Subforums
16,738 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 357.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7.2k views
-
- 26 replies
- 389 views
-
- 26 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 1.1k replies
- 129.1k views
-
- 14 replies
- 207 views
-
- 0 replies
- 50 views
-
- 5 replies
- 183 views
-
- 2 replies
- 155 views
-
- 3 replies
- 439 views
-
- 7 replies
- 290 views
-
- 14 replies
- 581 views
-
- 1 reply
- 189 views
-
- 55 replies
- 5.7k views
-
- 103 replies
- 12k views
-
- 127 replies
- 4.3k views
-
- 15 replies
- 578 views
-
- 8 replies
- 557 views
-
- 4 replies
- 399 views
-
- 14 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 25 replies
- 2k views
-
- 8 replies
- 615 views
-
- 331 replies
- 76.2k views
-
- 55 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 13 replies
- 612 views
-
- 41 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 39 replies
- 16.1k views
-
- 443 replies
- 33.8k views
-
- 39 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 3 replies
- 750 views
-
- 235 replies
- 17.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 438 views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 30 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 78 replies
- 15.3k views
-
- 17 replies
- 5.5k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.7k
-
Total Posts338.4k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!! -
I watched this video recently about synthesisers and recording equipment magazines (which operate incredibly similarly to cameras) and yeah, print magazines almost make YouTube reviewers look honest by comparison. TLDR: he analysed a magazine from 2002 and out of 188 pages, 79 were full page ads (he didn't even bother to count half-page ads either, so the ad coverage was way higher) all reviews were positive except for the odd little minor comment, and none of the sub-category scores in any review were even below 2.5/5 (except one product which got 1.5/5 for a subcategory, but that was because it had too many ads!!)
-
The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest... Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine. I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews). -
A 'walking about in a forest' comparison from Robert May of the S5iix stabilisation modes at 14mm (very wide angle) using the 14-28mm f4-5.6 lens(which doesn't have OIS): Pretty impressive stabilisation performance with minimal warping artefacts.
-
By Tim Sewell · Posted
Sorry. UK idiom. 'Old' in that context doesn't mean old. My bad.
-
