Have I relied too heavily on "Professional" reviews?

[watsonD50]

I'm a double pro.

Awesome.

Hey my comment is for those people who don't know squat about photography, purchase a D3 and then start shooting weddings - i have two friends that just did that. Your work is fantastic, you don't count.

You have two D3s - you suck :tongue:

 

[Radiohead]

I double suck!

I know what you meant though.

:biggrin:

Especially for you - a D3 wedding image from yesterday

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Kerzo]

That is a super image Guy, did you vignette it a little bit more when PP or is that the lighting at the venue?

 

[Dawgneck]

... I'm one of those people that takes the time to research things almost endlessly before I finally draw a line in the sand and say 'ok this is what I'm going to do.' But at the end of the day, what it comes down to is, do you feel comfortable with your decision? Because, after all it is your money. A lot of us tend to use reviews as a way of telling us what to do. Whether it be Thom Hogan, Ken Rockell, Consumer Reports, Maximum PC, Sharky Extreme, Tom's Hardware or what ever....

James, we must be related.

This is exactly me, down to the websites I visit.... :smile:

 

[Leif]

That certain other reviewer has far more FULL WRITE-UPS on his site and not just a few sentences on DPreview. Just because you don't like his opinions, doesn't mean his reviews aren't well-founded either. You can ignore the opinion commentary and look at the hard data which there is PLENTY of and then decide for yourself based on your own needs and style whether a lens is for you or not. What does Thom give you on these? Not much. Personally I find many of the things said about "certain other" reviewer to be far more baseless and outrageous than anything he says himself. Either way the double standard is still there. Thom gets a pass for no review and just a few sentences on DPreview and is allowed to opine all he wants based on his standards. The other guy gets bashed for "not reviewing" stuff even though there's a 15-20+ page review right on his friggin site if people actually bothered to read it rather than mouthing off while doing the same general opining. The double standard is ridiculous.

The problem with that other site is that he often contradicts himself, and he often says things that are just plain stupid. When he reviews lenses or other equipment that I have used, his conclusions disagree completely with my own experiences. Whereas reviews by people like Thom match my experiences.

And regarding Ken reviewing lenses, he does often write very long reviews of lenses when his only experience is handling a sample for a few minutes at a trade show. Even when he owns a sample, his standards are so low that I do not take his comments seriously. His recent absurd article on sharpness shows that he is not afraid to write complete nonsense.

The difference between Thom (and others) and Ken is that he has earned a living from photography, based on producing images, as well as selling e-books. These would not sell if they were no good. Ken makes his living from advertising on his web site. (Good for him, he is a good business man, but he is no photographer.)

 

[watsonD50]

I double suck!

I know what you meant though.

:biggrin:

Especially for you - a D3 wedding image from yesterday

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Very nice, i love your B&W work. And yes I am jealous of two of my friends who went from a Canon P&S to a D3...