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: 3493, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Simple Studio Technique: Pet Portraits (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbasher: Does the shelter have a plan to get the poodle cataract surgery?

Given the high cost of the surgery and the age of Ginger Rogers, that would be a decision made by the adopting family, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2016 at 17:19 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: It should be a common practice for reviewers to test Canon lenses on the A7 series cameras. Thats the only way to truely get the best sensor + lens combination.

It's also a great way of introducing slop over two sets of body/lens mounts. Putting lenses on non-native bodies is a nice idea in theory, but in practice we've found it can be less than ideal for testing purposes.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 00:24 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankyW: Are the flashes used in the video shoot the HVL-F60M or HVL-F43M?

60M.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 06:38 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 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.

Oh yeah, looking forward to dealing with trolls is the only thing that gets me out of bed in the morning... ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 00:08 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: So in the last few days we had:
1. Sony Xperia XZ camera review
2. Five reasons to buy the Sony RX100
3. Shooting dogs with the Sony a6300
Are DPR's salaries being paid by Amazon, or Sony? I'm confused.

@ Fujica - we've been making these videos for more than two years, and they're labeled in the same way.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 18:30 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

Speedicut: Count me as one of those that finds the sponsored content hurting the credibility of the site. Didn't Amazon, the parent company, recently put an end to "sponsored" product reviews for credibility reasons? It's a fluff piece (heh) and as this becomes a bigger revenue stream it follows that DPR will pull punches in their reviews. The pieces are, "commissioned by the sponsor in conversations with our marketing team, and the sponsor paid for it to be produced." So it's a commercial, Sony hired them to do a commercial. Can a business be ad man one day and objective reviewer the next? It's fine to say "it's business, have to pay the bills". Well, this makes Sony a customer and isn't the customer always right? You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

And a big hurray for Motley Zoo and all no-kill shelters. Check out the great looking basenjis at 6m25s!

Speaking of being a critical reader... in quoting from our FAQ, which makes clear that this content is "commissioned by the sponsor in conversations with our marketing team, and the sponsor paid for it to be produced"

Speedicut has conveniently omitted the second part of that sentence, which begins with 'but'...

"the DPReview editorial team produced and edited the content, *and had final veto*."

This is the difference. This is what distinguishes this content from being 'an advert'. Let me know if you're still unclear.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fun 4 all: So how does this work? I see a lot of people are curious about it.
Barney (not the dog) said, "The a6500 was actually only announced the day before we started filming this video". - So DPR made the video.
Whose idea is the video? Does Sony pay DPR to make a video on the subject of their choosing? Or does DPR work with Sony on the video that Sony is making?
I understand this is a business, and if Sony is handing out cash, it would be silly to decline.

This is a DPR staffed and crewed operation, supported by Sony and (our parent company) Amazon. Sony supplies gear, Amazon pays our wages and we have control over the concept, execution and edit.

https://www.dpreview.com/sponsored

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: So in the last few days we had:
1. Sony Xperia XZ camera review
2. Five reasons to buy the Sony RX100
3. Shooting dogs with the Sony a6300
Are DPR's salaries being paid by Amazon, or Sony? I'm confused.

It's important to realise that Amazon doesn't run DPReview as a charity...

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 01:08 UTC
On article Video: Shooting Dog Portraits with the Sony a6300 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (188 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 (40 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 (40 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
Total: 3493, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »