Barney Britton

Barney Britton

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Works as a Editor
Has a website at www.dpreview.com
Joined on Nov 2, 2009
About me:

I'm in charge of the editorial content of dpreview. I joined dpreview when it was based in London in November 2009, after several years as a print journalist in the UK specialist photographic press. I moved from London to Seattle, USA, a year later and I've been here ever since.

Comments

Total: 3445, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: Funny that when DPReview published the Fuji sponsored video three weeks ago I didn't see so much "sponsored polices".

Oh, you meant *policing*?

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 22:23 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

Oldbike: Just curious, wouldn't it have made more sense to highlight the newer a6500?

The a6500 was actually only announced the day before we started filming this video ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 22:23 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Let's get this straight - I have no objection whatsoever to DPR using promotional videos from Sony or any other manufacturer.

The problem here is that DPR should make the Sony sponsorship much more obvious, by extending the title to "Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 - a video sponsored by Sony".

If they fail to do this, readers will believe (many obviously already do, from comments in these forums) that EVERYTHING that DPR writes about Sony is biased in favour of their sponsors, and DPR will lose its reputation for honest reviews.

Sony is probably the most trolled brand on DPR. They produce a lot of gear, a lot of people are interested in reading about it, so we write about it. And as soon as we do, all the usual suspects come out of the woodwork with the usual tired old allegations of editorial bias.

Plus ça change.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 21:18 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Let's get this straight - I have no objection whatsoever to DPR using promotional videos from Sony or any other manufacturer.

The problem here is that DPR should make the Sony sponsorship much more obvious, by extending the title to "Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 - a video sponsored by Sony".

If they fail to do this, readers will believe (many obviously already do, from comments in these forums) that EVERYTHING that DPR writes about Sony is biased in favour of their sponsors, and DPR will lose its reputation for honest reviews.

A message that this video is supported by Sony and Amazon is the first thing you see on screen when you start the video player, and it's clearly called out in this article (the one you're commenting on). Space limitations prevent us from putting this exact wording on our homepage, but we will be introducing a category tag which should put your mind at rest.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 19:47 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: Funny that when DPReview published the Fuji sponsored video three weeks ago I didn't see so much "sponsored polices".

You mean you didn't see any labeling that it was a sponsored video? Because both that video and this one (and every video of this kind that we've posted since 2014) were labeled in the same way.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 19:41 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: kudos to DPreview for being open about the sponsoring for that article!

I don't understand the negativity - Here we have a Publisher who at least is not making it a secret, that some articles are sponsored content...

I have criticised this in the past, where often it was utterly unclear whether a published item was sponsored or not...
this is a step in the right direction imho.

We have been publishing sponsored video content for more than two years. When people get up in arms about it, it's normally worst on videos featuring Sony products. And - not coincidentally - Sony is possibly the most-trolled brand we cover. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 18:48 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

brumd: "This is sponsored content, created in partnership with Sony. "

Is this the first article where this is explicitly mentioned? Or, have I missed it so far and have I been reading more articles that I thought were written from an objective viewpoint, but were actually advertorials (like for instance the abundance of very dodgy DxO One articles) and simply missed this message??

Not a good development this. :(
The least you can do is put this message at the top of the article where it can't be missed.

We've been publishing sponsored video content for two years, and it's been clearly labeled.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 18:34 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Let's get this straight - I have no objection whatsoever to DPR using promotional videos from Sony or any other manufacturer.

The problem here is that DPR should make the Sony sponsorship much more obvious, by extending the title to "Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 - a video sponsored by Sony".

If they fail to do this, readers will believe (many obviously already do, from comments in these forums) that EVERYTHING that DPR writes about Sony is biased in favour of their sponsors, and DPR will lose its reputation for honest reviews.

"in view of the increasing space devoted to endless praise of Sony, while other brands get far less attention, it's getting very hard to believe that DPR is unbiased."

This is sponsored content, and it's clearly called out as such. If you're curious about what that means, I'd suggest you click the 'what does this mean?' link, in this article.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

JunzInc: @DPReview, Is there a chance for us to actually see these images? I know you have zoomed into the pictures in the video, but I would really love to see and judge for myself how well the auto focus worked.

We'll be posting a gallery in the next few days!

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: The only real problem with sponsored videos is that it precludes the staff from doing videos on topics that might interest readers but that don't have a willing sponsor.

If Barney wanted to shoot a free piece on a deserving but overlooked brand like Pentax, his bosses would be crazy to let him do so because of the backlash they would get from the advertisers.

Sony, Canon et. al. could rightly come back to the site and say "We pay $100,000 to get a video on your site but now you're putting up a video about Pentax for free? Bugger that!"

It's a difficult path they have to walk so let's cut them a little slack, shall we?

I get paid?

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
On article 2016 Holiday Gift Guide: $500 and up (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: Do we need a segment on how to blow 500 bucks or more on a gift?
Who is the target audience here? Wall street executives with a huge xmas bonuses?
Or bored wives of said executives?

Yes, I thought that might be the case. How silly.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 23:36 UTC
On article 2016 Holiday Gift Guide: $500 and up (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: Do we need a segment on how to blow 500 bucks or more on a gift?
Who is the target audience here? Wall street executives with a huge xmas bonuses?
Or bored wives of said executives?

@ AbrasiveReducer - what are you implying?

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

James A Rinner: That Olympus 12-40 for $467.00 Amazon add is a SCAM!

Aha, I see now. I'll report that, thanks.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

James A Rinner: That Olympus 12-40 for $467.00 Amazon add is a SCAM!

PLEASE STOP SHOUTING AND EXPLAIN WHY!

Seriously - let me know and I'll look into it.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 19:45 UTC
In reply to:

KLinLA: This article comes across too strongly as a sales pitch, rather than an impartial comparison

This article is a spec and feature comparison - the full review is on the way. But regardless, I'm not sure how the fact that critical IQ lags behind APS-C+ sensors (which is entirely to be expected) is relevant in a comparison of these two models...?

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: This sounds like a gold award recipient at DPR. The DPR staff already gave a pass to many potential/perceived weaknesses (IQ improvements, price, EVF/LCD upgrades) while lauding its obvious strenghts.

The only potential pitfall is AF performance. But considering how some other serious sites are already happy with this feature and how DPR tends to be rigorous with their tests, I get the feeling that the EM1II merely has to be competitive in this department rather than a D500-killer king-of-the-hill type of camera to secure that gold.

"The DPR staff already gave a pass to many potential/perceived weaknesses (IQ improvements, price, EVF/LCD upgrades) while lauding its obvious strenghts."

Did we?

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

KLinLA: This article comes across too strongly as a sales pitch, rather than an impartial comparison

You can blame Olympus for that, honestly. It's pretty hard to make the E-M1 II sound anything less than highly impressive.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

boinkphoto: It's true in this day and age that you can't tell astroturf advertising from reporting and it's also true that these show best condition photography. Still, they are very nice pictures.

I think calling out astroturf vs. non-astroturf is really up to DPReview and similar sites. They should take the time to find out, and specifically call out any cases where the artist and the manufacturer have a relationship.

I'm unclear on exactly what you're driving at (astroturf...?), but if you're suggesting that Michael or DPR were in some way paid by Apple, we weren't. I'm pretty sure they're doing well enough without our help...

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

davesurrey: Throwback Thursday started out as a great idea and was well received. Sadly the last few articles have been just a few paragraphs and nothing like the quality of the initial articles.
Judging by the comments from your readers this can be an interesting series. So please put back the effort you made in the initial articles.

Hey now - we still have some grizzled old salts on staff...

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 00:53 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm FinePix F601 Zoom (48 comments in total)
In reply to:

davesurrey: Throwback Thursday started out as a great idea and was well received. Sadly the last few articles have been just a few paragraphs and nothing like the quality of the initial articles.
Judging by the comments from your readers this can be an interesting series. So please put back the effort you made in the initial articles.

We're trying to find a line between light, quick to read (and crucially - quick to *create* articles and more personal, longer stories about some of the cameras we've covered in the past 18 years. We'll continue to experiment with the format.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 22:46 UTC
Total: 3445, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »