Originally posted by RGlasel People who search out camera reviews online are doing so to reinforce their existing opinions.
Is that true though? I think these days most people turn to the internet to find more information. I still subscribe to a few magazines and I enjoy them for what they are, but I find the reviews to be much less in-depth than what can be done online.
Originally posted by RGlasel To get viewers, those reviews are deliberately slanted to those preconceived opinions, there is no such thing as an objective review. Anyone and their dog can produce a YouTube review, all they need is something new that will get them on the first page of Google search results.
I mean, we can and should always be aware of what the source of a review is... were the circumstances of a review surrounding a press event trip in Iceland? Well, then even if they are trying to be objective, I need to consider whether there IS some influence... but to point-blank say that every review online is slanted or only for google clicks is, in my opinion, a little bit cynical.
"Anyone and their dog can produce a YouTube review" Yes, and they do:
Should I buy Canon 5D Mark IV, Nikon D750 or the Sony A7R MK2? - YouTube (believe he is north of the border up there with you...) Of course, just as in other forms of media, there is quite a variety in production values. So if that is important to you, you can find a wide range of options. Plus, if anyone (not only corporate sponsored hacks) can have access, doesn't that improve the chances of at least some unbiased true reviews? Certainly more so than other common avenues of media.
Originally posted by RGlasel Ricoh was very careful who got an early K-1 to review, in order to control the message, and it was a successful strategy. Other manufacturers do the same thing.
Honestly, I might have missed it but I am not aware of anyone getting it early for public review purposes. I think after the camera was officially announced you had some people covering directly from CP+ with "First Look" type reviews but I don't think any major reviewer got the camera significantly early, if early at all. And look, I can understand it is a big business with lots of money involved... of course there is concern about control of message. But name another camera brand that doesn't have ambasssador's? How information is dispersed to an interested public is changing. Again, no love lost for Pentax... I just want to see them be successful.