Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ReidReview's narrow scope  (Read 1253 times)
Stephen Scharf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« on: January 22, 2013, 10:17:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The post about Sean Reid's review of the OM-D, etc. today has some confirmed some things I've been thinking lately about ReidReviews. While I'm a subscriber to ReidReviews and think they are well-written and generally extensive in their converage, IMO, I find them to be of of limited value. The reason for that is that they come from a very narrow "market segment" of photography: black and white street photography.

While Reid's specific requirements and how well any camera meets those requirements for this segment are well-articulated and discussed in detail, where I find his reviews lack the breadth that meets my personal needs for a camera review in they only represent a single, narrow set of user needs.

And the fact is, that many photographers have very different needs than just B&W street photography (some don't do B&W street photography at all), and work with their cameras in multiple settings and user scenarios. You never see a ReidReview about how well a camera might function for use wild animal, sports, reportage, editorial, commercial, or "artistic" photography, for example. I can see how the Leica Digital M's are the embodiment of a camera that best meet's Reid's needs, but the fact of the matter is that you'd never use, or effectively could use, a Leica M9 for motorsports photography.

So, while I find his reviews to be of interest, I only find them to be of moderate interest because of this singular focus on a very narrow application. I'd really rather see a broader set of requirements and user contexts evaluated and assessed with how well the camera meets those requirements from any camera review.

I'd also really wish he'd move away from the Flash-based web site so I could read his reviews on my iPad.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:29:19 PM by Stephen Scharf » Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2013, 02:34:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I was a subscriber but did let it lapse a while back, though I might re-subscribe again.  I do agree that Reid is only using the cameras for a very limited genre, but in a way that is the strength of his reviews.  Is it not much more honest than the reviewers who try to describe a camera in use for many different types of photography, and proving that they are not really expert at any.  Reid often seems to spend a lot of time on the ergonomics of the camera and how it facilitates how the user 'sees' the image.  I find this really valuable.  There are many reviewers around and I think it is important to read a number to get balanced views.  Personally because all cameras are so good now, I am mostly interested when comparing models in how they handle - which Michael Reichman here on LL is very good at.
For instance when reviewing cameras without viewfinders lots of reviewers will concentrate on the build quality, image quality, frame-rate etc,etc.  But not even address the point that without a viewfinder the camera is next to useless for many of us unless mounted on a tripod.

ReidReviews is what it is.  Yes, it is limited, but very interesting nonetheless and a valuable addition to anybody's reading list.  Don't ask Mr Reid to speculate on uses for a camera that he is not qualified to comment on - let him concentrate on what the camera is good at.  I don't need him to tell me that an M9 is not suitable for a safari.

Jim
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 04:34:40 AM by Jim Pascoe » Logged
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 329


« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2013, 10:52:31 AM »
ReplyReply

It isn't really any different to Lloyd Chambers' site or a number of others even to a large extent LL. Reviewers review cameras that appeal to their style of photography and review them in that context.
Logged
snoleoprd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 378



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2013, 11:18:31 AM »
ReplyReply

While I agree his reviews of cameras are somewhat limited they are very complete. I don't find his photography to be particularly inspiring but he is very thorough in the reviews and with his process. It is a good source of information and comparison for mirrorless and range finder type cameras and similar. Just another place to look and get information to help make decisions about potential equipment. I feel my subscription has been worthwhile.

Alan
Logged

Alan Smallbone
Orange County, CA
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2013, 08:28:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I subscribed for a while. I really enjoyed his rangefinder stuff. A good read!

His "chart" lens reviews didnt do it for me and the pdf format drove me insane.

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6921


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2013, 01:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have also a major issue the flash based presentation.

Other than that I used to like his writing, but I chose not to renew, mostly because of flash.

Best regards
Erik

The post about Sean Reid's review of the OM-D, etc. today has some confirmed some things I've been thinking lately about ReidReviews. While I'm a subscriber to ReidReviews and think they are well-written and generally extensive in their converage, IMO, I find them to be of of limited value. The reason for that is that they come from a very narrow "market segment" of photography: black and white street photography.

While Reid's specific requirements and how well any camera meets those requirements for this segment are well-articulated and discussed in detail, where I find his reviews lack the breadth that meets my personal needs for a camera review in they only represent a single, narrow set of user needs.

And the fact is, that many photographers have very different needs than just B&W street photography (some don't do B&W street photography at all), and work with their cameras in multiple settings and user scenarios. You never see a ReidReview about how well a camera might function for use wild animal, sports, reportage, editorial, commercial, or "artistic" photography, for example. I can see how the Leica Digital M's are the embodiment of a camera that best meet's Reid's needs, but the fact of the matter is that you'd never use, or effectively could use, a Leica M9 for motorsports photography.

So, while I find his reviews to be of interest, I only find them to be of moderate interest because of this singular focus on a very narrow application. I'd really rather see a broader set of requirements and user contexts evaluated and assessed with how well the camera meets those requirements from any camera review.

I'd also really wish he'd move away from the Flash-based web site so I could read his reviews on my iPad.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad