Is it just me or are sample galleries a huge waste?
Sep 25, 2019 09:50:52 #
jlg1000 wrote:
Some sites, like dpreview.com, allow you to download RAW files shot with many lens/camera combinations. You can process and analyse those images as you like.
This is a valuable to in assessing what results a pro might get from that gear... or for worsening a GAS attack
This is a valuable to in assessing what results a pro might get from that gear... or for worsening a GAS attack
Those are valuable sites. The usual sample gallery the OP is referring to doesn't provide RAW information.
Sep 25, 2019 09:57:04 #
I have usually found the galleries to be worse than useless. One of the popular websites took out an MFT camera on a particularly gloomy day in London, and filled up a sample gallery with depressing grey pictures of people who looked like they all wanted to be somewhere else.
I am not sure if it hurt that camera's sales, but it certainly made an impact on me.
I am not sure if it hurt that camera's sales, but it certainly made an impact on me.
Sep 25, 2019 10:50:29 #
The marketing types probably have no clue how the cameras work, what they are capable of, or the best way to showcase that capability. They generally create shiny objects, because humans, like magpies, are attracted to them. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of them are stock images taken with different gear altogether. They are about as valuable as movie stubs after the main event.
Sep 25, 2019 10:57:04 #
When considering past purchases of lenses or bodies I'd want to see some images of the kind I like to take, e.g. birds in flight or distant wildlife. I got sucked into buying an Olympus E-M1 with some M4/3 lenses by a website demonstrating it's capabilities with wildlife images but I didn't sufficiently question the site owner's assertion that M4/3 super telephoto lenses were good for distant wildlife. They weren't and aren't. So for me it's strictly Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies and end of GAS.
Sep 25, 2019 11:18:55 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
a6k wrote:
Every time I see a new piece of gear, be it glass ... (show quote)
Based on the responses so far, I think it’s just you . . .
Stan
Sep 25, 2019 12:35:08 #
a6k wrote:
Every time I see a new piece of gear, be it glass or camera, the major photo-interest sites seem to think we want to see some pictures taken with it.
Except for DxO and Imaging-Resource, my personal opinion is that those galleries usually tell me absolutely nothing about the gear...
Except for DxO and Imaging-Resource, my personal opinion is that those galleries usually tell me absolutely nothing about the gear...
Yes! Definitely! What is the point? I've even heard stories of different cameras being used to take those sample photos. Is anyone going to looks at those sample pictures and say, "Wow! I have to get me one of those cameras."? Maybe one point of the pictures is to catch the reader's attention.
Now when a reviewer posts pictures, that's different, and I like to see those sample shots.
Sep 25, 2019 15:06:02 #
TheShoe
Loc: Lacey, WA
The only reliable conclusion that can come from those galleries is that if the IQ in the gallery is bad, then you want to avoid the gear used to take those shots.
Sep 25, 2019 16:46:12 #
The successful photographer creates a firm foundation using the bodies of their old cameras and lenses.
Sep 25, 2019 19:29:55 #
It's not just you. I often think to myself who are these people? I'm not going to take any notice of your review when you can only manage to take shit images.
Sep 25, 2019 20:32:51 #
I find some of them useful- I appreciate the people who go to the trouble of taking RAW or unedited of detailed scenes that they repeat for each camera and lens, for example. Ken Rockwell takes photos of the same scene at all ISOs, which is the only useful part of his review for me but it's pretty useful. I find Mark Smith's photos of birds useful as an example of like- top performance for a camera and lens that could be achieved. I find Jared Polin pretty annoying but his galleries useful as he is actually a good photographer and does not just take photos of pigeons and rubbish bins. Steve Huff is in that category too- real photos and clear differences between how cameras render scenes.
DPPreview and similar galleries are useless and I don't see the point, I totally agree with you on that.
DPPreview and similar galleries are useless and I don't see the point, I totally agree with you on that.
Sep 25, 2019 21:42:56 #
a6k wrote:
Every time I see a new piece of gear, be it glass ... (show quote)
I dislike the YouTube shots of someone taking pictures with a camera or lens with 5 minutes of lousy background music. BORING.
Sep 25, 2019 21:44:22 #
Sep 25, 2019 23:13:46 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
I think it's just "stroking" to assure a buyer that's it's all right. Remember the song phrase, "How much does it cost, I'll buy it. The time is all we lost. I'll try it.... You can't even run your own life, I'll be damned if you'll run mine..." from "Sunshine Superman."
Sep 25, 2019 23:20:54 #
Strodav
Loc: Houston, Tx
a6k wrote:
Every time I see a new piece of gear, be it glass ... (show quote)
Marketing. I'm sure some gallery pics are selected to show unique capabilities if possible, but most are from marketing, which selects pictures they think you can only dream of taking to get you to believe you can take those kind of shots if you buy their gear.
Sep 25, 2019 23:28:58 #
The greatest images are those that move you to buy the same type of camera.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.