewers didn't see but the users in the forums did (and pretty much immediately after using the gear for few minutes): the users are the reviewers? but that's not how it supposed to be. It's all upside down!
(the D200 banding of the first sensors, the unstable AF of the 10D , the restrictions of the 300D , the AF issue with the 1D mark III , the italian flags of the kodak 14n , the vertical issue of the cqnon 70-300 IS, the IS on the canon 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 locking the camera, the two buttons ISO procedure of the 1series that took 6 years to correct, the 40D tracking issues, to end with the fuji F10 that is unable to focus (at all) when zoomed in - I have the camera and I couldn't get THAT from the reviews, as usual.. LOL). They (the reviewers) didn't see anything? What do they test?

Phil Askey or Amazon could start writing real reviews from now on? Or hire a real photographer able to actually test cameras and report the bads and the goods. That would be giving back to the review sites the dignity that all the other critics (in different industries) have. It's a matter of professionalism, after all. They should stand proud and start working for real. To be a critic.. it takes courage, and integrity and knowledge and experience. And the food critics actually go to the restaurants to eat, for pete sake! You don't see them publishing some interview with the owner of the restaurant promoting a new line of food like I see with the photography business and the so called "critics".. you don't see them taking pictures of the menu of the restaurants and then publish THAT on the zagat ... come on


But I am a guest in here: you please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

...That tells me that the photo-reviewers only work for the manufacturer, giving more pictures of the products they sell but don't work for the users and potential buyers . They don't really test the gear. And it shows.
..

Hi Mark,

This might be true for many reviewers out there but is not good to generalize things this way.
I have been reading PC/laptop reviews for many years now. I can assure you that this situation (i.e. reviews being an extenstion of the product documentation and marketing sheets) applies to them as well. There are millions of PC magazines and sites put there who are doing an equally lousy job in reviewing things. One just has to know where to get one's information from. In this age of (dis)information, it is inevitable, really.

Cheers,

Cem

 

[Dierk Haasis]

As long as reviewers see themselves as an extension of the marketing department - that is, 'we won't get any review samples anymore if ...' - the quality of the reviews won't change since manufacturers have the long lever. The same has happened in political journalism in the US and Germany, it's more home stories now than analytical and critical reporting.*

Another problem is the hardware junkie approach, also known as Tool Time Tim Syndrome: 'bigger is better', 'more is better', 'more power'. BTW, who needs 300 HP in a motor car, which is mostly around half an hour to an hour a day in heavy town's traffic? This approach lends itself to pseudo-science by laying out numbers as objective without taking into account what the numbers denote.

A lot of confusion we see at the moment for comparisons of the D300, D3 and D2x, all having essentially the same resolution. But on the D2x and D300 12 MPx are closer together, thus getting more detail, thus having better [relative] resolution. Still, everybody who has used at least two of these cameras says the D3 has the better image quality**.






*Hence the strong reaction about 'low standards' in British journalism when British journalists ask follow-ups.
**This should better be called picture quality; I just follow the trend here.

 

[MArk Le]

Hi Mark,

This might be true for many reviewers out there but is not good to generalize things this way.

well said

maybe a was just lucky but the first three reviews I saw of the laptop I was about to buy gave me the real picture. They (all) did test it (for real). They all say "things" only who actually tested the thing knows.

now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out: you "review" a product and you either test it or you don't: and it's easy to find out (very).

what makes all this a little "odd" is the fact that nobody says anything in the (web) photo community. About time that someone (myself) said it loud.

LOL




P.S.: of course it was because of Rob Galbraith that it all came out pretty clear...

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mark,

I for sure have read these criticisms before and it's on my mind. It's very hard to get camera companies to part with cameras for review. There is a delicate arrangemet: the need to be honest and fair and the wish to keep channels open. What does one do if there's a fault related to a beta or non-production run product? Here one can first get the company to correct the issue then test it carefully again. Does one have to disclose that?

Consumer reports buys the gear and then tests it with not fear! Would people pay to have us buy cameras? We have not sought to do that. We have a number of honest reviews by working photographers coming out. The Sinar diary is open and without holding back. This is a good way to go.

Asher

 

[Johnny_Johnson]

Rob works! So he tried to use the camera in sports assignements in the same way he shot with his Canon 1DIIN. That's the only way he could have even imagined such an issue. Then came the birs photographers who said the same thing despite orthers saying it was nonsense. When Canon finally allowed that there was indeed a problem by quietly issueing firmware updates, that didn't really work and then a sub mirror assembly unit, we knew it was a very real problem.

A site like DPReview is set up for standard and rigorous testing in return for big advertizing and click throughs to purchase. They found no faults since anyway they are not photographers but article producers. Everything fits into a template.
Asher

A small point Asher - both you and Mark (in a following post) seem to be accusing DPReview/Phil of not disclosing the 1D mkIII focusing problems. It might be considered harsh to suggest that they omitted something from a review that they have yet to release.

Later,
Johnny

 

[Asher Kelman]

A small point Asher - both you and Mark (in a following post) seem to be accusing DPReview/Phil of not disclosing the 1D mkIII focusing problems. It might be considered harsh to suggest that they omitted something from a review that they have yet to release.

Far from it, Johnny!

I only look to Phil Askey's reviews for what he shows in his standard tests. The camera comes in. Someone, often his photographer wife, takes pictures of a choice set of scenes around London and in the lab they do standard set up to examine lists of features which can be presented in a format everyone expects! The advantage of this repeatable approach is that everything goes through the same exam and gets looked at in the same fashion.

However, dpreview does not depend on one camera to earn a living and complete jobs for clients, time and time again. The are many things that Rob does not cover, but Phil's set up does. Similar Michael Reichman covers usability features that he finds makes the camera worth putting in his bag when going on a trip far from home or else carrying in his pocket for casual fun. These are dentirely different personal approaches. There needs may very swell have no significence for your shooting!

I have no personal knowledge of a single instance where Phil Askey withheld information. I did not imply that in anything I have written. I believe the various reviewers have different interests and this is reflectedc in the wedge of the information pie they tend to go after.

If you want an encyclopedic list of do-dahs go to one place, if you want information on dynamic range for wedding pics go somewhere else and so forth. We can't judge oranges in "Apple units"!!!

When, however, examples come to light of a reviewer not disclosing key damaging information in an expensive product being praised to the sky, this is disconcerting. If the item is totally fixed then that's one thing but if the serious fault remains, not disclosing that is a failure in trust.

Asher

 

[MArk Le]

A small point Asher - both you and Mark (in a following post) seem to be accusing DPReview/Phil of not disclosing the 1D mkIII focusing problems. It might be considered harsh to suggest that they omitted something from a review that they have yet to release.

Later,
Johnny

Johnny,
it's not just the 1DIII affair, it's a trend , it's the "extended brochure syndrome" practice going on.

many examples , like I said, over the years. Not just the 1DIII. You read the forums and you find all sort of things, then you read the review and you feel like they didn't really test anything...


let me go a little deeper on the "forums" as the real review (nowadays).

let's pretend that you and I are publishers, like we publish the Zagat guide. Now we pay a critic to review the restaurants.

Good.

We get the pictures of the menu and we publish and we sell the guide and people read it before they go to restaurants and so on.

Then we receive tons of letters from the customers saying that the food was bad (or good), that the place was cold (or too hot), that the tables don't stay still .. all sort of things.

then we give to the critic a call and ask "you didn't see anything?" You don't see anything ALL THE TIME?

that's the idea... I mean.. you know what I mean.





the story here is not about the "collision" between the distributor's interest (I'd understand that, up to a certain extent of course): but more the fact that the "reviews" are a bit .. superficial .

I use the "superficial" term because I want to be "elegant".. eheh

 

[MArk Le]

Far from it, Johnny!

I only look to Phil Askey's reviews for what he shows in his standard tests.

well, You (Asher) just said what I had in mind to say but you said it better...

about DPreview (now Amazon) we have to admit that is (today) the best publication where to find all the info of the gear. A little better than the official brochures because it shows lots of pictures of the products.

but for a real review I read the forums. (that's true too).

maybe the name of the publication (DPreview) made me believe that it was a "review" thing...

but still the forums in there are great. And the extended brochures are well published.

 

[Johnny_Johnson]

Hi Asher,

I'm glad to hear that you didn't mean to leave the impression that DPReview published a review of the ID MarkIII that failed to mention the focusing problems. I'm not sure about Mark. Maybe he still thinks that they did. ;-)

Later,
Johnny

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher,

I'm glad to hear that you didn't mean to leave the impression that DPReview published a review of the ID MarkIII that failed to mention the focusing problems. I'm not sure about Mark. Maybe he still thinks that they did. ;-)

Frankly,

I doubt whether they had the faintest idea of what was happening. One has to be paying attention to the camera as an imaging extention of your planning and impulsive needs. Now DPReview does not have any real needs, except to produce accurate lists of test. Nothing there is related to being creative or earning a living on not having the camera disturb what one is trying to photograph.

OTOH, Sean Reid in his excelelnt website had no reference to purple clothes or back packs or blobs of green replicating the pattern of but away from lights. Why one might ask? He's very experienced and the most determined to descrive accurately the character of each lens! At least part of his ommision in the M8 Leica reviews were due to the fact that he photographed color with bowls of fruit (no synthetic blacks to give purple objects and warn him what was going on) and his penchant for using his cameras fro his favorite output? B&W imaginging. Could he have been more awake, of course, but he looked at the camera from his own unusual needs.


Michael Reichman missed out on the M8 discussed here and here, and his explanation is best in his own words here. In balance, however, MR has brought to us ideas that were far ahead of much of the pack, including his realization that the D30 Canon DSLR meant the eventual demise of film as the mainstay of photography. So that's how I look at that incident!

Shutterbug and the like, OTOH, are, to me at least, really extended version of the company PR departments. That's so easy to see when they review film scanners and talk of O.D. capabilities of 4.0 when it's likely they cannot do better than 2.4 to 3.3 on a good day! Why? They have no idea what O.D. is and never measure it anyway. There's no need to as the magazine still flied off the shelf.

OPF, hopes to grow and be honest! The other website are very good. Defects and differences are obvious but they do a good job on the whole as long as you are visiting them with your mind attuned to what that's important for that reviewer.

Asher

 

[MArk Le]

Hi Asher,

I'm glad to hear that you didn't mean to leave the impression that DPReview published a review of the ID MarkIII that failed to mention the focusing problems. I'm not sure about Mark. Maybe he still thinks that they did. ;-)

Later,
Johnny

Johnny,

for your information Phil Askey didn't review the 1D mark III because he had issues with Canon (the corporation, in japan) basically because they let letsgodigital get away publishing info about canon products before the due time. Basically what we have here is a "critic" or "reviewer" with moods.

Beside the fact that this behavior only shows that Phil Askey is not really devoted to be a "reviewer" but more like and "extension of the manufacturer's marketing brochures" kind of person. Then we can comment on the fact that not reporting on such a big event like the 1D mark III sure didn't look good (since he does it for a living). And by "reporting" I expect a "REVIEW", not a collection of product images of the item.

Let me put it in this way: he does whatever he likes, and I do whatever I like. Just I tell what I see. In any case he was unable to see any problem with other cameras in the past, so he fits perfectly into my profile (of the extended brochure people instead of critics and reviewers)

see? when you do it for the money you better get ready to be "reviewed" yourself. Other than that now enough is enough. Professionalism is not something we can joke about, in this industry.


I hope that this clarification of mine will get your destination. I hope.

 

[MArk Le]

Michael Reichman ...

please forgive this interruption (of mine) but I need to spend a word about Michael Reichman, mainly because I just like the way he writes and then because he's a talented photographer.

but he never pretended to be a "reviewer". He gives good advise, but he's not (and he doesn't want to be) a critic or reviewer (professionally I mean).

that needs to be said, in my opinion.



P.S. : I had a pretty straight "exchange" with him not long ago, about the kodak 14n that he tested shooting from the couch in his apartment. I told him that the camera needs proper lighting and that wasn't the best way to test it .. But that didn't change the fact that I respected him as a great photographer. Of course.

in any case no "professional" review reported the major problems that camera had (you had to read the forums for that). OK, enough now.. I don't want to overdue with this now..

 

[Asher Kelman]

please forgive this interruption (of mine) but I need to spend a word about Michael Reichman, mainly because I just like the way he writes and then because he's a talented photographer.
but he never pretended to be a "reviewer". He gives good advise, but he's not (and he doesn't want to be) a critic or reviewer (professionally I mean).

but he is a reviewer. That's why he get's the cameras first. He has a reputation and readership that demands it! If he was not reviewing the camera, they would not bother!

I also like his photography and have some of it on my table right in front of me!

His reviewing is more of a gestalt experience. If the camera "works" for him, fine! but that's what he's about, trying to be practical. his opinion is that of a guy that shoots pictures and prints them. DPReview's job is to do enough tests to constitute a "review". Both are reviews, but very different flavors and functionality. In a hurry, I'd take Michaels word in one Hollywood second above pages of tests. but that's me. However the more money involved, the more I'm likely to go to Steve's digicams or for example Dave Etchells, ImaginingResource.com as each one only gives a piece of the pie.

Asher,

 

[MArk Le]

in one Hollywood second

sure, I agree.

but..

OK.. that supposed to be a new york minute.. where this hollywood thing comes from?


eheh

mark in nyc


the forums are the real reviews nowadays. The review sites are good only to post pictures of the products. Lately.