THIS is why Camera Reviews are Pointless

In this video, I'm sharing why camera reviews are pointless. Camera reviews focus on things like the camera's autofocus and image quality, which are superficial and don't actually tell you anything about the camera.

Instead of looking at camera reviews, you should focus on things like the camera's design, how easy it is to use, and how well it performs in specific situations. By doing this, you'll be able to find the camera that's right for you, and avoid wasting your time on camera reviews that don't actually matter.

You can find me on;

[sardanapalos]

i guess from your point its 100 % true.... i m really trying hard to stick on your advice generally from your videos, and try not to be stuck in this black hole of gear...thanks for real .... you made me stay on Panasonic S5 (i was ready to jump to Sony) and save 5000$.... now i see it but before a year i couldn't since i m not in the business for a lot of years ... Reviewers and youtubers had made me believe that AF is was all i needed....and then i watched your videos and started to focus (irony) on my craft and not on my camera.... you probably saved my business and made me stay in the game, thank you sir and please keep on giving us good advice, really appreciate it

[NickDelDuca]

I watched camera reviews till I was blue in the face before I got my Canon R6 and I found tons of issues with it within the first week. My most recent purchase the Sony A7R V no one talked about the most important feature to me which was WIFI tethering that's actually viable for the first time in a pro body. I made a video about it on my channel but I'm sure very few people are going to see it. Literally the most game changing feature for studio photographers and I couldn't find any videos on it. And then there were a bunch of reviewers dogging the video saying oh it's pixel binned, line skipped, too much rolling shutter, has a crop etc.... I've filmed more video with the A7R V than any other camera I've owned and all of the footage looks great. Lots of these reviewers don't cover the important things to professionals and give people the wrong impression about how things are going to preform.

[Mark]

I mostly agree with this. For studio still life, yeah resolution, SnR, and bit depth are all that matter. Totally agree.

For most every other genre of pro work though, that doesn’t cut it.

For a lifestyle photog, just bit depth and resolution don’t matter if your AF system can’t meaningfully track anything (cough 5D mk2).

There’s a good reason cameras like the 1DX/R3/D6/Z9 exist.

[primemeridianphotography]

Agreed. Like Albert Watson said “learn to drive your camera.” everything else is totally subjective and relative to each photographers working experience. Resolution and image quality is what matters in the end. And like another commenter said - cameras in the last 5 even 10 years are sufficient for what 90 percent of photographers do. Especially considering how much weight is put on “editing in post” these days.

[jasonwrites]

Well, I'll be the one guy who disagrees with this as an absolute statement. Some of us live in places where camera shops do not allow a rental; they'll have you buy it and then charge you a 15 to 20% restocking fee. Other places in the world have camera shops that are final sale.

And it depends on what genre of photography you're in. I'm a full-time photographer and there are loads of camera reviews that cover everything that pertains to me. It just depends on your industry, and I don't think you can be so sweeping and definitive in your assessment. I don't doubt that camera reviews aren't important to *you*, but it's weird to say camera reviews aren't relevant to any professional photographer.

Lastly, sure there are camera reviewers who aren't professional photographers, but there are some who absolutely are.

[marcinmrzyglocki]

I have witnessed this so hard just in the last weeks, as I have watched ~10 reviews of Sony A7RV and gods, while they have made me positive about getting the camera, they echoed each other and barely mentioned the actual benefits I have immediately noticed after putting hands on the camera myself. You see, I can drop 15k RAWs in a day, so doing that with A7RIII was sluggish: no second card that really, because it's too slow; tethering is useless as well at 60MB/s; preview does not work while writing the buffer; plugging in HDMI for better preview and review of photos seems to stall the poor camera. I try now the same with A7RV - a blast! Everything mentioned fixed! Wooo! Add all the other features of A7RIII still preserved and this really looks so much better, yet nobody seemed to care.

[FilNenna]

This is the best camera review I’ve seen.

[ArnthorPhotography]

this all depends on what kind of a photographer you are, I have been working as a professional photographer since 2005 and mostly as a press-photographer as well as a studio portrait photographer, when it comes to studio work, it´s pretty much true what you are saying but when shooting a lot of different scenarios in different light circumstances, all the other things come to play, focusystems, ISO preformance, how easy it is to controll all the different aspects of the camera.

[SCULPTURAMAplus]

As a professional I just bought a Canon R8. Aimed at the lower end but it’s full frame, mirroreless, good MP count and it’s live view is upgradable to two 2x the standard. It works well with Capture 1 and Dragonframe. This is probably not important to most but if you do Timelapse or stop motion animation then this camera essentially does away with most things you’d pay extra for that are never used in this field. It makes it about the best option in this field at any price. It’s horses for courses certainly or should that be Cameras for Panoramas? No, perhaps not. But the reasoning above is sound. Van

[WhenWillILearn]

How the live view looks in capture one is something that I would always be a million times more interested in than almost any other spec or feature. But it’s something that’s never covered

[Drmikekuna]

Great points. I stopped watching reviewers quite some time ago, as it seemed like I was watching commercials. Last week's "amazing" camera would become this week's trash as a new camera was now being reviewed. In general, I found that despite what the reviewer said, there was often litten difference between one generation of a camera to the next (some exceptions noted). I can easily accomplish most of what I do with a 10-year-old camera. I only care about the quality of the shot and if the customer likes the results.

[nilofido]

I am glad that I am not the only one that doesn't have a clue of what's in most camera menus.... all I need is to know where to control ISO, shutter and aperture most of the time; the only other setting that I change straight away is to use only back button for focusing so that I can keep it on continuous and have all the modes available at the same time.
As for specs it all depends on what someone is normally shooting, as an example fps might be extremely important or totally irrelevant, and the similarly for most settings. In general any decent camera of the last 5-10 years is good enough for most uses, for the rest it is a matter of final purpose of the image

[Chris-eyzy]

Absolutely. Reviewers do simple test that isn’t thru time. You got to put product thru various lighting situations to get a feel of how they handle

[GeorgeMonaghan]

Camera reviews, like mobile phone reviews, are designed to make sales or provide content for the person doing the review. I pretty much stuck to Canon after leaving Nikon many years ago and by the time I got to the 5D SR and the 1DX, stopped buying DSLRs. 5D SR is not really suitable as a general use jobbing unit hence the reason for the 1DX. For video, I did upgrade my video camera to a 4K unit for shooting ice hockey and use the HD unit for interviews etc. My days of buying sprees are long gone but it is a trap most of us fall into. The latest and greatest no longer applies.

[SebastianReichenbach]

Another perspective: I know which camera "I" have to use. But I still enjoy watching tech reviews of cameras. I am not gonna buy them. But I like to know. Without this curiosity, I wouldn't have know as a beginner which camera was right for me to start with.

[slowsteve]

I’d love some suggestions for other YouTube channels like yours on photography. I’ve spent too much time obsessing over gear. Recently starting playing with vintage lenses from 70s and 80. So much fun.

[ConnorNolanTech]

I bought a Panasonic S5, and that was more because I was already super familiar with their menu layout, and I was already setup to easily grade the footage and stills from my years of using their micro four thirds cameras. It also helps that it was on sale for $500 off with a free f1.8 85mm lens from B&H at the time, so that made the decision a bit easier

[nickname]

So true. I believe just holding the camera for a few minutes would tip it. Have never been able to feel comfortable with any Canon.

[SkylerKing]

Based on the comments section, most of the people "agreeing" with this video seem to, ironically, be the type think that the tech specs found in pro level cameras for the last 5 years are what's considered "bare minimum" for nearly even the most basic and undemanding type of photography. That's kind of funny.

[billymckee]

Phase One - Incorrect to say no camera in 15 years - no generalist camera maybe. The XT released recently is a rebadged Cambo view camera chassis with a new suite of Rodenstock lenses with new electronic leaf shutters - but they are very very specialist (Product and landscape - ALPHA competitor) and eyewateringly expensive - x3 times XF cost. Even the 0.1% of photographers would struggle to justify it!