Useful web sites with camera reviews.

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Phil, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. Phil

    Phil Guest

    Phil, Aug 19, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Phil

    T P Guest

    Go find it yourself. It isn't difficult.
    T P, Aug 20, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. While I half agree, I have found a couple of those sites very useful in
    the past. The trick is to read between the lines to pick out the
    disguised criticisms. They are there if you look for them, but as you
    suggest, their reviewers clearly don't want to upset the manufacturers
    too much. While you call it sponsorship, I think it's more a case of
    relying on manufacturers to provide items for review, without which the
    site would die very quickly. Hopefully, in time a few of these sites
    will become strong enough to say what they really want to say.
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 20, 2003
  4. Phil

    T P Guest

    That's the case with any review.
    No, it's sponsorship.
    That is very, very unlikely ever to happen. Money talks.
    T P, Aug 20, 2003
  5. Well, let's have a look, shall we. From a randomly selected review page:

    "For a 5-megapixel, 3x zoom camera to move in today's market it has to
    be competitively priced, unfortunately this one isn't. Kyocera/Contax
    calls this a "boutique" item with a suggested retail price of $899 for
    the silver body and the black finished TVS is priced at $995. Other
    5-megapixel cameras with more features are going for hundreds of dollars

    At the top of that very same "conclusions" page is a banner advertising
    alternately Olympus and Minolta.

    OK, perhaps Kyocera isn't paying him anything, or perhaps he's really
    not as arse-licking as you like to suggest.
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 20, 2003
  6. Phil

    Phil Guest

    Please quote chapter and verse on this becuase IMHO, you are totally

    Phil, Aug 20, 2003
  7. Phil

    Phil Guest

    Thanks for the tip.

    Phil, Aug 20, 2003
  8. Phil

    T P Guest

    You seem to be trying very hard to be stupid.

    Top Gear has *no need* to please its advertisers. That's because it
    hasn't got any. Maybe you haven't noticed this? It means that your
    "analogy" is completely invalid.

    In the extremely unlikely event that a manufacturer refuses to supply
    a car to "Top Gear", it gets them from friendly dealers or individual
    owners instead. Anyway, Clarkson would not hesitate to make it clear
    that a manufacturer had refused to supply a car (I have heard him say
    this at least twice), and very few manufacturers would wish to be
    given such adverse publicity - so they nearly all provide cars to "Top
    Gear" - and brace themselves.

    Meanwhile, the digital "review" sites mentioned are dependent on
    advertising and/or sponsorship, and their advertising revenue depends
    on people visiting the site to see reviews of new equipment (and
    therefore see the advertising). Also, they will lose their
    sponsorship if they criticise the sponsor's products.

    Presumably, if you don't believe this, you also believe that the fact
    that prices of most photo equipment vary by only pennies between the
    chain stores (no names here, but we all know who they are!) is
    coincidence? In many cases, the price of an item costing hundreds of
    pounds varies by less than £1 between these outlets. Does it not
    occur to you why this is the case?

    Still, if you are so determined to be dumb ...

    T P, Aug 20, 2003
  9. Phil

    T P Guest

    Got it in one. No doubt the reviews of "competing" Olympus and
    Minolta products on the same site are very favourable, even though the
    Contax TVS digital is aimed at an entirely different market!

    Carry on like this, and you might actually start learning about the
    *real* world, where reviewers only very rarely say what they mean, and
    always have at least one eye on their financial security.

    Your next lesson in real world marketing of photo gear should be to
    find the web pages of those individual photographers who are each paid
    to use (and write about) one particular brand of photo gear, and seek
    out any criticism. Maybe then you will realise how the world of
    global commerce works, and how reviews don't inform the consumer, but
    merely help to screw him (or her).

    T P, Aug 20, 2003
  10. No it doesn't. Look at what I said again. Notice the word "read"?
    Clarkson does more than just Top Gear, you know. He also writes an
    article in at least one motoring supplement carrying a very great many
    advertisements for cars. In his written work, he tends to be far ruder
    than he does on TV.
    Yes, people have to visit the site. And to get people visiting, a review
    site needs to have some semblance of impartiality.
    Sure an advertiser will drop a site that seriously criticises their
    products, but not as fast as they'll drop a site that gets zero hits.
    Jesus, talk about going off at a tangent...
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 20, 2003
  11. Minolta 2330 Zoom:
    "The image quality is somewhat subpar for a camera of this resolution.
    It has a problem of underexposing brightly lit outdoor shots and
    overexposing indoor flash pictures."

    Very favourable?
    If you remember, I entered this thread by saying that you had to read
    these review sites carefully in order to find the criticisms.
    I also pointed out that they _can_ be useful. I'm enough of a realist to
    be able to make use of such resources without taking everything they say
    as gospel.

    That's enough patronising for one day, ta.
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 20, 2003
  12. By Jove, I think you got it, he criticises the Contax on a page that
    advertises Olympus and Minolta. I wonder if you'll find any adverts for
    Kyocera Contax on the site and how "glowing" his reviews of the Minolta and
    Olympus products are ?
    Then again, maybe you didn't get it
    Tony Parkinson, Aug 20, 2003
  13. Well, at least you have one thing in common with Clarkson !!

    Actually make that two things because I always considered him to a be a daft
    Tony Parkinson, Aug 20, 2003
  14. Phil

    dslr Guest

    He does have one redeeming feature, though - he doesn't like the
    Vauxhall Vectra
    dslr, Aug 20, 2003
  15. ISTR that according to one tabloid report that Clarkson wearing jeans was
    the major reason jeans, allegedly, went out of fashion
    Tony Parkinson, Aug 20, 2003
  16. Ooh, look everybody, Mr Pot is accusing _me_ of being rude!
    Oh, the irony!
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 21, 2003
  17. That's because he's being sponsored by Ford, of course. Don't you know
    Kylie Longstocking, Aug 21, 2003
  18. Sorry, but you'll have to do your own laundry

    Tony Parkinson, Aug 21, 2003
  19. Nothing wrong with it, it usually makes me smile when I see it, and I
    usually enjoy reading your posts.
    Unfortunately, your change in name seems to be accompanied by a change in
    attitude, and not in a good way. So much so that I was inclined to suggest
    that next time you change your name you change it to Ronan Keating, because
    like him, in your present disguise, "you say it best when you say nothing at

    Tony Parkinson, Aug 21, 2003
  20. Hmm, I don't remember everything I've ever posted, but I'd be surprised
    if this was the first time I've ever contradicted one of your sweeping

    Ah well, life goes on.
    Willy Eckerslyke, Aug 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.