My opinion is that most experienced photographers, both amateurs and professionals, know what they want and need in their equipment. They can read the actual specifications, get a demonstration of the tier favorite dealer and make up their own minds f any particular piece of gear that will be appropriate for ther applications, consider the price, deced if their investment will be justified and buy what they need.

Sometimes I read the reviews in magazines or online and take notice of the adverts hype- neither will influence my decisions to any great extent.

I try to buy frame a reliable local dealer who backs up what they sell. I've been dealing with sesame folks for 20 years and after a week of putting new gear through its paces, if there is a serious flaw that causes my disappointment, they will refund or exchange the item- that occurred once in all that time.

I also find that if any particular piece of gear has serious faults, the news travels quickly through the grapevine.

The only reviews that I recall were extremely reliable and valid WAS published in the now-defunct Modern Photograhy Magazine. They had a well-equipped staffed lab in New York City. The complete disassembled camera and lenses evaluated the mechanics and did a laboratory-grade optic test of lenses. I recall many negative reviews of equipment made or distributed by their own advertisers- that was real journalism. That was a long time ago.
Yup- they just about "autopsied" the gear and published the picture and the instrumentation readouts. Their conclusions were honest. There were practice comments lie when they revved the Yashica-Mat TLR and compare it to the Rolleiflex. They said the Yashica was good came for the money but it is not gonna come up to the quality and performance of one that costs 10 times as much. And... their precise testing procedures proved their point.

Another problem is when some of the top pros endorse certain brands. I have attended numerous seminars and workshops where the presenter/instructor/guru or whatever kinda grandmaster is emphasizing certain brands of equipment. When the question period begins, my question is usually "You do great work, but could achieve the same quality with equipment for another manufacture"? The answer is usually is a kinda reluctant "yes"!

For those who are inexperienced, my advice is to do your own research and investigations. Consider what you need in a camera or related equipment. Try to fully understand the technology you are buying into. Factor in your budget. Find a dealer that is reliable and knowledgeable. Try not to fall for advertising hype. If you read a review, consider whether or not you need to pay for ALL the attributes or could live with shortcomings.

Most name-brand modern digital equipment is pretty darn good- some a bit better than others. At the end of the day, it's your skills that govern your photographic results.

My opinion is that most experienced photographers, both amateurs and professionals, know what they want and need in their equipment. They can read the actual specifications, get a demonstration of the tier favorite dealer and make up their own minds f any particular piece of gear that will be appropriate for ther applications, consider the price, deced if their investment will be justified and buy what they need.

Sometimes I read the reviews in magazines or online and take notice of the adverts hype- neither will influence my decisions to any great extent.

I try to buy frame a reliable local dealer who backs up what they sell. I've been dealing with sesame folks for 20 years and after a week of putting new gear through its paces, if there is a serious flaw that causes my disappointment, they will refund or exchange the item- that occurred once in all that time.

I also find that if any particular piece of gear has serious faults, the news travels quickly through the grapevine.

The only reviews that I recall were extremely reliable and valid WAS published in the now-defunct Modern Photograhy Magazine. They had a well-equipped staffed lab in New York City. The complete disassembled camera and lenses evaluated the mechanics and did a laboratory-grade optic test of lenses. I recall many negative reviews of equipment made or distributed by their own advertisers- that was real journalism. That was a long time ago.
Yup- they just about "autopsied" the gear and published the picture and the instrumentation readouts. Their conclusions were honest. There were practice comments lie when they revved the Yashica-Mat TLR and compare it to the Rolleiflex. They said the Yashica was good came for the money but it is not gonna come up to the quality and performance of one that costs 10 times as much. And... their precise testing procedures proved their point.

Another problem is when some of the top pros endorse certain brands. I have attended numerous seminars and workshops where the presenter/instructor/guru or whatever kinda grandmaster is emphasizing certain brands of equipment. When the question period begins, my question is usually "You do great work, but could achieve the same quality with equipment for another manufacture"? The answer is usually is a kinda reluctant "yes"!

For those who are inexperienced, my advice is to do your own research and investigations. Consider what you need in a camera or related equipment. Try to fully understand the technology you are buying into. Factor in your budget. Find a dealer that is reliable and knowledgeable. Try not to fall for advertising hype. If you read a review, consider whether or not you need to pay for ALL the attributes or could live with shortcomings.

Most name-brand modern digital equipment is pretty darn good- some a bit better than others. At the end of the day, it's your skills that govern your photographic results.

Sigma FoveonX3 reviews have said from the beginning----that those cameras were excellent for color photography----but then went on to pan the camera--DP. Others were worse saying the magnesium water proof body was lacking and priced ridiculously high. Well those turned the tide for Sigma. About all the good inches of review claimed the Sigma was a "photographer's camera" and not for amateurs. Then you don't mass produce for photographers, you mass produce for amateurs. The largest camera selling companies I suspect eye the amateurs and not the pros.--So---is the conclusion to this thread that we will never know what motivates the reviews---honest experience?---readership?---company policy?---or under the table pay?-----We all seem to have opinions but no hard facts. But we can get a hint from modern political coverage by various news sources?----ew

At least the 16year old review conceded that for color---the Sigma FoveonX3 was head and shoulders above the Canon, Nikon, and Sony Bayer sensor technology with FoveonX3 original stacked three colors like the emulsion on film. But said that you cannot get high ISOs like available with the computerized spread apart pixels which are not true to life. They said it took a true photographer to appreciate the difference. So---I give the early reviews that much anyway for recognizing color quality----