Personally, I have an aversion to too much hyperbole, exaggeration, bombast, and redundancy when it comes to technological facts, let alone sales and endorsement of equipment. Excessive drama turns me off because it gets in the way of facts. Even if the information is correct, I become suspect thinking "why is this guy getting all belligerent, dramatic and ben out of shape rather than just presenting the facts". The best, valid opinions or important messages can get lost in the hype.

Many years ago, Modern Photography Magazine ran an extremely comprehensive and through equipment testing section. They maintian a lab in New York where cameras and lenses were disassembled, analyzed and reported on under laboratory conditions. Lenses were tested with optical bench criteria with electronic and optical instrumentation and charts and graphs were published with specific performance data as to sharpness, resolution, contrast, aberrations, distortion, edge fall of, diffraction and other readings at various apertures, distances, focal length setting (for zoom lenses) as well as for flare, internal reflections, and mechanical performance and construction. This information was accompanied by reproductions of test targets and oftentimes photographs made in the filed and a general review.

The facts were laid out and then it was up to the reader or consumer as to what they were willing to pay for in terms of optimum performance or what the could live with and work around but with the advantage of a lower price.

Frankly, I don't know if any publication or online resource is currently doing anything like this. Even just general honest reviews of practical findings based on actual field tests would hold some water for me.

As a professional photographer, I also find that certain findings do come in via the "grapevine". Folks in each of our particular fields get to know which are the reliable workhorse cameras and lenses. Good stuff garners a good rap and inferior products fall out of favor rather quickly. Bad news does tend to travel quickly so the real junk is exposed in short order.

If I am contemplating the purchase of an expensive lens, I will do some research, try to gather some practical scuttlebutt for my friendly competitors and cohorts. I try to purchase from a local source so I can arrange an in-depth demonstration or if I have to outsource my purchase to a dealer out of my geographic location, I make certain that I am dealing with a reliable retailer with a sound guarantee and return policy. This will give me the opportunity to do some comprehensive field tests.

I am not going go to through all of this work, research and intense testing for a casual purchase of a lens that I am going to use for personal, shall I say, hobby purposes or a used item for a few hundred dollars- I will take my chances. Some of the lenses I require for professional use, however, are for applications that require high degrees of enlargement and very high acutance and are going to cost thousands of dollars so more diligent research and work is justified.

"Angry rants and one-sided opinions just get in the way- it's unnecessary. If an "expert" has a negative opinion of any particular make or model, the should simply explain where the shortcomings are and not call it junk or "crap". Not everyone can afford all the top-of-the-line gear or doesn't require something that will stand up to continual hard service and will make do with what they CAN afford as long as they understand the attributes and limitation and are willing to make do and work around certain issues.

I agree with you.

However, on the internet clicks are similar to circulation in the print industry. Just calling himself The Angry Photographer adds to the clicks. If he just provided the facts he would not stand out from the crowd. His style, or lack of it, makes him somewhat unique. I have never watched any of his 'shows' to the end.

Personally I prefer Matt Granger. In addition to showing how he gets results he has some very attractive models. Win, win.

--

A foul mouthed fool, oaf, nincompoop, clown, dunce, dolt, dullard, ignoramus, simpleton; informalidiot, cretin, imbecile, nitwit, halfwit, ninny, dope, dimwit, dumbo, dummy, ass, jerk, nerd, dum-dum, loon, chump, goon, jackass, fathead, blockhead, numbskull, dunderhead, meathead, dipstick, bonehead, chucklehead, clod, goop, knucklehead, lamebrain, peabrain, pudding-head, thickhead, wooden-head, pinhead, airhead, birdbrain, dumbbell, donkey, stupe, noodle.

Couldn't watch more than 30 seconds.



Vaughan K.

Yes! It's like tabloid journalism. Some folks respond to scandal, exaggeration and rankor- it sells lots of newspaper and probably attracts lots of blog fans.

I used to like the TV cooking shows eith Julia Childs, The Galloping Gourmet, and Rachel Ray.The showed us how to make interesting dishes. Nowadays, the most popular TV chefs yell, cuss and scream their underlings and spit out food that they disapprove of. Unfortunately, theses things are indicative of many attitudes in our society.

I'll take good information and pretty models any day!