What's Wrong with DPReview Reviews - Case in point, the RX100 VI

[Ken Ross]

As entertaining as some of the Camera Store reviews have been, they seldom provide quality videos to judge the camera by. In fact some of the videos are of such poor quality, I cringe at the thought that many watching may think that’s the best the camera can do.

The other issue, as you’ve suggested, is that a given review is often shot on a camera other than the one under review. Not very illustrative of the actual camera being reviewed.

So although they can be entertaining, they often don’t provide the number or quality of well-shot clips by which to judge the camera. The beat goes on.

Why do you need to see well shot videos to know if a camera is capable of enabling you to shoot them? That's your job as a videographer. I would think knowing the technical capabilities would help provide a basis on which to determine whether a camera fits my needs. You guys seem to be confusing creative capabilities, which you are supposed to provide, with technical capabilities, which the camera is supposed to provide.

What good is a beautifully shot video if it was a complete PITA or required all kinds of peripherals and accessories outside of the camera's base kit to shoot? Just seeing a video shot with the camera won't tell you that.

 

[Steve Bingham]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have),

Good for you. Funny! I played tennis for SDSU Aztecs varsity for 3 years - and we beat Stanford for the conference championship. My comment was simply that I had some pro experience shooting PROFESSIONAL video. Get it? There is a LOT more to shooting video with a small camera (Yes, I own the RD-100 VI) than simply video quality.

thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

I don't know! Maybe we need to play in the World Cup?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

 

[Steve Bingham]

It is impolite to quote out of text. You missed the whole point. You might want to go back and try to understand the point of the post. Your straw man logic is faulty.

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

To me it seems to speak pretty obviously to the notion that he has some experience with video production, which seems pretty relevant in a thread about how one can determine a camera's creative video capabilities.

Maybe your brand of logic needs an upgrade.

 

[snappyden]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have),

Good for you. Funny! I played tennis for SDSU Aztecs varsity for 3 years - and we beat Stanford for the conference championship. My comment was simply that I had some pro experience shooting PROFESSIONAL video. Get it? There is a LOT more to shooting video with a small camera (Yes, I own the RD-100 VI) than simply video quality.

thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

I don't know! Maybe we need to play in the World Cup?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

 

[sportyaccordy]

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

To me it seems to speak pretty obviously to the notion that he has some experience with video production, which seems pretty relevant in a thread about how one can determine a camera's creative video capabilities.

Maybe your brand of logic needs an upgrade.

 

[snappyden]

It is impolite to quote out of text. You missed the whole point. You might want to go back and try to understand the point of the post. Your straw man logic is faulty.

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

To me it seems to speak pretty obviously to the notion that he has some experience with video production, which seems pretty relevant in a thread about how one can determine a camera's creative video capabilities.

Maybe your brand of logic needs an upgrade.

 

[snappyden]

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

To me it seems to speak pretty obviously to the notion that he has some experience with video production, which seems pretty relevant in a thread about how one can determine a camera's creative video capabilities.

Maybe your brand of logic needs an upgrade.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Exactly, I own a record company, so I'm a good vocalist or musician. I own an auto dealership, so I'm a good mechanic. And so on................

I'll keep my current brand of logic, thank you.

Den

You keep worsening your analogy and missing the point further and further with every post.

He said he owned a TV station and produced 3 shows a week. So he has professional experience in video production and with video cameras. That is relevant.

It sounds to me like hearing someone speak to something they've accomplished made your emotions get the most of you.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Oh accomplishments, ready when you are.

Just kidding.

Have a good day,

Den

 

[gteague]

'owner' proves nothing, but 'producer' usually indicates a degree of hands on with, how shall i say this, VIDEO PRODUCTION. now, i'm sure hollywood gives out these credits to those who couldn't identify a video camera in 10 tries, but as the OWNER, it hurts his bottom line if he pulls that crap. and it's trivially easy to trace ownership using the fcc database.

/guy (73 de kg5vt | wqpz784)

 

[Ken Ross]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have), thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

And I'll never understand why some feel compelled to inject politics into a discussion on cameras. It's unnecessary.

 

[snappyden]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have), thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

And I'll never understand why some feel compelled to inject politics into a discussion on cameras. It's unnecessary.

Golly gee Ken,

Discussions regarding this president and the damage he has done and will continue to do to our country and its citizens, let alone many others around the world should be paramount to each of us and discussed, debated and understood whenever and wherever possible, IMHO.

Sorry you don't feel similarly.

Sincerely,

Den

 

[Ken Ross]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have), thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

And I'll never understand why some feel compelled to inject politics into a discussion on cameras. It's unnecessary.

Golly gee Ken,

Discussions regarding this president and the damage he has done and will continue to do to our country and its citizens, let alone many others around the world should be paramount to each of us and discussed, debated and understood whenever and wherever possible, IMHO.

Sorry you don't feel similarly.

Sincerely,

Den

Golly gee Den, if you had some respect for others you'd realize this is a camera forum, not a forum dedicated to political discussion. Some may actually disagree with you. Some doing so may actually be intelligent and well-versed in politics too. Or like some on the left are you intent on shutting down conversation contrary to yours?

Finally, contrary to what you may believe, forums like this are often frequented by people trying to escape the endless political debates, not fine another outlet for them.

At any rate, in the interest of keeping the S/N ratio higher and keeping the discussion to cameras as well as respecting other forum members, I've had my last say on this subject.

 

[snappyden]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have), thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

And I'll never understand why some feel compelled to inject politics into a discussion on cameras. It's unnecessary.

Golly gee Ken,

Discussions regarding this president and the damage he has done and will continue to do to our country and its citizens, let alone many others around the world should be paramount to each of us and discussed, debated and understood whenever and wherever possible, IMHO.

Sorry you don't feel similarly.

Sincerely,

Den

Golly gee Den, if you had some respect for others you'd realize this is a camera forum, not a forum dedicated to political discussion. Some may actually disagree with you. Some doing so may actually be intelligent and well-versed in politics too. Or like some on the left are you intent on shutting down conversation contrary to yours?

Finally, contrary to what you may believe, forums like this are often frequented by people trying to escape the endless political debates, not fine another outlet for them.

At any rate, in the interest of keeping the S/N ratio higher and keeping the discussion to cameras as well as respecting other forum members, I've had my last say on this subject.

Ken,

Disagreement is fine, as long as there are open channels for discussion and exchange of ideas with open minds. Isolating extremely important topics is not.

Enjoy your cameras,

Den

 

[Markr041]

Maybe, maybe not. I guess that's another discussion. The point is I don't think it's reasonable to demand that DPR become a free video production company to give people confidence in the video capabilities of a camera. I don't need to see a Ferrari go around a race track to know that it's capable of going fast.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills. Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

 

[chrisno]

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills. Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

I think you are missing the point of dpreview

the review is good enough for most users and shows the potential of the camera

photos better than the video? not to me. I do not think the photos gallery are actually that professional compared to videos

that's not the point of dpreview, showcasing the best sample in the world. it's how average joe like us actually would take advantage the cameras.

more videos samples? perhaps.

anyway, too much ranting.

 

[sportyaccordy]

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills.

The DPR galleries show what DPR photographers can do. The cameras they review here don't take pictures by themselves.

Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

It's much, much easier to take good photos than to produce good videos. The difference in the verbs associated with making each kind of media speaks to the level of effort involved. Personally, I don't care about the galleries. They are cool to look at, but they have no bearing on my gear buying process. I'm way more interested in all the technical stuff as I can think of how that will affect my photography. You also have to keep in mind the galleries are often limited in their subject matter as well.... if you are a landscape shooter and the gallery is full of concert and portrait shots, they don't do you much specific good. And with the sample content, as you demonstrate, people get lost in the artistic/creative quality than how they reflect the camera's capabilities, which are 100% technical.

Plus keep in mind DPR is completely free; seems odd and entitled to demand XYZ of them or chide them for not meeting expectations. They don't have to review cameras at all. They could shut down the site tomorrow and be well within their right. Not to say they shouldn't be open to feedback but within reason. What other free gear review site can you point to that generates the kind of sample videos you deem acceptable? From what I've seen most camera review sites barely touch video at all.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 

[Steve Bingham]

I've been following this thread to learn a bit more about high quality video being shot with the RX100VI. And while some of the arguments have been thought provoking and logical, some have certainly missed the boat on those qualities.

But the one statement that certainly rivals our current president's brand of logic is this one by Steve:

"Well I am certainly not an expert, but I did own (KPSN) a TV station and I did produce 3 shows every week for a year before I sold the station to Gannet Corp.

As relevant to this discussion as if I stated that I have played tennis on average 3-4 times a week for the past 40 plus years (which I have),

Good for you. Funny! I played tennis for SDSU Aztecs varsity for 3 years - and we beat Stanford for the conference championship. My comment was simply that I had some pro experience shooting PROFESSIONAL video. Get it? There is a LOT more to shooting video with a small camera (Yes, I own the RD-100 VI) than simply video quality.

thus I could have won the World Cup last Sunday.

Where do people come up with their arguments?

I don't know! Maybe we need to play in the World Cup?

Den

If it sounds like I'm singling the above statement out, its because it is so ludicrous it makes me laugh every time I see it in a following post to this thread. I guess I should be saying thanks for the laughs.

 

[Markr041]

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills. Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

I think you are missing the point of dpreview

the review is good enough for most users and shows the potential of the camera

photos better than the video? not to me. I do not think the photos gallery are actually that professional compared to videos

that's not the point of dpreview, showcasing the best sample in the world. it's how average joe like us actually would take advantage the cameras.

more videos samples? perhaps.

anyway, too much ranting.

I do not disagree with this. At the very least there are scores of stills for each camera review, showing a range of different styles and possibilities, some better than others. But, in this case, one video that showcases mistaken technique (for educational purposes) and is otherwise not interesting or well shot. And that's it.

No demonstration of HDR from HLG (a new feature), no demonstration of the high-quality HFR video that beats almost all cameras in any class. The average Joe would be interested in HDR, because a lot of average Joes are buying HDR TV's. And everyone is intrigued by slow motion, The camera makes the production of slow motion and HDR videos easy, for the average Joe. And that is why in part the camera costs so much. But you get no info from this site on these factors. Yet video capability affects the ratings.

Again, DPReview is clearly taking video seriously, they just need to do more.

 

[adk38]

And everyone is intrigued by slow motion, The camera makes the production of slow motion and HDR videos easy, for the average Joe. And that is why in part the camera costs so much. But you get no info from this site on these factors. Yet video capability affects the ratings.

Again, DPReview is clearly taking video seriously, they just need to do more.

I just slow down or speed up in Premiere. Only use it to change pace now and then. The slo mo's posted here are quite a pain imo. Not from a technical point. Just plain boring

 

[Markr041]

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills.

The DPR galleries show what DPR photographers can do. The cameras they review here don't take pictures by themselves.

Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

It's much, much easier to take good photos than to produce good videos. The difference in the verbs associated with making each kind of media speaks to the level of effort involved. Personally, I don't care about the galleries. They are cool to look at, but they have no bearing on my gear buying process. I'm way more interested in all the technical stuff as I can think of how that will affect my photography. You also have to keep in mind the galleries are often limited in their subject matter as well.... if you are a landscape shooter and the gallery is full of concert and portrait shots, they don't do you much specific good. And with the sample content, as you demonstrate, people get lost in the artistic/creative quality than how they reflect the camera's capabilities, which are 100% technical.

Plus keep in mind DPR is completely free; seems odd and entitled to demand XYZ of them or chide them for not meeting expectations. They don't have to review cameras at all. They could shut down the site tomorrow and be well within their right. Not to say they shouldn't be open to feedback but within reason. What other free gear review site can you point to that generates the kind of sample videos you deem acceptable? From what I've seen most camera review sites barely touch video at all.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Most of what you say here I agree with - good video is harder to produce, some people do not care about galleries (like you).

I also agree that most sites do not provide good video examples (but almost all are reviewing video capabilities and showing a video or two - it cannot be avoided in today's world of cameras). I have gone to those sites too and made the same point - the videos are terrible (I am more diplomatic than that) while the stills are nice - what's up?.

For many of other sites it's one guy reviewing cameras, and that guy is not suddenly going to become a good videographer. But here, DPReview has multiple staff, they have hired people. They take care in producing a gallery of stills. They have improved their video testing enormously - it is a good site to now assess video in cameras, except for the missing examples that would be so helpful to novices to show off what can be done in video with these cameras. And it would evidently help the reviewers too see what some of the features actually do beyond silly, uninteresting short clips.

I am giving them feedback, "within reason." Whether the site is free or not does not make it immune from criticism, and in any case I am just pointing out a discrepancy, a bias in what they present that can help them do better.

 

[RicksAstro]

You have missed the point. DPReview provides well shot gallery photos to show off what cameras can do in stills. Yet they provide lousy, sometimes intentionally to make a point, videos. Do you also question the need for all the galleries provided here? DPReview obviously thinks it is helpful to have have good examples for stills, but they do not do that for video. So I just suggested they provide good video examples.

I think you are missing the point of dpreview

the review is good enough for most users and shows the potential of the camera

photos better than the video? not to me. I do not think the photos gallery are actually that professional compared to videos

that's not the point of dpreview, showcasing the best sample in the world. it's how average joe like us actually would take advantage the cameras.

more videos samples? perhaps.

anyway, too much ranting.

I do not disagree with this. At the very least there are scores of stills for each camera review, showing a range of different styles and possibilities, some better than others. But, in this case, one video that showcases mistaken technique (for educational purposes) and is otherwise not interesting or well shot. And that's it.

No demonstration of HDR from HLG (a new feature), no demonstration of the high-quality HFR video that beats almost all cameras in any class. The average Joe would be interested in HDR, because a lot of average Joes are buying HDR TV's. And everyone is intrigued by slow motion, The camera makes the production of slow motion and HDR videos easy, for the average Joe. And that is why in part the camera costs so much. But you get no info from this site on these factors. Yet video capability affects the ratings.

Again, DPReview is clearly taking video seriously, they just need to do more.

Most of these things are addressed in the DPR TV review. May not be in the format you like (video vs. text), but Jordan is very video savvy and provides many insights. If you skip to the part where he is talking, you can skip a lot of the stills stuff.