p.4 #1 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
1bwana1 wrote:
I am always amused by people who assign malfeasance to behaviors of those whose opinions they disagree with, but not those they agree with who are practicing that very same behavior. Affiliate links are being used by almost every content creator these days. Reviewers often cited as reliable sources included. As examples only because they were cited here in this thread as reliable and unbiased, Thom Hogan prominently requests that readers use his affiliate links to B&H on his home page, and notes that he puts a large banner add link at the bottom of every page to make it easy. Steve Perry also asks that supporters buy through his affiliate links to Amazon. Photography Life puts a "where to buy" section in its reviews with affiliate links. I could find no instance of affiliate links from them. Exceptions are Ricci and Morton Hilmer. But both of these are paid directly by Nikon so are in a different capacity, and possibly restricted from doing so.
My point is not that those mentioned are somehow corrupt. In fact the opposite. I don't think you can corelate using affiliate links to generate revenue with being dishonest, or promoting products you don't believe in.
I won't argue anyone's preference in color, or which camera most closely matches that preference. That is a personal thing. You see how you see. However, I will say that using one's own personal preferences for color to prove affiliate link corruption is also not valid. The highest authority in the color industry today is Pantone/X-Rite. If color standards are set it is usually them that is referenced. Image Engineering did a color accuracy test of the major camera models. You may be surprised at the results. Fuji and Sony did very well filling the majority of the top spots. Canon in the middle and Nikon not showing very well. To me that doesn't mean that Nikon cameras are making images with poor color. In fact the color biases in the cameras my produce very pleasing colors. But to say cameras that produce very accurate colors are proof of reviewer corruption just doesn't hold up to even the most cursory examination.
I'm always amused by people who make such claims, without realizing many of those Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc outings were heavily publicized and you could see all the YouTubers that were there. Do try to keep up and stop projecting your own biases on me.
As for the affiliate links, I believe the opportunity for corruption is there. Suppose you found out that one camera brand had a better return than the other. That's kind of the point, isn't it? The problem would be that you would have no easy way of knowing if they were pushing brand A because it paid better or not.
As for the colors, let me put it to you this way. All of the people you see, talking about Fuji or Canon, what do they always talk about? Color Science! Manny Ortiz compared the Canon EOS R5 to a Sony A7R IV I believe, and he made mention of the green tones, noting that he could never see them, but when the two were side by side, he finally saw what a large number of people were mentioning the green tones. Now if you don't think people buy cameras based on the color they can get straight out of camera, that would be inaccurate.
Also, when you see the images of many of these photographers, they're almost never posted without processing. Why is that?
p.4 #2 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
amci4 wrote:
I'm always amused by people who make such claims, without realizing many of those Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc outings were heavily publicized and you could see all the YouTubers that were there. Do try to keep up and stop projecting your own biases on me.
Are you trying to say that if someone went to one of these company sponsored events that they have malevolent motives? I do fully reject that concept. Many go, for many reasons. It doesn't mean that they have sold their souls. Some may have and some may not. But participation is not the indicator of that.
All I said was that it is possible to attend such events and not be corrupt in reviews. That is not projecting a bias on you. If you do think attendance indicates corruption for all who attend then the projection of bias is coming from you, not me.
amci4 wrote:
As for the affiliate links, I believe the opportunity for corruption is there. Suppose you found out that one camera brand had a better return than the other. That's kind of the point, isn't it? The problem would be that you would have no easy way of knowing if they were pushing brand A because it paid better or not.
Yes, the potential for corruption exists whenever money is involved. But simple participation in affiliate programs is not the indicator of that. That actually is the point.
amci4 wrote:
As for the colors, let me put it to you this way. All of the people you see, talking about Fuji or Canon, what do they always talk about? Color Science! Manny Ortiz compared the Canon EOS R5 to a Sony A7R IV I believe, and he made mention of the green tones, noting that he could never see them, but when the two were side by side, he finally saw what a large number of people were mentioning the green tones. Now if you don't think people buy cameras based on the color they can get straight out of camera, that would be inaccurate.
Also, when you see the images of many of these photographers, they're almost never posted without processing. Why is that? ...Show more →
It seems you base your views on people opinions and anecdotal stories about things. But every time I see a blind test with good control samples those that claim to prefer colors from one manufacturer or another fail to correctly associate images with cameras. I tend to put more credence on properly designed and executed scientific testing, than anecdotal stories. I posted a link to one such test from a very credible organization. That is all I said. I never said people don't buy cameras based on color. In fact I explicitly pointed out that people see color very differently and may have a preference for colors that in fact are not accurate. Perfectly valid position for someone to have.
p.4 #3 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
You have to remember I spent 20 years as an active member of the media and I have a lot of close ties with the AP. Sony discounted the deal so far that no one else could really compete. In sales terms that’s called buying the contract.
Besides the cost the main reason the AP went with Sony was video not stills. They get one platform to do both. And you also have to remember that the AP changes systems like we change clothes. They’ve been Kodak, Nikon, Canon and now Sony. They are always chasing the latest tech. Wait 5-7 years and they’ll probably switch again.
I’ve seen a couple of news organizations switch but most have so much glass it makes no sense. And unlike the AP, newspapers are declining in revenue so they don’t have the bank roll to buy all new gear.
But give Sony credit - they built a whole new AF tech and went on a marketing blitz spending huge sums of money to get a large market share. Which is in and of itself bizarre since the camera market is tanking. There is no way to tell what the market will look like 5 years from now. But there will probably be less companies in the mix. At some point bean counters expect profits.
1bwana1 wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by " bought" . Have never seen any reports on the terms regarding the AP contract except that Sony said it was worth millions of revenue for them.
Sony has openly said that there were support and service agreements. Probably meaningful discounts. This is standard practice and probably what other companies had done in the past.
Here is a quote from Derl McCrudden of AP regarding the cost and size of the contract with Sony. Notice that AP is paying Sony, not the other way around.
“This is the biggest investment in cameras we have ever made,” he explains. “It's a really clear statement of intent about where AP sees the future of visual storytelling, both in terms of photography and video. "
That is a pretty straight forward and strong statement.
The simple fact is that no other camera company but Sony has both the still, video, broadcast, phone camera capability that Sony has. All of these formats share a single lens mount and many other accessories and communication capabilities. Strictly from a product and technology perspective Sony is the right partner for AP. Now add all the distribution assets Sony also owns and it is easy to see why AP would make such a choice. Sony doesn't need to pay for such a contract.
Do you have any credible references that show that Sony paid money? Everything I have seen says the money flowed towards Sony from AP.
Yes, compared to other camera companies Sony is at another level when it comes to financial and technological capabilities. The whole of the ICL camera business wouldn't have much of a bottom line impact on them. They seem to have deployed these resources intelligently and effectively in making themselves number one in imaging Worldwide. You have to respect that just from a business sense.
Just take a look at this acquisition list, and compare it to the other companies in the camera industry. Note the heavy concentration in content creation, content ownership, and distribution. Sony has a vision to be dominant in content from the hardware all the way through distribution.
p.4 #4 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
jwolfe wrote:
You have to remember I spent 20 years as an active member of the media and I have a lot of close ties with the AP. Sony discounted the deal so far that no one else could really compete. In sales terms that’s called buying the contract.
If that is what you mean by "bought" then I agree it is a likely scenario. A well spent investment in lower profit by Sony in my opinion.
I have done similar things in a number of my business. I have even gone as far as to buy for cash all of the remaining inventory of a competitor to get them out that business. This inventory is then resold through the discount retailers, so i the end cost very little to us. Common practice. Just like you cell phone carrier buying out the balance of your contract, or the car dealer paying off an upside down car loan to sell you a new car.
jwolfe wrote:
Besides the cost the main reason the AP went with Sony was video not stills. They get one platform to do both.
Agreed as I pointed out in my post.
jwolfe wrote:
But give Sony credit - they built a whole new AF tech and went on a marketing blitz spending huge sums of money to get a large market share. Which is in and of itself bizarre since the camera market is tanking. There is no way to tell what the market will look like 5 years from now. But there will probably be less companies in the mix. At some point bean counters expect profits.
Again agreed. Sony did a business school case study job of gaining dominance in the imaging business on both technology, and marketing levels. They are to be admired for this.
I won't hazard a guess as to which company(s) will disappear, but it does seem that some will have to go in the long run. I will point out that Sony has a long history of acquiring competitors, vendors, and customers during tough times. A bit predatory I admit, but It is one way they grow.
p.4 #5 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
1bwana1 wrote:
If that is what you mean by "bought" then I agree it is a likely scenario. A well spent investment in lower profit by Sony in my opinion.
I have done similar things in a number of my business. I have even gone as far as to buy for cash all of the remaining inventory of a competitor to get them out that business. This inventory is then resold through the discount retailers, so i the end cost very little to us. Common practice. Just like you cell phone carrier buying out the balance of your contract, or the car dealer paying off an upside down car loan to sell you a new car.
Agreed as I pointed out in my post.
Again agreed. Sony did a business school case study job of gaining dominance in the imaging business on both technology, and marketing levels. They are to be admired for this.
I won't hazard a guess as to which company(s) will disappear, but it does seem that some will have to go in the long run. I will point out that Sony has a long history of acquiring competitors, vendors, and customers during tough times. A bit predatory I admit, but It is one way they grow.
p.4 #6 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
1bwana1 wrote:
Are you trying to say that if someone went to one of these company sponsored events that they have malevolent motives? I do fully reject that concept. Many go, for many reasons. It doesn't mean that they have sold their souls. Some may have and some may not. But participation is not the indicator of that.
All I said was that it is possible to attend such events and not be corrupt in reviews. That is not projecting a bias on you. If you do think attendance indicates corruption for all who attend then the projection of bias is coming from you, not me.
Yes, the potential for corruption exists whenever money is involved. But simple participation in affiliate programs is not the indicator of that. That actually is the point.
It seems you base your views on people opinions and anecdotal stories about things. But every time I see a blind test with good control samples those that claim to prefer colors from one manufacturer or another fail to correctly associate images with cameras. I tend to put more credence on properly designed and executed scientific testing, than anecdotal stories. I posted a link to one such test from a very credible organization. That is all I said. I never said people don't buy cameras based on color. In fact I explicitly pointed out that people see color very differently and may have a preference for colors that in fact are not accurate. Perfectly valid position for someone to have. ...Show more →
I base my opinions on observations. You seem to dislike the fact that I said something about the YouTubers though, kind of interesting, which one are you? Or is it because I called out Sony?
As for the affiliate programs, do you really believe that people won’t go with what makes them the most money? I guarantee you they will.
As for people visiting the events, no… But if some company is sending people to your house to show you a presentation, then giving you a camera, putting you up in a posh space, feeding you well, and then giving you a camera to keep… Gee, how could anybody think that people would want more of that? You might be naive as to the nature of this business, but I am not. The truth is, if you see the same people going to these events year after year, then you can guarantee that they’re, “Playing the game” as Steve calls it (Wait isn’t that your name).
p.4 #9 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
I am sure you wouldn't agree that Vaio still exists under Sony unless you believed that Rollei camera, Motorola mobile, IBM PC, Rolls-Royce auto still exist under their original parent companies and still have a say in their daily operations.
Maybe some better examples of products dumped by Sony are the Walkman when Creative Zen & Apple iPod came out, Betamax, Super 8mm Handycam, Memory Sticks of different sizes and the most recently and soon to be XQD because they themselves did not implement them in their own products.
Actually having the same brand as a former well known company is a norm for new startup to capitalized on the markets nowadays, so many little known companies are doing that to confuse new and uninformed customers. Here I am not saying companies like Samsung, Lenovo, VW and BMW are small. These are the companies which bought over the above products and expanded their markets.
I must also give you the credit for posting the above information, because without it I wouldn't know that there is still a company by the name of Vaio.
p.4 #10 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
hans98ko wrote:
I am sure you wouldn't agree that Vaio still exists under Sony unless you believed that Rollei camera, Motorola mobile, IBM PC, Rolls-Royce auto still exist under their original parent companies and still have a say in their daily operations.
Maybe some better examples of products dumped by Sony are the Walkman when Creative Zen & Apple iPod came out, Betamax, Super 8mm Handycam, Memory Sticks of different sizes and the most recently and soon to be XQD because they themselves did not implement them in their own products.
Actually having the same brand as a former well known company is a norm for new startup to capitalized on the markets nowadays, so many little known companies are doing that to confuse new and uninformed customers. Here I am not saying companies like Samsung, Lenovo, VW and BMW are small. These are the companies which bought over the above products and expanded their markets.
I must also give you the credit for posting the above information, because without it I wouldn't know that there is still a company by the name of Vaio. ...Show more →
well, i guess you just can't know everything. they have been around since 2014 right after sony sold it to JIP and still kept a few percent invested too.
CFExpress essentially is XQD on steroids. XQD had a 10 year run and i made good use of it during that time. in fact i still use it in my D500 and Z6. until my cards show "issues" they are to be and are in use. Sony decided to go with CFexp A cards so they could maintain a cross usability factor with SD cards still in the same slot
you clearly don't understand that the original walkman was tape-based cassette, and tape of all types was rendered obsolete by advances in solid-state technology.
hans98ko wrote:
Memory Sticks of different sizes and the most recently and soon to be XQD because they themselves did not implement them in their own products.
no, sony started using xqd in prosumer camcorders starting back in 2013, with the pxw-z100.
canon by comparison has long list of abandoned formats, including fd-mount, vl-mount, ef-m, ef-mount, ef-s, etc., and now canon has announced that it's crippling rf-mount lens selection.
so it's understandable why you and others in this thread are experiencing such high levels of canon brand insecurity, over the progress that sony has made.
p.4 #14 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
This video confirms my suspicions, so often you see stuff and you're like, it makes more sense if they got paid to say that.
But after 14 years he presumably made enough to semi-retire. Did he really think Sony paid for those hotel rooms and trips no strings attached. But like he said they used to pay magazines and you have to think they figured it out that they can sell on YouTube etc. Probably cheaper to fly a reviewer to a semi-exotic location for several days, a plane ticket + $400/night hotel room cheaper than a $10k+ magazine ad.
p.4 #17 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
@1bwana1
Yes, and that is why I am staying with my so called EOL DSLRs till something that is more mature and stable that I think will replace those equipments that I got that are still performing their jobs well. No point chasing after one revision after another in very short durations. I can make better use of my money and time for something else. Just too old for that at this stage of my life. Better to think of a better tomorrow than to think of what will come next that will make my equipments obsolete. 😛🥂
And this thread is another good reasons for it.
Sep 20, 2022 at 12:14 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #18 · The Confessions of a 14-Year YouTube Gear Reviewer
Good to see Steve come out and say this though, and confirm something I've been suspicious for years. He easily could have kept on reviewing.
