« The Collector Effect (Happy Birthday, Edward Curtis) | Main | Lowest Prices on Canon Full-Frame »

Saturday, 17 February 2018


Mike, like you, I prefer text reviews. Much easier on my small amount of patience with commercial stuff.



re Jonas Rask website, the photos are all VERY dark black on my ipad screen

Just sayin'... Agree with you 100% on video reviews- they waste 2-3x your time to get thru the "message" after the intro/"whas' up" greetings/time wasters to extend the length of the video for youtube. Must be part of "Convenience" of putting the brain on autopilot. So at least two of us curmudgeons out there :)

[Since you're also a curmudgeon, does it also bother you to be continually addressed as "you guys"? As though there's more than one of me sitting here at my computer. It's a common failing in magazine writing, too, which I always corrected as an editor. You might be writing for an audience of twenty thousand people, but the relationship is one-on-one: the writer, and one reader. Or, the vblogger, and one viewer. There's no "you guys" involved. --Mike the curmudgeonly Ed.]

Yep, I seldom look at video reviews of anything. With text I can go to the summary assessment and skip the stuff I don't care about. With video, I feel like I'm being forced to watch.

I also have both the f/2 and f/1.4 versions of the Fuji 23mm. And both versions of the Fuji 35mm as well. The 50mm and 35mm were my most used lenses in 35mm format so it was natural to gravitate to their equivalents with Fuji. With the XPro1, I use the f/2 versions because they don't block frames in the OVF and the more up to date AF improves usability of the now ancient camera. I use the f/1.4 versions on the XT1 where the larger size is a better fit for the EVF. They're all excellent lenses with the f/1.4 versions being just a tiny bit more excellent in my estimation.

I, too, have both 23mm Fuji lenses. I started with the 1.4 because, of course, it’s the superior optic. But for my brand of street photography the f2 offers advantages of focusing speed, size and weight, and water resistance allowing me to shoot in the rain and other wet weather freely. It is pretty much glued to my camera except when I’m traveling and don’t know what I may encounter, in which case I switch to the 18-55. That’s my 2-lens combo (tho’ I’ll confess to also owning and seldom using Fufi’s 14mm and the 55-200).

I have to agree with you about Jonas's product photography. He seems to be going for pure style over practicality. The photos are so dark as to be useless for the purposes of a review, which unavoidably leads me to question his judgment as a reviewer.

I have a similar reaction to video reviews, usually because the video seems mostly about the reviewer, not the subject under review. "Nothing so fair as our own reflection in the mirror", except now read "vblog" for mirror.

There's nothing wrong with your monitor (I have the same). Perhaps Jonas was inspired by Alex Majoli's recent work: https://www.magnumphotos.com/newsroom/politics/spain-catalonia-crisis-alex-majoli/

I find the information to dross ratio far higher with text. I can skip forward and backward far easier as well.

To follow up on my earlier curmugeonly post, great article covering some of what's behind the need for video and constant stimuli:


I simply won’t watch videos. Period.

Y’know, Mike, it surprises me that you don’t have an X-Pro 2. It would seem to me that it would be exactly your kind of camera.

[Oh, now cut that out, Dave. --Mike]

Mike, I'm a web designer, and find myself in constant bafflement over digital marketers' push towards video content at the expense of text.

As you say, it's much easier to scan a page of text (or use the 'find in page' function of your browser) than to constantly skip backwards and forwards through a video review.

The same goes for many how-to videos. Sometimes a video is the only option, but often text and accompanying photos would be just as useful, and far easier to scan through.

Video seems to be the funnel we are being pushed towards for now. I guess that might be overthrown once Virtual Reality really kicks in to the mainstream internet.

My membership to the curmudgeon club is fully paid and in good standing. I'm firmly in the "give me text" camp when it comes to gear reviews. Video reviews seem more narcissistic than informative. There is the rare exception; Ted Forbes comes to mind ... not that he's perfect, just less narcissistic.

I do not know that the public does prefer video reviews; I'm willing to believe that that many reviewers are doing it wrong.

One of my frustrations in finding online advice and tutorials on video editing is how many of them are available only as videos. Sure, sometimes what's being done is easier to show than describe, and I don't begrudge them doing those in video, but very often something I could read the answer out of in 10 seconds is embedded in 10 minutes of video, and I resent the waste of my time. But at least I kind of understand why in that case; if your primary orientation is video, then it kind of makes sense for you to release your helpful advice to people that way.

One major problem with video compared to a written article is that SLOW internet connections make many of them difficult to view. Some are impossible. High Quality is fine but when it takes over and hour to download just to watch a 10 minute or so video - I pass.
Websites that have videos loading as the printed pages do are lousy for us as well. Generally turn them off and go elsewhere.
Worst for me are those videos done by folks who think putting one out that appears to be done by someone in the middle of an epileptic attack in an earthquake while jumping in a PoGo Stick is good. Motion sickness I can do without and those types of videos induce nausea.
Then, the fools who constantly zoom in and out or go side to side. Learn to hone in on what is important and get rid of the cheezy effects.

I've no interest in the X-H1 but, yes, its design similarity to the GFX was the first feature that jumped at me. Frankly, that's a good thing, as I find that top screen design to be a real plus in terms of status information efficiency, particularly in dark conditions.

Re: video reviews, yes I agree with others and prefer text-based reviews ala DPreview. But I also must admit that I look at virtually no gear reviews in any format beyond those rather clinical in DPreview and Imaging Resource. Not to sound too snotty but the bloggers/vloggers doing gear reviews are not usually very good photographers (if you can see any of their work at all). I just don't value their opinions.

Please don't start doing videos! You'd have to buy a baseball cap and wear it reversed. Also, I wouldn't watch them.

Text, yes. Video not so much. I rarely watch them.

Notice that everyone who has commented on this so far prefers text. Is this because TOP reaches a way-skewed sample? Or maybe no one really likes video much... the video emperor has no clothes?

Or maybe not a lot of people read anything anymore. Ever since the education folks (or someone) came up with "I'm a visual learner", reading seems to have been falling out of favor.

Someone ought to do a survey see if a sizable portion of us really prefer reading reviews. But that would be a lot of work and probably wouldn't change anything.


Text, text.
Text, text, text...

You've taken 3 seconds you understand my communication.

The H-1 seems to be neither fish nor fowl. Not really anything extra for stills shooters (worth the added cost) compared with the XT-2. Not really a strong video contender compared with the Panasonic GH5S and others. Can't shoot more than 15mins of video without the separate grip (more expense, and bulk).

On text vs video, for me either one is good really, as long as it is intelligent and well though for it's medium. When I research a new camera I tend to both read and watch reviews, reading can be better for technical stuff and video for getting other details like shutter sound.

Regarding the lens redundancy, a while ago I was testing both the Fujinons 35mm (f/1.4 and f/2) to see witch one to keep and in the end I just decided to stop fighting with myself and keep the two. I like both for different reasons and I use them both regularly so I can justify the redundancy.

On the 23mm I recently decided the 23/1.4 wasn't very fun to use for me, too bulky on my X-Pro2, so decided to sell it and finally upgrade my old original X100 for a new Fuji X100F. By the way, like Dave Jenkins is surprised about the X-Pro2, I'm also surprised on how you don't have a X100 camera, it's a perfect desert island camera with your favorite FL.

Agree with virtually everything you and your commentators have said. Black pictures? Check. Text over video? Check. Ted Forbes? Check.
Whilst writing can imitate that shouting, over-familiar advertorial style of a lot of videos, it is still less intrusive and less painful when it does so.

As a Video content author/editor (at work) I sympathise with the drawbacks of video:

- you can't easily skip and control the pace
- spoken content is slower

As a video producer, evidence from stats is that 1 minute videos are fine but views tail off rapidly after that.

As a video consumer, it's a lot better at 1.25x speed - it can be absorbed at this speed at a rate similar to text. As a Brit, I find that the (mostly) American produced video content is spoken too slowly with too many long pauses = boring.

I prefer text over video, but better a good video than lousy text of course. Hardly ever read reviews unless there are some nice image samples in it. The only review websites I attend frequently are the Japanese sites Kasyapa and Yodobashi. Love their typical Asian imaging, but can’t understand a word.


I'm another who'll take text reviews over video anytime. Not that there haven't been some high-quality video reviews along the way.

Calgary, Alberta's The Camera Store may do the best of them all. There's a level of professionalism and gravitas that is hard to find anywhere else - certainly on video. And I never find myself becoming bored or impatient. Those guys know what they're doing.

Re:the X-H1... I've decided that it's not for me. Instead, I just pulled the trigger on an X-T2. Mike, I'd be interested in learning whether your earlier concern that the X-H1 might be too video-centric for you has come to pass.

The question is, apart of video convenience, only in the photography side, what difference make this new camera, is really important?
And about the video I think is a millennial way of think maybe? as others here I prefer read and see photos, videos for reviews are a waste of time

H1 looks wonderful.
Like the IBIS and top screen ....but

Having just sold my Pentax K5 and all those lovely ltd lenses after 40 years I realise the H1 is the same size pretty well.

So for me the XT is as large as I know want to walk around with.
The X100f is gorgeous and I love the 35mm FOV.

M43 gives 5stop IBIS in a neat small body with fast small primes.

So I am with Peter Gilbert .... great for others maybe but too big for a mirrorless APSC for me. However it is i teresting how innovative Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have been ...and how uninventive the big boys have been.

You should definitely do a video–in your spare time.

I generally prefer reading to watching some overly long, tedious video, although I do watch well done entertaining reviews on video sometimes. Not sure I am watching those for the information though, as when I want information I tend to seek out well written reviews from trustworthy, unbiased sources.

The problem with Fuji is that there are so many partisan reviews from Fuji-can-do-no-wrong reviewers. I was burned on the original Fuji X100 and the reviewers who proclaimed it a gift from the gods, although with a few "quirks." (Couldn't focus worth a darn in manual or auto focus, took a week to start or wake from sleep etc.) Reviews of the screw on tele-extender for it that proclaimed it a magical "lens."

So with Fuji reviews in particular, I am extremely selective on the reviewers I trust. When you get some reviewers, even scientists, talking about Fuji "magic," you know the Kool Aid is strong.

Text sucks BIG-time when your vision deteriorates. I can't read text smaller than 16 point anymore, while web designers still think that 6 point is elegant. Meh!

The problem most have with video is that they don't see video done by film-makers. A TV Commercial only has a few seconds to grab your attention before you click away. A broadcast drama only has a few seconds to grab your attention before you click away. Are you starting tto see a pattern here? If you don't grab-them-by-the-throat-mmediately, they are gone—never to return.

Everything, including interviews, need to be very well scripted. If you are not an expert on the subject, than hire someone who is (and have the expert appear on camera).

There are four types of learning. Visual learning, Auditory learning, Read/write learning and Kinesthetic learning. For many subjects, sales and marketing for instance, listening to a program, on your way to work, is a quick way to learn.

"It occupies a place in the lineup above the formerly top-of-the-line rangefinder-style/SLR-style pair, the X-Pro2 and X-T2."

Probably not. It looks more like a new line adding to the T, the Pro and fixed lens 100 series. Each for a specific market with some overlap.

I much prefer text, but video has its place. Just not so much in camera reviews. But try to write a column on how to tie a bowtie...or a shoestring.

By the way, the photos on the Fujifilm X-photographer's review site are way too dark to see well on my screen too.

Yeah I agree on the videos but with at least one exception- that kid on DigitalRev TV is a riot! Plus he's a truth teller. Just go to his channel and pick a few...

Don't mind the dark photos to be honest, he's obviously trying to do something different to the usual perfectly lit product shots which you can find anywhere else. Nearly every photo has some highlight element in color or contrast, they're not just underexposed/lit.

The first review of the X-H1 I encountered was a video review by Palle Schultz, who had used a pre-release camera to make a video in Nepal. He is an engaging speaker and goes right to the heart of what either a videographer or photographer would want from the camera. Shutter sound, size and ergonomics, effectiveness of image stabilization, continuous autofocus in action: they're all there, and clearly illustrated. And all this is accompanied by an engaging personality and useful comments for anyone making videos for our small screens. No reason to view or read anything else.

As everyone down here in OZ knows, "you guys" is both an irregular and defective collective noun. It is irregular because it is a plural noun with no singular, and defective because the correct word is "youse guys". It is a collective noun because, the space notwithstanding, it comprises a single word used to describe a class of things being a person or persons whom another person is addressing, usually orally but (obs.) also in writing. E.g. as youse guys all know.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. At 24 fps, just 1 second of video is already worth 24,000 words!

Text uber alles!
Video reviews, some droning waffle and irritating drivel, with a few seconds of the info you were looking for.

The XT-2 looks like a Contax film camera, the new Fuji looks like the Fuji Gfx, which to me is the ugliest camera currently being produced, looks like a house with an illegal extension at the back. It's probably a better camera than the Hassy mirrorless, but it looks like an inbred redneck next a European catwalk model.
Fuji is playing catchup here, the video is still way behind most other brands.
Video reviews, never watch them, ever.

Text vs video reviews
Text reviews accompanied by video. Text for specs and general conclusions. Video to show the camera in action, to let me hear how it sounds (I might be crazy, but sounds conveys also quality and the wonderful sound of the shutter is one of the reason that made me choice the XPro 2 over the XT-2...) and how it operates.

The '80s are unfortunately back big time, with the difference that now there is not even a fraction of the money that used to be around at that time in our pockets. Both the new Fuji looks a lot like an oversized Minolta 7000 to me...bleah!

Fuji vs Nikon 36Mp
When I had just the XT-10 I already compared against the Sony A7r, using on both Contax (Zeiss) glass. The results were mighty impressive.

Up to 60x90cm (23x35in), or slightly larger than A1 paper, the 16Mp sensor was essentially indistinguishable from the 36Mp one...and in terms of depth of field it had actually advantages for landscape photography (you can avoid roaming into diffraction territory because you don't have to shoot at f/16 or focus stack that often, if at all). You can see the results and judge for yourself at:


Now that I bought the XPro 2 with the 35/2 I repeated the comparison but I didn't bother to post it because the XPro 2 was actually way better than the Sony, which only retained a relative advantage in terms of dynamic range (not that much). BTW, needlessly to say my Sony is now on the *bay alongside almost all my not-Fujinon lenses.

I used during the years almost all Fuji medium format film cameras and I loved their lenses. Once again they don't disappoint...

Jonas’s darkly displayed web photographs, in my view, are both intended and unintended. I see this a lot with my own photography students.
I hope that my following comments are not seen as a criticism of Jonas and his work. Clearly he is talented and skilled photographer. However, sometimes, things just don’t come together as they should.
Stylistically he was looking for a dark, low-key, enigmatic looking style. Big tick; he achieved that.

However, he also appears to have unknowingly taken his image out of bounds – that is, the shadow areas were aggressively clipped and the entire highlights and midrange were deposited into the image’s quarter-tones, otherwise known as deep dark shadow. That could be due to a few reasons including judgement, technique, screen brightness, calibration, profiling and working environment.

Here’s a histogram of a screen shot of his images showing all the tones crammed to the left:

Applying a threshold-mode view in Photoshop’s Levels reveals the clipped blacks. Generally, even with really dark photos, the clipped black tones should only be a very fine tracing.

To pull the image back into viewable-land, as you did yourself Mike, I applied an aggressive highlight drag with a big midrange and quarter-tone drop in Curves. (NB: you are viewing the Curves dialogue in ‘Pigment mode’, so it will appear upside down and left to right. I think in ink, so to make an imager lighter I lower the ink level by pulling down the curve).

The other big issue here is screen calibration and profile.
Calibration is to what parameters the screen’s hardware is set. In this context, that means brightness and RGB output levels.
If the screen has not been calibrated and left in the factory or default setting then it will be retina-burningly too bright (and too blue) when viewed in a dimmer environment. This most affects the judgement of the shadows and midrange. Our natural response is to darken them down.
If the screen has also not been hardware-profiled, then the tonal relationships as well as the colours could be completely misrepresenting the image-file.
The lesson here: always calibrate and profile your screen if you both care about your photography and you share photographs with others.
Every time I say that out loud I get the following response, ‘Why should I go to the trouble of calibrating and profiling my monitor when they will be viewed almost exclusively on uncalibrated/unprofiled screens?’
The answer by way of analogy: if you are writing music using a poorly tuned piano and it sounds good to your ear, then how do you think it will sound to everyone else when they play it on their pianos, tuned or untuned? More importantly, if you compose using a well-tuned piano, then it wouldn’t matter how poorly tuned their pianos are, as the music will sound fine to their ears, as they are used to the sound of their own piano.
And so it is with digital photography processing. Calibration and profiling only really matters with the creation, conversion and production of photographs. It is relatively unimportant for just viewing other people’s images.
Lastly, I got caught out myself with some poorly printed photographs last year. A publication with very high quality printing standards published one of my assignments and the photographs were similarly as dark as these. After much debate I found out that the graphics card on my ancient Mac was corrupted and shortly afterwards died a horrible (expensive) death.
On replacing it with a new Mac, calibrated and profiled, I discovered the truth about the files I sent to publication – they were incredibly dark – completely at odds with how they appeared when I first sent them off for publication.
Just when you think you can be satisfied with your workflow practices, hubris comes up and bites you on the arse.

No videos. No way. Not watching. For most of the reasons several have already stated.


With a handful of notable exceptions, video reviewers make the most cogent argument as to why certain people should never be allowed in front of the camera. From the rabbit in the headlights to the guy who just won't take his Ritalin, via a narrative voice with all the charisma of a corpse in a call centre...
...And if ever I come across one that starts with the words "Wassup, Guys?" I'm hoping to hit the escape button before that feeling of despair for all humanity can take hold.
Chris Niccolls of The Camera Store ain't bad, though!

Text 100%. You stated the reason. You can skim ahead in text. So: text for analysis. I like Youtube for "how to's" though. Think about explaining how to tie shoes. Easy to show. Hard to describe accurately and clearly.

But text is cheap and video is expensive. Think about the density of information in a news report. News: text. TV News: blechs.

I think it’s easier to produce a so-so video review than it is to write a decent one. Writing takes time and revision if you want it do it well (he says in a hastily written comment), and frankly the standards are at least somewhat higher than for a rambling video.

As cdembry says, video reviews would be great if the reviewers knew something about filmmaking, just as written reviews are best when the reviewer can write. The advantage of mediocre text over mediocre video is that in text it’s easier to skim and this extract the information you want.

This speaks to why we keep coming back here, methinks.... quality of prose. Hope the book is coming along... ;)

Re text versus video reviews. Could it be that video is (apparently) easier ?

Of the many egregious sins of home made videos the worst for me is the plonker whom uses his phone in portrait mode.

Best advice I ever got for filmimg was don't zoom and don't pan to which I would add is use a tripod or a flat surface. I regularly see tourists walking alomg whilst they pan all around. I'd hate to have to sit througfh that holiday video

The distinction isn't between video and written reviews. It's between good and bad.

Most text reviews are quick re-writes of press releases, with a section at the end that talks about market positioning; something only a camera store clerk would care about.
Most video reviews consist of someone talking straight to camera for way too long, mostly repeating the press release, and then imparting wisdom about market positioning...

The best and most informative reviews I've seen in the past few years are Kaiman Wong's. He obviously loves photography, isn't impressed by press releases, and he uses video to his advantage. He tells a story and shows examples.

I would rather watch any of his reviews than read one more "analysis" about how the new XH-AE1d is positioned one rung above and slightly to the left of the competing AE-XH1d, and that it's sensory-focus-peak-tracking technology is a major selling feature compared to the other company's tactile-focus-track-peaking, even though they do the exact same thing.

In that spirit:

The new Fuji offers the highest button-per-square centimetre ratio of all leading contenders, something that is sure to appeal to today's demanding button-per-square-centimetre customer. It falls squarely in between Canon and Nikon in our exclusive alphabetical rating, and should find itself positioned to the right of the GFX, next to the aftermarket battery charger section.

I like video reviews for the one thing that text and pictures are poor at communicating - what is this thing like to handle. How big is it in the real world? Is it cumbersome? Is it tiny and light. Things that are surprisingly difficult to convey in writing and photographs.

Unfortunately, most video reviewers don't play to this strength of their chosen medium, so I have to agree, the vast majority are dreck. The problem with video in general is it has very low information density and poor reference mechanisms, as information designers would say. When it comes to non-visual information (like product specs), it's by far the least efficient way to communicate.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, the writings of Edward Tufte are a great place to start. See, for example

I agree with the text-before-video opinion that most here share. (I find LuLa is bad in this respect: two middle aged men with a lens on the table between them does not make for instructive/entertaining video!) The other downside apart form the time it takes, is that anyone nearby in the house, or cafe, is also forced to listen to it as well. Noise pollution!

Who do so many photographers who would die before posting an out of focus image, think that posting crap video is acceptable?

Video should only be used where visuals and sound are required to get the message over or to entertain. I would still skip a video on how to tie a bow tie, or shoelaces, but a video on how to shoot portraits by someone who knew what they were doing might well get me.

Rick's link about forgetting how to read is definitely worth a click. Just as with B&W, text was the only game in town. And text has been the rule since before Gutenberg in the 15th century. Our schools in the last century fed us text until it came out of our ears.

At Cal I had to ready 2 novels a week as well as text for my other classes and then write numerous papers. When I got out and got a job it demanded 3 pages of writing per day in reports. Being fresh from school I blew that out of the water and watched everyone else laboring over their work while I rank coffee and smoked Camels.

That speaks to years of focused training. Today, in my Photography classes, getting people to read, except for the best traditional students and older students, is like pulling teeth. At the High School level it is even worse.

So...I assign short videos (some) of which I make), I lecture, perform a demo on the large LCD screen, do hands-on demos, and physically support in labs.

Where I really run into challenges is when a student cannot be engaged for any number of reasons. I generally lecture l walking around the room and aim info at specifically resistant students. In essence I force them to attend to the info, regardless of how it is delivered.

And then there is the problem of phone taking attention away from the lesson....I would like to shoot the teacher that first allowed them in the classroom.

The screen has become the attraction for information intake. From there is the gravitation to looking at images on an internet that has virtually limitless access to info and styles of delivery, content-rich or not,...with a click. Students now stare at a small screen, without a worry about detail, and enjoy. They don't like staring at marks on a page and having to assemble a stream of understanding.

I think that because video is now deliverable people feel they have to deliver it. It’s worth remembering that the plain old searchable and hyperlinkable web page (c.1990) is a much newer and more useful thing than the linear movie (c.1800). Once Audio and Video are usefully searchable there may be a stronger case for the old fashioned medium known as video...

Also, I can’t listen to music and read a review at the same time ;-).

Text, obviously (but we'll, we are all readers of TOP so this poll has a clear survivor's bias in it...).

What I think is that the video invasion is basically for laziness. It's much more difficult to write a nice, well worded, fun and significant article than prepare most (not all!) video review/how-to.

I teach engineering, and I am noticing that the younger students really do prefer video tutorials, and often they have trouble if forced to read, process and understand more than a couple of pages of new data (say the setting for an exam) without video supporting it.

Maybe part of the change towards VR, but I'm not sure I like it.

Thanks for writing...

I also greatly prefer text over video for reviews; text lets me set the pace and easily skip the irrelevant bits. With video, both become harder. Nowadays I tackle videos by setting subtitling on and speeding the up to at least 1.5x speed to get through them quicker: review videos are not movies anyway.

On the comparison of prints of different cameras, this genre of comparison must be a great generator of clicks ever since Michael Reichmann published his infamous early Canon digital to medium format comparison. I just recently did a comparison between my iPhone7+, 16 MP APS-C and 42 Mp full frame, all with very competent lenses with a modest print size of 8x10". All were good, all were slightly different. Even at this modest print size the very high resolution has an advantage as it renders all sorts of detail very naturally both due to resolution and minimal moire.

Of course one can always find a viewing distance and a subject where differences between two formats disappear, but my experience is that more is better, which is different from less being sufficient for the reviewer.

I'd quibble with Mike's definition of hyper. It does mean that what he says it does, but in the tech world it most goes back to the Greek, as in hypersonic, hypertext, hyper-threading, hyperlink, hyper-vigilance, etc. Somewhere on the net is a discussion of whether "hyper-" is more than "ultra-," and none of the arguments refer to nervousness. I think the excitable or nervousness definition is applicable only when the word is used as a standalone, as in "He's hyper." And I'd argue that's (still) slang.

Jonas Rask is not a reviewer. He is one of the official Fujifilm X photographers, so he has some arrangement with Fujifilm to represent them, just like Palle Schulz and others. His article is not so much a review as it is a company-sponsored product introduction.

Let's distinquish between company designated spokespeople and the genuine independent reviewers out there — the ones who don't get undisclosed benefits. And let's stop giving them linkbacks for alleged "reviews" of Fujifilm products.

It's a shame that company spokespeople get to rank high in searches for actual reviews and thus fool a lot of readers into thinking they are actual reviewers. This is an ethically dubious practice.

I generally prefer text to video (I'm 64), but I do enjoy David Thorpe's videos of M4/3 cameras and lenses. He's and old pro, literate, and speaks with a dulcet-toned British accent. He knows what he likes and how to use it. I await his latest offering. https://www.youtube.com/user/spogley

Me thinks Jonas Rask has a very bright monitor that he does his work on. So many of his photos appear too dark, and the camera photos are as black to me as they are to you.

I think the "H" stands for "helluva".

I definitely prefer good reviews. If possible in video format(!), if better in written format.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007