joe6pack: All pros and no cons. I am feeling more and more that these videos are all paid advertisements. Tell me this isn't so!
This isn't so!
Markol: So dpr can't even be bothered to chime in on discussions?If people find nothing wrong with native advertising, then they may not have grasped the concept of journalism, free or paid content.IF there was any form of support on the part of Sony, people should know about it to draw their own conclusions.If there wasn't, just say so and it's cleared up.As it is, it smells like a puff piece.
Just today they published a letter from a Swiss newspaper where they plainly said that for 800 francs in ads, they would come to your company and do some reporting. That's what it has come to and it IS wrong. Ads and content should be separated and if not, say so.
Are you referring to DPReview Live? If so, you have to think about the context. A lot of the criticism we get when we interview brands can be summarized as "why didn’t you ask tougher questions?". The reality is that camera manufacturers, and honestly, all tech companies, have too strong of a public relations policy, for their brand representatives to answer certain kinds of questions, especially when it comes to future product plans, or competitive strategy. So what we try to focus on is pulling out the type of information that is useful to photographers. There is no point in us asking questions they cannot and would not answer.
Nonetheless, thanks for the feedback, we are always trying to figure out how to make the most of our access to the brands, and definitely welcome new ideas on our content, whether it's video, live video, or written.
Taking a step back, as I know this comes up often. DPReview.com employs about 16 people, 4 web engineers, 2 product managers, and the rest editorial roles (camera testers, technical writers, editors). Literally 100% of the income for the site comes in the form of advertising sales, which is managed by an Amazon company called Amazon Media Group (AMG). I, personally, meet with AMG often to ensure the technical aspects of the site are configured properly to display the ads, but this is not something Editorial is involved in, and trust me, they wouldn't find it very interesting.
What this means in practical terms is that the editorial team doesn't interact with camera companies in the way some of our readers fear, dealing with money and what not, and it is by design. It would compromise their ability to write about the gear in an unbiased manner. They are passionate about gear in the same way many of our readers are, and most of them were readers before writers.
DPReview doesn't have financial relationships with camera companies or photographers. We wanted to make a video about the a6000's core features being used in the real world, and Chris, being sponsored by Sony, has a lot of experience shooting with the a6000 in situations we felt would be interesting and illustrative. We've now done the same with Canon 7D MK II, Samsung NX1, Fuji XT-1, and Nikon D750. We have a bunch more planned, because we wanted to expand from our technical reviews into more real world use of the gear, and also explore video content.
Jim Evidon: I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
What I find is that digital phones are now where digital cameras were 10 years ago. As far as I can see, the only use for digital cameras in hand held phones is (1) use it if you need to catch the freeway accident you pass when your real camera isn't handy; i.e, it's probably better than nothing...a debatable point point. And/or (2) it's good for those people that really could care less about photography and like to engage in narcissistic exercises like taking selfies. Blech!
@Hugo, we post every phone review to DPReview, because at the end of the day, a camera is a camera is a camera, and every photographer uses different tools.
mpgxsvcd: Is this with a tripod or did you see Medusa on the trip? Hands of Stone.
Neither Medusa or tripod, just a relatively flat rock. ;)
stevo23: OK this one is a total dud. Terrible jpg processing makes it look like something from an iphone or worse..
I mean the original gallery you viewed, and this photo, are strait out-of-camera jpegs. Here is the RAW file converted in Adobe ACR for the same shot:
Are you complaining about the sharpness? Make sure you wait for the screen to fully load the image, there is a second or so where the image loads but will appear quite blurry or out of focus.
Richard Murdey: Several of these photos were taken with substantial negative exposure compensation. (-1, -1.3) Was that intentional, and if so, why?
To me, they look strange. Very dull, like in old movies where they "simulated" night scenes by darkening the footage.
We've added RAW conversions for all the shots plus a handful of others in a variety of ISO and shutter speed/focal length combos.
stevez: I like that you've shown a large variety of images with different lighting, lenses and exposure combinations. CA is virtually nonexistent at least to my eye. Colors are very natural although I'm not overly impressed with the level of detail, mostly in low contrast areas. I suspect that may be the JPEG engine?
camcom12: Shadows appear nearly black (00,00,00). Needs at least some shadow recovery.
Team Thor Expeditions: I really cannot see the point of "critical focus" in any of these shots. I wonder if it is a camera thing or the specific lens or a combo. Any comments?
In general I'd say the focusing worked pretty well. There is a mixture of the 55mm, 70-200, and 16-35 in the gallery. In this shot the tree is in critical focus. Make sure you wait for the site to fully load the file as it will appear OOF for a second as it loads.
CaPi: Nice shot. But I somehow wonder if this might be a camera better suited for RAW only usage
camcom12: Very deep shadows are distracting. Needs some shadow recovery work. This would show a truer test of the sensor's noise & dynamic range limits, I think.
R Stacy: Interesting, but I'm not sure f11 was the right choice here. There is so much background and deep shadow, I dono, I'd like to see this at about f4 or 5.6 focused on the subject.
I agree with you, I think f4 would have brought the subject to the eye more effectively. Thanks for the feedback!
camcom12: Shadows appear a bit mottled, void of detail, at least on my monitor. Are these images "right out of the box" jpeg defaults, or were parameters tweaked a bit, or raw then post processed? Most Sony cams can be set to produce very substantial shadow recovery if jpegs are the desired output.
Check the gallery again, we added all RAW conversions plus a variety of additional shots to show ISO and shutter speed variations. The original gallery was just out-of-camera jpegs.
Zorak: As we are on a gear site, it would be nice to give technical informations about the shooting. Were they shot in raw, processed in LR, or were they shot in jpg, which settings, etc...
Check the gallery again, we added all RAW conversions plus a variety of additional shots to show ISO and shutter speed variations. PP limited to exposure, WB, and minor color tweaks.
dominic2: Is this all you have? Where are high ISO shots. A7 II is not not expected to have problems with landscape shots.
Check the gallery again, we added all RAW conversions plus a variety of additional shots to show ISO and shutter speed variations.
HaroldC3: Curious as to why on the last 10 shots an EC of -1 and -1.3 was used? These scenes were obviously underexposed because of this (look at the beach shot).
As a crop shooter, I expected a lot better sharpness and detail from such an expensive body and lenses.
I guess that goes to show just how close the gap is between crop and full frame in that category.
jeanpierre19: great pictures indeed. could be better developed, to obtain more sharpness, detail and dynamic. ACR is not always the best Raw-Converter. Have a look to other and try it out! It would be an advantage for the Zeiss 16-35/f 4.0! Please retryit and let us show how great your pictures will be......
Check the gallery again, we added all RAW conversions plus a variety of additional shots to show ISO and shutter speed variations. The original shots you viewed were strait out of the camera jpegs.