Leaderboard

I would phrase it differently. I know a few people who do real research before making large purchases, and I think it's more like being able to read through the reviews to see the truth. In that sense, we practically cover everything in salt rather than just a small amount of seasoning... Basically, you want to know the strengths and weaknesses of the product. The approach seems to be: If a review is emotional, either good or bad, ignore them. They obviously either have an axe to grind, or are euphoric, in either case they're not solely focused on seeing the truth, so although they might believe what they say, they won't be seeing clearly. Look for known reference points. If someone has reviewed something you don't like positively, then that's a warning, or vice-versa. It might be an issue with their bias, or a lack of intelligence, lack of thoroughness, or simply a misalignment of what they value compared to what you value. Taste comes in here. I look for music reviewers who share common taste - if you don't like the taste of whiskey then it doesn't matter if it's the best whiskey in the world, you still won't like it. Look for meaningful criticisms. No product is perfect (you can't please all the people all the time), look for criticisms in a review, and only accept real ones, rather than token or BS ones. If a review is level-headed and detailed, maybe you can take the criticisms as true, otherwise, get more opinions. Look for patterns. If lots of reviewers, who all make it through the above criteria, say similar things about the products weaknesses then they're probably true. Smell out marketing. If you're looking for the benefits or strengths of something and you've seen a pattern of positive comments from level-headed people who also made criticisms, then look for specificity. If the pros of something are generic then it's more likely to be marketing talking-points, but if they're specific then that's more likely to be true. Also, look for how people say things, and if there are patterns in the phrasing, or if they seem natural. Even unconscious positive bias (be it to the brand, product, or just an agreeable personality) will be influenced by marketing, so a manufacturer can shape the way you think about something with their PR statements and framing, so that when you get the real product you 'see' it in those terms, regardless of how objective you actually want to be. It's a tricky thing. I think that's why people like Gerald Undone are so useful. He's level-headed, speaks in specific terms rather than marketing fluff, and mentions things that others don't. Does he have huge film-making pedigree? Probably not. But if he says that I can't film in 10-bit 4K at more than 30p then I am inclined to believe him. It's also why I unsubscribed to Chris and Jordan. After watching their savage review of the XC10, which was a flawed product to be sure, I realised something - they don't understand film-making. Sure, they mentioned the weaknesses of that camera, which I had verified with other sources and the specs, but they also ripped into aspects of the camera that weren't weaknesses at all. When I watched their review I was completely puzzled, because I was simultaneously watching videos on how people use cine cameras, which was saying the completely opposite to what they were saying and it was then that I realised that they might understand video, but not film-making. Reviewing a cine camera and criticising aspects that all cine cameras share is just silly. Unsub. Having said all that, the whole thing is fraught with peril as I have ended up on many occasions with products that were poorly reviewed and yet worked great for me for years of real use, and also with products that I did the research on and were terrible in ways that no-one mentioned at all. I think of a small part of my budget as R&D purely for writing off stuff that doesn't work out, or for buying things that seem ok but I can't be sure of. Sometimes things work out and other times they don't, but thinking about it like that makes me feel better about it. Certainty is an illusion after all.

I didn't go upscale like y'all, but I'll tell anyone that listens how the low-end EM10iii is an exceptionally great bang-for-the-buck camera.

Maybe because it is a use case that is not important to him (this is not a endorsment to Richard). I'm an amateur and use my cameras as hybrids, but never used aperture priority mode in video (will try, indeed); your use case for aperture priority in video (get sudden moments that appears) is very valid, but for me (until now, this could change) is a non-issue. Some things that are glaring faults for me probably are non-issues for others. For example, in my transition from m43 to Fuji, the thing that I'm hating most is that when you change the ISO, a full screen overlay enters (as in a lot of Fuji changing settings screens) and the only info that appears is the ISO number. You don't have EV metering and, most important, the histogram on screen to adjust the ISO until the highlights are not blown (ok, zebras appears); but why the change could not be as aperture / shutter changes, only the value change in the full info screen? For me is a big hassle, and saw zero references of it in all Fuji reviews that I've saw. Probably is not an issue for other people. And all reviews could have these kinds of personal bias.

I miss Ashton Kucher

That's awesome man! They are great cameras but they aren't for everyone. You have to work with its limitations for sure. I really love using it for casual shooting and pictures of the kids... but when I was at Indy Mogul, we used it as the A cam for many of the shoots I was a part of!

I think smartphones are definitely playing in enthusiast camera market now. Yes the Hasselblad / OnePlus branding appears to be nothing more than marketing, and they badly need to turn their sharpening down. Yes Samsung is coasting along, in my opinion. But iPhone 12 Pro Max is actually very nice and has some amazing tricks like the IBIS for shooting RAW in low light at low ISOs. Capable of amazingly filmic images. Then we have the true innovators... Huawei and Xiaomi. They are doing all sorts of interesting things and have superb folded optics. 5x zoom on P40 Pro is just a miracle basically. Even Sony are getting their act together. Xperia 1 II and III are very capable devices in a lot of different ways. I am keen to try the variable optical zoom on the latest one

Rolling shutter. But it's actually probably about the same, I've been using the 3:2 mode which has more.

I think another factor is that the expectation for quality is also dropping. It's become so easy with cell phones that anyone can do it so now the "viral" photos are based on who is in the image vs. the skill that was required to create the image. A horribly lit and composed cell phone picture of Kim Kardashian will get 50M views yet a photographic masterpiece that took weeks of planning and years of experience to create will barely get seen by 1,000 people. Another factor is no one prints anymore, so even if a camera were to advance by the magnitude of a decade or two....the typical viewer would never be able to tell the difference because it would never be viewed on anything other than a cell phone. The same thing can be said for video....who needs 8K raw when the average viewer is going to watch the final video on YouTube using their cell phone? If your client can't tell (and isn't going to pay for) the difference in quality between a $15K camera and a $2K camera why would you buy the $15K camera? I have to face these harsh realities each time I consider my next equipment purchase, I would love to own the Inspire 2 but my clients are not going to be able to tell the difference between the Inspire 2 and the Mavic Pro. Likewise the C70....why bother buying the C70 when my clients are going to pay me the same if I use the S5 instead. Thanks to cell phones which are "just good enough" for most people they are less and less willing to pay for quality.