[HN Gopher] DPReview.com to close ___________________________________________________________________ DPReview.com to close Author : int_daniel Score : 560 points Date : 2023-03-21 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.dpreview.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.dpreview.com) | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Very sad. I remember how happy and impressed I was when I first | visited this site many years ago. It was a true pearl hidden | among all the low-quality links that searching for "camera | reviews" produced. | egorfine wrote: | This is incredible. | | Have we really come to an era where so few people care about | cameras and taking good pictures that it warrants a shutdown of | _the_ camera review site? | _gtly wrote: | dpreview had a great feature which is hard to find elsewhere: You | could see at a glance at what date each manufacturer released | each model of their hardware. This was so useful because you | could then predict when new releases would come out and you'd get | a sense of what was the cutting edge. At a glance you'd know | which models were the "latest". I will miss this! Making sense of | models of hardware from different makers is very time consuming. | | Wondering if anyone knows an alternative site for this... | colanderman wrote: | And compare features between models to see _actually_ what has | changed with each revision. | PaulHoule wrote: | This is sad because the forums on that site have been a great | help to me. For a long time I would use it as an example of why | "forums aren't dead". | | I can see though how the reviews might not be a viable business. | My RSS reader learned not to show me many reviews about that site | because I have a Sony, could care less about what new lenses are | out for Nikon and Canon, and since I have a pretty good set of | lenses I'd even feel overwhelmed keeping up with developments in | the Sony world. | calme_toi wrote: | It's my go-to site before buying any camera related stuff. | | But I guess it's not making any money for Amazon. | | Do you know what kind of website would make money? | | The buzzfeed style equipments websites. Those full of lists of | top 10 best vlog/instagram cameras/tripods. Each item on the list | starts with some affiliated links, beneath them are some bullets | of pros cons, and every couple of graphs there is a google ads. | | I feel exhausted reading them. | | Please can anyone recommend alternatives? | nunez wrote: | That's what the people want. | | Reading is a dying art. No time; everyone is too busy and the | Internet is too vast. It's all about videos and twitter-sized | text. | Magi604 wrote: | RIP DPReview. Great place to consume in-depth camera and lens | reviews and get input from real users through the forums. | | I can proudly say I had an image selected as a winner in one of | their annual "best photos of the year" contests. | haunter wrote: | Amazon is the worst | PaulHoule wrote: | After 2 day delivery became 5 day delivery I canceled my Prime. | (I get deliveries _from Japan_ faster than I get them from a | warehouse in the next state.) I am in the middle of cancelling | all my recurring bills from AMZN (Pillpack, AWS) and I | recommend that you do the same. I can 't wait to hear them say | on CNBC that Prime cancellations exceeded additions. | noncoml wrote: | Same here. After 15 years I cancelled it. | | Also their market is now full of counterfeit and Chinese crap | that you can buy cheaper on AliExpress. | | BHPhotovideo is the place I do most of my electronics | shopping these days. | PaulHoule wrote: | Them and Adorama. AMZN is the last place I look for things, | not least for the awful experience of wading through all | the fake product listings. (So many posters make excuses | for this, such as AMZN couldn't afford to police product | listings, but I don't see Ebay or craiglist flooded with | nonsense listings) | | What I'm seeing is that the early adopters who got Prime | early on are the first ones to quit. | asdff wrote: | Honestly they need to just get ahead of the fakes and hook | their site directly to aliexpress. There are honestly some | great xiaomi products that are very cheap, but to get them | cheaply I need to order on aliexpress which could be fast, | or it could be 4 months with a 100 unit minimum order. On | amazon you can also find xiaomi products, but they aren't | labelled xiaomi and they end up costing 4x as much as what | the same product costs on aliexpress, so I pass on them. | | If amazon tore down the wall, I could actually be sure I am | ordering a true xiaomi product from them and I could | probably get it closer to what it costs on aliexpress. | Walmart has this same issue actually, somewhat worse | because its easier returning things with amazon since they | evidently don't care how or why you are returning things. | PaulHoule wrote: | Walmart stands out as one of the few retailers that are | as bad as AMZN. | The_Colonel wrote: | Quite shocking, why not just sell it or cut staff. The site has | to have significant monetary value. | sixQuarks wrote: | They have an estimated 5.2 million unique visitors per month. | It's definitely still a valuable publication, it's crazy they | are shutting it down. | themagician wrote: | And it's in a segment with high cost, high margin products. | Site is worth millions in terms of ad revenue and/or | affiliate income alone. | EchoReflection wrote: | maybe time for some enterprising/interested individual at | https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/ to start going through... | ergonaught wrote: | Major bummer. What a great resource. | drumhead wrote: | When I was a camera buyer this was the site to go to if you | wanted the best information and opinions. Shame to see it go but | the camera market now isnt what it was 15 or 20 years ago. | 1024core wrote: | Why shut the site down? Why not spin it off? I'm sure it could | survive as an ad-supported site, as it used to before being taken | over by Amazon. | tmalsburg2 wrote: | I learned a lot from DPReview about photography, but I also | learned a surprising amount from them about what excellent | writing looks like. Sometimes I read long reviews about cameras | that I wasn't even interested in just because the writing was so | good. | GoofballJones wrote: | The articles were great. The comments/forum sections were one of | the levels of Hell. | valarauko wrote: | Lots of people here saying they used to visit this site | regularly. I'm curious as to what they got out of it (some people | say they used to visit the site daily). I can see the value when | you're looking to buy a camera, and reading reviews makes sense | to me in that very narrow context. Besides that, why visit a | camera review site daily? How frequently were people buying | cameras? Professional photographers, sure, I can see the appeal. | throwaway290 wrote: | Research before buying, troubleshooting after buying. I'm not a | pro but a diehard enthusiast so most months I don't visit it | but when sorting out gear I can spend days on this stuff and | most of it is on DPR because that's the only place where people | congregate specifically to discuss gear's obscure features and | niche applications like astrophotography. Can it do bracketing | and interval shooting together? How bad is rolling shutter? Can | I adapt this old lens to that body, what about flange distance? | Do you want to find out before you shell out $2000 that you | have saved up, or after? | valarauko wrote: | I've spent a fair bit of time on the site, but only on the | reviews. Sounds like the forums were where the real action | is/was. | mihaaly wrote: | Daily is unrealistic - how many days of a year they have update | for a particular interest? - but regularly when you are | interested in cameras, following product news even if you are | not buying right now, or soon, it is good. To be informed! I | did so several years ago (once or more per week). Now... not so | much. Less time for photography. If I had more time, this could | have been different. | valarauko wrote: | I mean, I kind of get it. Back when I was looking to buy a | camera, I was on the site quite a bit. | | For me, the equivalent place to hang out, read reviews or | discuss techniques were the forums of home-barista.com in the | late 2010s. Lots of coffee innovations now commonplace came | from there. I wasn't necessarily looking to buy an espresso | machine or a grinder, but it felt like a place where people | more knowledgeable than me in an interest of mine were | pushing the boundaries, out in the open. | skilled wrote: | Wait what? How is it possible considering that the site is one of | the most well-known resources for camera/lens reviews? | | "The site will remain active until April 10, and the editorial | team is still working on reviews and looking forward to | delivering some of our best-ever content. " | | Are they taking it offline too? | avrionov wrote: | The site will be locked, with no further updates made after | April 10th 2023. The site will be available in read-only mode | for a limited period afterwards. | beezle wrote: | Is Bezos also going to try to have it removed from | Archive.org? | kmos17 wrote: | Very sad to hear this, such a gem of a site with so much in depth | professional camera reviews. | | I can't imagine this even registers anywhere on Amazon's | financial statements, such lack of care for the commons to decide | to just close this down (not that I'd except anything more really | of that company). | julieturner99 wrote: | I just checked and my account shows posts and replies from | 2002-2014. 2014 is about 2 years after I bought my last non- | smartphone camera (I bought a Panasonic GH2 in 2011 or 2012). As | much as I love high-quality photography, I've been able to make | do with my iPhone ever since. | | So in that sense it's not surprising to see dpreview go away, as | I am likely similar to many others in my changing habits. But I | really hate that it's going offline. So much knowledge is | captured in those forums -- not just specs and tech but technique | and ideas. What a shame. Wish it was staying up but dormant. | seanp2k2 wrote: | You know what they say: Capitalism Breeds Innovation! /s | jollyllama wrote: | This is somewhat of a shock. Hopefully this does not bode ill for | the future of camera technology. | noveltyaccount wrote: | I was just thinking about this site the other day. I was on a | trip with an older DSLR Nikon D3200 and a Samsung S21 Ultra. Most | of the time I had to look at metadata to tell which photos came | from which, a fact that I found staggering. I thought back to how | critical DP Review was 10-15 years ago and how much our phone | cameras have closed that gap. Remarkable. | nunez wrote: | 100%. | | I stopped using SLRs back in 2010 or so. Phone cameras weren't | good enough to surpass them by then, but I knew that this is | the direction that everyone was going and lugging around a | camera while traveling was a pain. | | Fast-forward to today, where you can get excellent photos and | videos in almost all light conditions thanks to huge advances | in computational photography and bigger lenses. | | The only advantage that SLRs bring are interchangeable lenses. | Not sure how strong that moat will hold up though. | ragona wrote: | Dang, I'm actually surprisingly sad about this. DPReview is _the_ | site for extremely detailed analysis of cameras. When I want to | buy something I go through their report first, and it's always | extremely informative. | | It feels like this kind of layoff is part of an end of an era. | Amazon used to NEVER cancel projects that customers were using. | They just straight up Did. Not. Do. It. I once had to get | approval from my VP's VP because we wanted to turn off a product | with eleven daily users. 11. The number after ten. | | A whole lot more than eleven people used DPReview, and they | provided a service that I'm not sure is well replicated from | other sources. A loss for the internet, and it makes me sad that | these kinds of quasi-public-good projects are getting canned | across the industry. | | I get that big companies are not retirement homes for nerds | but... with as much profit as the profit centers bring in, there | was a little wiggle room for passion projects. Now it feels like | that wiggle room is being squeezed right out of the industry as | we all brace for the recession that hasn't quite shown up yet. | Zak wrote: | It's weird they plan to shut the site down instead of just | leaving it up with its existing content. Paying writers and | camera reviewers is expensive, but hosting the site isn't (when | you're Amazon). | saurik wrote: | > Amazon used to NEVER cancel projects that customers were | using. They just straight up Did. Not. Do. It. | | FWIW, Amazon killed Amazon Flexible Payments in 2015. They | ostensibly replaced it with Amazon Pay, but they didn't offer | any kind of migration path for existing users/accounts (which | felt very much like a Google thing to do) and, frankly, the | services were fundamentally different: the former was more like | a better version of PayPal, while the latter is more like a | worse version of Stripe. | | I had a lot of contact with the team as this happened as I was | their biggest user on mobile devices for years, and they begged | me to move to their new product, but they were really screwing | me by shutting down the old service in the way they did-- | deleting the account history and customer connections rather | than just figuring out a new way to use them--and the new | service not only comparatively sucked but was way more | expensive (trying to command the Stripe premium, forcing me to | rely solely on PayPal, which is much cheaper for small payments | if you ask for their micropayments pricing). | | But like, Amazon Flexible Payments was _amazing_. They | seriously had a pricing model that automatically scaled into | separate buckets all the way down to tiny tiny _tiny_ fractions | of a single cent (on which they changed like 25% with no fixed | component) when using your balance, while supporting all of the | standard use cases for large ($12+) payments that Stripe is | good at, having the API prowess of AWS attached to the | flexibility of PayPal but using your Amazon.com account 's | payment information. But like, it had seemed as if they | internally lost all the engineers working on that project and | could no longer fix even basic things like their email | template. It definitely soured the otherwise excellent long- | term support experience I've had with Amazon services. | ragona wrote: | Yeah I'm sure there are counter-examples. My experience is | that I worked at Amazon from 2012-2020, and I recall trying | to shut down a project in maybe 2013 and it was _incredibly_ | tricky. | fetus8 wrote: | You're spot on, this is _THE_SITE for extremely detailed | analysis of of cameras/lenses/etc. I have no idea what will end | up filling the gap of losing something like this. | | I hope Chris and Jordan continue on their Youtube journey and | make the content they've been making, but man, there's still a | need for a detailed text based site with super indepth info | about modern camera equipment. | | Such a bummer. | throw0101b wrote: | > _I hope Chris and Jordan continue on their Youtube journey_ | [...] | | Joining PetaPixel in May: | | * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6T3qWI2c-Y | | * https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and- | jordan-d... | | And their "The end of DPReview" video: | | * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLikDUacsC8 | | They'll planning a few 'closing videos' before things are | completely shutdown. | dhucerbin wrote: | There's still https://www.lenstip.com/. English version of | Polish site optyczne.pl. What's funny, team from this site | criticized dpreview for being not scientific enough. | oktwtf wrote: | While I agree that there is some valuable content on the | site, there are certainly others to fill in the spots... | | You want detailed look into equipment? Checkout Ken | Rockwell's site[0], or byThom[1] | | [0]: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm [1]: | https://bythom.com/reviews--books/index.html | Espressosaurus wrote: | Ken Rockwell is a blowhard that copy/pastes info into every | "review". His sharpness comparisons are laughable, as is | his blatant fanboyism (which went from Nikon to Canon. It's | funny to read the things he said about one brand 10 years | ago and compare it to what he says about the same brand | today). I would not put him into the same category as | DPReview with a straight face. DPReview gave us the | exposure latitude and high ISO comparison tools, which are | wonderful for teasing apart differences in cameras. For | example, I know the Z9 is 1 stop worse in high ISO noise | performance than the Z7 due to its electronic shutter | because I can see it in the comparison. That makes it easy | for me to set my max ISO appropriately. Their reviews | weren't perfect (I prefer Photography Life's, especially | for the lens reviews--but they do principally Nikon | reviews), but they were damn good. | | Nobody does what DPReview did. | | This is a sad passing, but reflects the general decline in | ILC photography unfortunately. | dboreham wrote: | I don't know him but I have to say I like Ken Rockwell's | content. I wouldn't go to him for pixel peeping lens | comparisons but for a general overview he's good. | | There are also nowadays several good YouTubers in this | field. | | And of course there's TDP albeit Canon and Sony-only | coverage there. | asdff wrote: | Sites like these are also dying breeds with their days | numbered. Informationally dense, text and figure, | lightweight websites are not being made anymore. Sites like | dpreview or Ken Rockwell are pretty clearly holdovers from | days long gone and sensibilities long abandoned. Today, all | that information that could be read in 5 minutes on | dpreview is drip fed to you in video form from a | gesticulating talking head, over 25 minutes with an | advertisement every 5, wasting both data and time to likely | only end up partially informing you compared to a dpreview | or Ken Rockwell article. | orangepurple wrote: | Cue "it's all so tiresome" from Empire of Dust | PaulHoule wrote: | I think of how video game walkthroughs have gone this | way. It used to be you'd find exhaustive 300k text | explanations of everything in a game. Now there is a | "let's play" video that goes on for 40 hours, you have to | find the right video to watch, then seek to the right | place in that video, it's exhausting. | | The one case I found the video was better was in a | certain level where the way forward was to make a jump | that didn't look possible and the video made it obvious. | visarga wrote: | Try the GPTs they might know the game tricks and adapt to | your specifics without search, of course if the info is | prior to 2021. | PaulHoule wrote: | I was thinking about information extracting the GameFAQs | for certain _Hyperdimension Neptunia_ games to make a | knowledge graph so I could figure out the dependency | graph of what dungeons I would have to go to to get the | items to craft the items that I need to craft an item I | want. But then again, I'm a weeaboo. | asdff wrote: | It's going to tell you exactly how to compose your | pokemon team to beat a gym that doesn't exist in the game | PaulHoule wrote: | My son made it all the way through one of the older games | doing all the fighting with one Pokemon, developing | others just to host skills like cut. I have been | disappointed with recent _fire Emblem_ titles because | level trumps the weapons triangle. | bentcorner wrote: | Honestly though, video walkthroughs are an improvement | (navigation aside). It's hard to describe a situation | entirely via text, and having that _plus_ a short video | showing the exact situation (e.g., finding a collectible | in a weird location, strategy for defeating a boss, etc.) | makes things so much clearer. | | I've had instances where a walkthrough with pictures | still wasn't enough and had to find a video showing me | something and it only became clear after that. | | I recall as a kid that the Zelda OOT water temple was | nearly impossible to navigate with a gamefaqs guide. | Video back then would have been so much easier. | Firmwarrior wrote: | I wonder if you could start writing guides on Substack to | monetize them.. I think the real problem here is that | writing a 300k textbook on GameFAQs gets you a chance at | winning some swag, but 40 hours of YouTube videos can | actually pay out in the form of money | | Then again, even though World of Warcraft sites pay guide | authors, the guides are super formulaic and low | quality... even though I despise video content, I end up | getting most of my detailed info that way | dhbanes wrote: | Please do not recommend Ken Rockwell. | | Try Fred Miranda | BeetleB wrote: | DP Review's reviews have the benefit that they use the same | methodology, so comparing one camera with another was easy. | For example, I can do side by side comparisons of how much | noise there is at ISO 1600. | acomjean wrote: | Fred Miranda was a useful set of reviews of lenses from | their members. | | Now it's mostly forums Which makes sense. Once you have the | gear... | | https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/index.php | | I used dpreview in the past. They had detailed technical | reviews, side by side test shot comaparisons. Really a | first class site. They will be missed. | giobox wrote: | I do think times have changed though, DPReviews fortunes | arguably have mirrored the fortunes of the ILC (interchangeable | lens camera) market. The site (along with flickr.com...) was a | daily visit for me 15 years ago at the height of the DSLR boom, | but I honestly now can't remember the last time I checked. | | ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has | rapidly declined ever since really, another victim of the rapid | pace of improvement in smartphones. If we are being blunt, | Amazon bought dpreview to use as a sales funnel for DSLRs and | cameras, which they simply don't sell so much of anymore. A sad | day though. | | I know dpreview covers cameras beyond ILCs, but ILC reviews | where always by far the most popular content on the site - in | the DSLR boom/Phil Askey years it simply was the gold standard | in DSLR reviews. I still remember pouring over the classic | battle between Canon's 300D and Nikon's D70 for entry level 6mp | DSLR supremacy constantly on dpreview circa 2003/4. | taude wrote: | Yeup, I used to be a regular at dpreview a long time ago, | certainly before I bought my first DSR the Canon 20d. But | even before that when I was still buying point-and-shoots. | | I probably haven't been back since about 2014, though, when I | upgraded to a Fuji XT mirrorless system, which I haven't even | used in five or six years now.... | asdff wrote: | The thing is, there's another boom currently going on. The | mirrorless boom, and this site is the gold standard for that | one as well. Now there is no home, and its much harder to | gleam the differences that are actually meaningful between | these many mirrorless cameras (and new dslrs that do get | made). | bradlys wrote: | a "boom" is an overstatement. The camera industry overall | is dying and struggling. We're down to something like 10% | of camera sales from 2010. There is no boom. There is a | transition from DSLR to mirrorless for the few existing | dedicated camera photographers out there. | johnvanommen wrote: | I have a $600 DSLR that I bought at Costco on a whim, | fifteen years ago. Once in a blue moon I look at my old | photos and realize they just look night and day better | than anything I've taken in the last decade. Camera phone | lenses do alright when it's sunny outside, but DSLRs kill | it when it comes to medium and low light. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take better | pictures than SLRs are not photographers. | | It is not just low light, it is depth of field, exposure | control, the minimization or absence of computed | exposures. | | I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max and only shot in RAW mode. | That is the best I can do. Saving money fro a mirrorless | camera so i can start shooting again. | tonyarkles wrote: | > The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take | better pictures than SLRs are not photographers. | | Amateur photographer here, currently have a Canon 80D and | a 20-year collection of medium-quality lenses. You're | completely right. The photos that this thing takes are | miles ahead of my iPhone 12 Pro; you just can't beat a | sensor with big pixels and an aperture that's 10-100x (? | I don't know the actual ratio) larger than a smartphone | lens. But the one nuance is the old saying "the best | camera in the world is the one you've got with you"; I | have some beautiful shots from this camera, and the 20D | before it, and the Rebel XT before it, but some of my | absolute favourites were shot on a smartphone because it | was in my pocket at the right time and the DSLR was at | home in the bag. | asdff wrote: | And of course, the dslr looks perfect in perfect light | too. You can do things that make your images even better | with dslrs since you have access to the raw files and | complete control over exposure. You can underexpose for a | night scene to not blow up highlights and shoot at lower | noise or at a shutter speed you can hand hold without | blur (depends on your current focal length), then pull up | the exposure only on the shadows where you aren't liable | to notice much noise anyway. You can get that shot on a | bright blue day that looks like what you eyes see with | this technique, where you can see the blue sky and | shadows under trees just fine, by exposing for the sky to | not blow it out, and then pulling up the shadows. For any | pro digital camera built in the last 15 years, you can | pull a lot before the noise gets too unruly. A camera | like an old 5dmk1 is still great at this, and its almost | 20. | | Trying to expose for the highlights is annoying on the | iphone at least. It doesn't hold exposure lock that | reliably, and the slider needs to be a lot more sensitive | to actually let me quickly stop down the exposure. | Usually I miss click since you have to swipe several | times, and it resets the exposure. Then you are left with | a jpeg that's compressed with some aggressive de noising | applied probably missing most of the color depth too. | foldr wrote: | You can easily shoot RAW with manual control over | exposure (and even focus) on an iPhone with Halide or | other third party apps. Aperture is fixed, of course. | asdff wrote: | IMO if a third party app has to bring the feature its not | really a part of the phone. Apps come and go. Plus apps | like halide are paid so you could think of it as a tax to | get to actually use some of the hardware you purchased. | foldr wrote: | That seems like a rather academic distinction. The cost | of the app is minuscule compared to the cost of any of | the camera hardware that you're referring to. | | The built in app does give you focus lock and manual | exposure control (with auto ISO). Only a very small | number of people would want the additional control that | Halide offers, so it wouldn't really make sense for Apple | to add those features to the built in app. | duffyjp wrote: | I have an entry level Nikon paired with their F1.4G 50mm | lens. It takes staggeringly good portraits in any | conditions. | | DPReview was of course my primary source of information | when choosing equipment. Sad indeed to see them shutter. | | * https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon- | products/product/camera-le... | stanski wrote: | Not to mention that almost all photo consumption happens | on a phone as well. | | Only when you open a phone photo on a big screen and | compared to one taken by a real lens do you realize the | big difference. Despite all the incredible technology in | phone cameras, there is no substitute for proper optics. | cozzyd wrote: | 10% camera sales or 10% ILC sales? The point and click | market is obviously irrelevant for a mirrorless boom. | klodolph wrote: | Point and shoot peaked in 2010, I think. Camera sales | have dropped by something like 90% since 2010, if you | exclude smartphones. Any "boom" is just consumers | shuffling around within a collapsing market. | gsich wrote: | And with good reason. While I like shooting with DSLM | some software and hardware parts are just bad. | | No GPS. The cheapest Android phone from 5 years ago has | this. I don't want to use the shitty app to get | geoinformation. Yes, battery lifetime - no need to enable | it by default. | | No embedded storage. With SSD prices cheap as now, add | some 64 or 128GB storage. Keep the card slot. | | More computational stuff, no need for enabling it by | default, but stuff like taking 10 pictures, then | selecting the best one automatically (or whatever the | camera thinks is best). Additional: enable better | tethering. On my Nikon Z7 I still can't set everything | from the computer. Some settings depend on the mode | (P,A,S,M) - why? Nobody knows. | | If no flash, at least have some light. | Lammy wrote: | They exist! My YN455 interchangeable-lens Android camera | has all of those things. It uses the same 20MP MFT sensor | as my PEN-F and I love it a lot: | https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254 | arghwhat wrote: | The point-and-shoot market collapsed, but the dslr market | is not nearly as dramatically affected with 2010 numbers | not too far off 2018 numbers based on statista charts[1]. | | On the other hand, mirrorless is starting to show | growth[2]. | | Looking at the overall camera-sales are misleading, | especially considering that it largely shuffled numbers | around within big companies: A Samsung point-and-shoot | with a Samsung sensor became a Samsung smartphone with a | Samsung sensor, selling even more units with the camera | still being a primary selling point. | | --- | | [1]: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4242091-why-nikon- | and-canon... | | [2]: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/15/2022-was- | officially-the-yea... (using CIPA data) | asdff wrote: | Also, certain camera brands are less affected than | others. Fuji is probably doing better than its ever done | these days and has trouble keeping inventory in stock | from demand, whereas nikon is at a historic low. | noncoml wrote: | Definitely not a boom, but there is still a sizable niche | community that I would thought to be big enough to | support a good website. | | For example there is no boom of home audio systems | anymore, but there are enough audiophiles to support a | number of sites and magazines | asdff wrote: | Its enough of a boom for a small company like fujifilm to | justify producing more cameras and lenses and even start | up and grow a medium format mirrorless ecosystem. | Fujifilm in particular struggles to keep up with demand | which is probably not easy given global shortages, but it | goes to show there is a market. It's not the market it | was in 1995 or 2005, but its a market no less because | there's always a demand for the best image technolgy can | do. | | Phone cameras will always look worse than their | contemporary full size counterparts just due to physics, | so the pros and prosumers will always be in demand of a | dedicated rig even if their iphone looks like a spider on | the back. Not to mention even today just from an OS | standpoint, no phone has feature parity with even the | first dslr released since phone manufacturers | "childproof" camera features that pro camera | manufacturers assume you don't need your hand held to | use. Usually you have to resort to a third party app if | you want to set a manual exposure, you know, something | any photographer since 1860 could do that we now deem to | be "too advanced" for modern humans. | bydo wrote: | Fujifilm is a twenty billion dollar company. Imaging is | just a hobby for them. | | Though I agree that if it were _truly_ hemorrhaging them | money, they 'd have sold it (like Minolta or Pentax) or | spun it out into its own entity (like Olympus). | adrr wrote: | It isn't a boom. It is just a transition from DSRL/video | cameras to mirrorless. Market is consolidating around | mirrorless for everything from photography to video. Hire a | wedding photography and a wedding videographer today, they | may have the same equipment. | thomasjb wrote: | I believe that TLRs are going to make a resurgence and | wipe out this mirrorless fad | vwoolf wrote: | I'm seeing a lot of people discussing sales numbers; here is | one article showing the decline in terms of both lens and | interchangeable lens cameras shipped: | https://bythom.com/newsviews/real-camera-economics.html. | | Lenses appear to have declined by about 66% from 2012 to | 2022. Cameras, by a little under 50%. | | This decline makes sense to me. I have a Fuji XT4 which I | like a lot, but, also, starting around the iPhone 13, phones | got really good. Their automatic exposure in sunlight, for | example, is often (not always) great. At the same time, the | software quality in pretty much all cameras leaves much to be | desired: I can go on a rant about the number of clicks | necessary to wirelessly transfer from camera to phone but | would rather not, and people have been ranting about that | topic for at least a decade. | [deleted] | cameldrv wrote: | Look again at that chart. It's even worse for cameras. It's | almost a 75% decline. | pjc50 wrote: | Gloomy prediction: based on Samsung Moongate, the next | logical step after the smartphone camera replacing the DSLR | is AI replacing the smartphone camera. Or at least | substituting for underlying camera quality. Take a 10MP image | and have the AI fill in the detail. Or remove detail (see the | google advert for editing people out of your holiday photos). | Or put in some detail that wasn't there. | jollyllama wrote: | Too bad we can't get the opposite: a DSLR controlled by an | AI that manipulates the camera parameters just as a human | would, or an AI driven interface, that captures what you're | seeing without an AI hallucinating or ML touching up the | photo. Panasonic can't even get autofocus right. | Kaijo wrote: | Check out this AI camera control module: | https://witharsenal.com/ | | It's not something I'd use, I usually want as much | creative control as possible over all the settings and | RAW conversion. There are too many permutations of | parameters that "correctly" capture the scene according | to different aesthetic aims. The reviews of the version 2 | seem to agree, that it's useful, but not for experienced | photographers with their own creative vision. But how | then would the inexperienced ever develop a personal | vision, using this? | jollyllama wrote: | Oh, nice, that's pretty cool | spockz wrote: | Aren't things like the focus stacking and better HDR | already part of MagicLantern? The new things seem to be | the deep colour and the crowd removal. | mrandish wrote: | While I agree that ML-based image-enhancement and | photography/videography assist at capture time will | continue to offer highly useful capabilities, I don't agree | when that argument is used to support the separate | contention that mobile imaging will make larger format | ILC/DSLR imaging irrelevant. The reason is that ML (and | computational photography in general) is fundamental tech | that can improve all categories of imaging. It's a | metaphorical tide that lifts all boats equally from pro | battleships and tankers to hobbyist racing sloops and | yachts to consumer speedboats and jet skis. | | (note: I'm setting aside the current misguided one-click | "make it better" AI features as a temporary aberration that | the marketplace of consumer tastes will correct. There's | already backlash emerging around over-enhanced AI images on | social media.) | dylan604 wrote: | new from Samsung. it's a black box perfectly square just to | make Jobs turn over in his grave. there are no lenses, but | it's the most incredible camera you've ever seen. it has a | microphone where you tell it the image you want... | | "I want to see a picture with me at the Grand Canyon with | nobody else in the shot at sunset after storm has just | passed with a rainbow in the background" | | waits a few seconds, boom. post to social, get lots of | envious comments about my cool vacation. | asdff wrote: | I can't decide if in the future we will be bloblike | sloths in chairs like in _Wall-E_ , or maybe it will be | like _The Matrix_ but you are plugged into a peleton | bike. | dylan604 wrote: | where did you get the peleton reference from The Matrix? | even the machines realized that was wasted. you spend | your entire life cycle in a sensory deprivation tank with | the computer telling you how much of a good time you are | having. wasting energy on actually moving muscles is | absurd! that's not thinking like a machine | asdff wrote: | I figured the peloton would be the method of entry for | the machine. Start off with the rich people doing it for | working out to make it seem sexy and cool (done), get | everyone else on it (in progress), get your boss to buy | pelotons for remote zoom calls (probably has happened), | start buying energy from peleton users pedaling (will be | pitched soon), offer drug to allow sleeping while | pedaling and making energy, change formulation to prevent | consciousness entirely while pedaling and remain pedaling | until your knees explode and you are replaced on the bike | by the machines with another drugged up biological | generator. | layer8 wrote: | Smartphone photos are already heavily ML-processed, with | actual details and colors being replaced by what the model | thinks looks best. The moon thing was just the most blatant | example. | foldr wrote: | I haven't noticed any invented details or colors in | smartphone photos that I've taken myself. Most of the | claims of this that I've seen online are not very | convincing. Of course you sometimes get artifacts from | sharpening and de-Bayering, but those can occur with any | digital camera. | asdff wrote: | "subscribe to android photos plus to have all the ai | applied billboards removed from your photos" | constantlm wrote: | This is already the case with cameras in consumer phones. | novok wrote: | What I don't get is why not spin off vs. just close? | ghaff wrote: | I still use my Fujifilm XE-3 from time to time but use my | Canon DSLR rarely--mostly for situations that benefit from | very wide angle or telephoto lenses. And, yeah, if I'm going | on a trip where I'm mostly only going to take some snaps, | much less a local hike, I'll almost certainly just take my | smartphone. And this is someone who still has a Flickr Pro | subscription and used to spend many many hours in the | darkroom. | | I can imagine buying a new Fujifilm body but not sure I can | imagine getting a new Canon at least so long as my current | one works. | visarga wrote: | Hey there, been reading the same page around the same time. | The 300D was the last DSLR I bought not because it was bad, | but because it was so good. Even 15 years later phones could | not compare. | vvrm wrote: | > another victim of the rapid pace of improvement in | smartphones | | It's not just the pace of improvement, but also the marketing | spin. I find the strengths of smartphone camera and ILCs | pretty complementary. Smartphone cameras work pretty well | outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are | hard to beat indoors in low light conditions. Coincidentally | it is also easier to find your ILC indoors at home when you | need it, rather than lugging it around on a hike. When we | didn't have kids, we used to spend more time outdoors and so | most of our memorable pictures are from a phone. Now that we | have restless young kids and are spending more time indoors, | almost all of the memorable photos are from a mirrorless | camera. But the marketing spin makes it seem like ILCs are | completely redundant. | egman_ekki wrote: | > Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there | is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat | indoors in low light conditions. | | I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop | sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung | Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back | to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. | And that's a pretty old smartphone! | | I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, | but it's just so easy to mess some setting up and end up | with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging | conditions, and I'm no beginner when it comes to dslrs. | lambdasquirrel wrote: | I think the reality is that most people who were doing | photography don't need what ILCs offer. I was talking to a | sweet old lady on one of the last days I was in California. | She was showing me some of her work, and TBH, small- | aperture landscape / portrait photos that are to be viewed | on a smartphone don't need to be taken on an ILC. Even | bokeh can be hacked for a base class of photos. | | To put it in another way, ILCs were bought because saw | people _had_ to buy them, back in the day. If you wanted | anything that wasn't potato-quality, you needed an ILC. | | A lot of photography was enjoyed as an _accessible_ art. It | was about being able to capture things. You don't strictly | need an ILC for that, and I think photography will evolve | and adapt in that regard. There will still be a market for | folks who e.g. need aperture or shutter control, simply | because of market segmentation reasons. As an art-art, | photography will be about being able to see things | differently, and for that reason, there will be people | drawn back to the knobs, switches, and lenses that ILCs | offer. Some folks will say it's about the bokeh, or the | low-light, or whatever, but it was always about being able | to see differently than what other cameras could see, or | even what the human eye can "see." | | To which end, the marketing spin is just that. We shouldn't | discount creative folks being able to see differently with | a smartphone. It's just that there are shots that you won't | get be able to take with a small-aperture fixed lens on a | smartphone sensor. | | (This, and of course, applications where the bleeding edge | of image quality matters.) | twoWhlsGud wrote: | I used to think that, but the more I take pictures with | my phone the more I disagree. My iPhone is very very good | at taking iPhone pictures. That is to say all the places | and people I take pictures of with my phone look the | same. It's a lovely seductive sameness, don't get me | wrong. But my phone "knows" what pictures _it_ wants to | take and takes them. It needs me less and less. | | I don't think we're all that far away from having some | sort of always on camera that cuts us as directors out of | the "picture" entirely. | | Eventually, your phone equivalent will tell you and your | friends where to stand, what to do and what to say to get | the most out of the location, people and activities you | have at your disposal. You won't have any choice (unless | you are in that small group that is effectively allowed | to self direct your own videos for Tikstagram) _if_ you | want to be competitive at projecting a successful image. | | Great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe | not what you want if you are trying to develop an | individual vision. | | That said for a quick snap where I'm just trying to | document something my iPhone is awfully handy ; ) | akho wrote: | > Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there | is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat | indoors in low light conditions. | | I find the opposite. Proper cameras are much more flexible | and plain better when there's enough light. Inside, without | a flash, you'll not get a great photo anyway, so might as | well benefit from "computational" fakery. | radicaldreamer wrote: | Lots of software tricks make it easy to take low light | photos on phones today but require quite a bit of manual | tweaking on a DSLR. | digitallyfree wrote: | The thing about this is that the manual tweaking allows | you to take the picture you're envisioning. Whereas the | processing on the phone provides a clear picture in poor | conditions, but it's not necessarily the picture I | _want_. | | For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit | scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and | boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the | subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent | the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great | for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic | sense. | jollyllama wrote: | For 'proper cameras', it depends on the size of the | sensor and lens, largely. | kevstev wrote: | Whats the most recent phone you have tried to use in low | light? The last two years of Pixels and Iphones (and maybe | others, these are just the ones I have seen firsthand) are | amazing in low light for a typical use case. I mean sure if | you have a tripod and do a long exposure, its a different | story, but thats a very different user. | | I beat the crap out of my Canon Rebel T3i, I literally wore | out the shutter after about 150k pulls on it, and replaced | it with a Sony A7 III with a "G" lens, and while the | pandemic was a large reason for it collecting dust, I am | going on a "big" trip to a scenic place for the first time | since prepandemic in a few months, and I am not sure its | going to find a place in my bag. For the space and weight, | my P6 Pro does a fantastic job. | | The overlap in quality is enough that I see myself rarely | using an ILC in the future, and the A7 III is likely the | last one I will own unless they make some leaps forward to | compete with smartphones. | matmatmatmat wrote: | It so happens I recently took a Pixel 6 Pro and a Canon | 80D on a trip abroad. I used a rebuild of the stock | camera app that does away with the automatic over- | sharpening that the stock camera app has, and with the | 80D, I used the EF-S 15-85 mm lens that (I believe) used | to be the kit lens for the 7D. I also used the EF 70-300 | mm non-L lens. | | There is, in my opinion, no question that the 80D takes | sharper pictures in daylight. It's just hard to beat a | sensor that's that much bigger. The lenses, also, just | have way, way more light gathering power. | | Now, in dark places, at night, I used the P6P more, and | that worked better than the 80D. But I'm glad I had the | 80D for the big landscape shots and for the tight shots | of people's faces. | | The A7 III is way lighter and smaller than the 80D, and | takes way better pictures. I would suggest considering | finding a space for it in your bag. At least take a few | pictures with both the P6P and the A7 III and view them | at 100% to see if you're happy with the results. | Delento wrote: | [dead] | kelnos wrote: | Respectfully, I think you're still in the minority. The | vast majority of people I know with young kids don't even | own a dedicated camera, or rarely pull it out. Their phone | camera is more than sufficient and much more convenient to | use for them. | RobotToaster wrote: | I would've thought with everyone wanting to be youtubers | camera sales would've picked up. | enlyth wrote: | Faking the image quality through software is becoming more | powerful than actually taking a good image, and people | don't seem to care if the pixels on the screen are really | what the optics saw. | | They just want to take a pretty photo, and look at a pretty | photo. | Zak wrote: | Consumer fixed-lens cameras are much more dead as a market | than ILCs, and those made up the bulk of camera sales. Almost | everyone who isn't doing photography as a profession or | serious hobby is satisfied with smartphone cameras now. | citrin_ru wrote: | There is one more use case not covered by smartphones but | actually covered by fixed-lens cameras - taking photos in | rainy weather (which in some parts of the world is hard to | avoid) or underwater. While there are waterproof | smartphones, capacitive touchscreen becomes unusable as | soon as it catches even a few drops of rain or water from | wet fingers. A camera like Fujifilm XP140 works well in | rain as long as there are no drops on the lens and under | water if you want to make a shot of marine life. | | And while there are gloves which allows to use touchscreen | using it in the snow is not the best experience either - | pressing a physical button is easier. | | I expect many smartphones to have quality better then this | camera but in some conditions it's hard/impossible to use a | smartphone. And quality is enough to capture some moments | from a family vocation. | heipei wrote: | The iPhone is waterproof and you can take a photo with | the physical volume up/down key. I've used it underwater | a couple of times, none of my other proper cameras would | be able to do that. My two cents. | xarope wrote: | I've used my olympus TG4 underwater at a depth of 15m | (best I could do without scuba), and had it trailing on a | lanyard on my wrist whilst swimming in the ocean. I'd | like to think nobody would subject any current smartphone | to these sorts of conditions, and expect them to survive, | nor believe the marketing rhetoric. | | One other thing I do like about the TG4, nice big | buttons, and I've had plenty of opportunities to use it | in rather adverse conditions. | nibbleshifter wrote: | Which model? And does it survive saltwater? How deep? | | Asking for a me who doesn't want to fuck up a thousand | euro phone trying something stupid next time I'm at the | seaside :) | giobox wrote: | Pretty much all iPhones have been for some time (since | iPhone 7) to various degrees, but Apple themselves make | no promises it will always work: | | https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043 | | "Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent | conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of | normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, | but you might have rights under consumer law." | | I think of it more as good to have for an accidental | drop, rather than a specification to rely upon for | regular underwater photography, although the more recent | phones do reach ever higher Ingress Protection (IP67, | IP68 etc) water/splash/dust ratings. | brk wrote: | Anecdata but I've jumped in saltwater to get ahold of my | stupid dog that fell off our dock with my iPhone 12 in my | pocket. I am typing this response on said phone :) | justincormack wrote: | I got mine wet in the sea and it barely worked after | (probably an 11 I think) | nradov wrote: | Smartphones don't really work for underwater photography. | Even the water resistant models have very limited depth | ratings so to take them scuba diving you need a strong | housing, just as with any other camera. There are | underwater housings available for a few smartphone models | but controlling anything through the touch screen is | problematic, the small lenses and sensors don't work well | in dim light, and there isn't a good way to trigger | external strobes. | op00to wrote: | I used to shoot only medium and large format film. Maybe | 3-4 years ago, I realized I can do everything I want with | my phone camera. | antisthenes wrote: | If you honestly think your phone camera is a valid | replacement for medium/large format film, then you were | never serious about photography in the first place. | | For all their improvements, smartphones are still | extremely limited by sensor size and the size of optics. | Those are terrible, compared to even the entry level | DSLRs. | | I'm glad it works for your use case (although I can't | imagine what that is), but any decent photographer will | be able to tell a smartphone picture from a picture taken | with good optics and a DSLR. It's just that the market | for those photos has also shrunk and the masses are happy | with their instagram filter drivel. | silisili wrote: | The vast, vast, vast majority of pictures are viewed on a | 6ish inch screen. You'll have real trouble telling much | difference there. | | Now if you're blowing things up into a poster, it becomes | much more apparent, granted, but it's not a common use | case. | snapetom wrote: | If the use case was a 6ish inch screen, that was overkill | for medium/large format, which is parent's point. | modzu wrote: | not only that, but Google magic eraser made my holiday | photos appear like i had my own private island and yacht | and i was always happy and smiling and looking at the | camera and the sunset and skies, oh my! it just lights up | my instas. i don't get what real cameras even do, they | have something to do with reality? | | seriously though, not all the kids will be coopted into | this, and will find cameras are still instruments for | artistic expression. but for that we hardly need dpreview | and its obsession with optical sharpness and perpetually | reviewing every camera in existence as "almost good | enough" | Kye wrote: | You might have it mixed up with DXOMark. DPReview is more | "you can sort of tell the difference side by side, but | who does that outside a review? They're both good" | acyou wrote: | The best camera is the one you have ready. | yieldcrv wrote: | and film photographers weren't as serious as | daguerreotype photographers in the 1840s. | | the market shrunk _because_ gatekeeping photographers | were insufferable and tone deaf and everyone ignored them | because they had an accessible solution that was good | enough. | | if you want to pursue a convoluted process for self | fulfillment, the choice is yours, but almost nobody else | will care about the output of your photos or your fine | tuned process. | foldr wrote: | This is my standard for serious photography: | https://petapixel.com/2022/05/22/photographer-builds- | giant-c... | | If you aren't shooting giant format wet plates in your | own custom-modified darkroom bus, then you're just an | amateur like the rest of us. | Zak wrote: | That's an interesting transition. Why were you choosing | those formats over digital ILCs at that time? Most people | I hear from choosing film within the past decade, | especially larger formats are as interested in the | process as the result. | [deleted] | m3kw9 wrote: | The photos now are so good now that only visual-Phillies will be | interested in better photos. When I buy a SLR or a phone, near | perfect photos are expected | klodolph wrote: | There are still significant gaps when it comes to usability for | streaming video. | seanp2k2 wrote: | If anyone is looking for a somewhat comparable replacement, | https://www.rtings.com/camera is the best I know of. Their | monitor and TV reviews are amazing too (that's how I found out | about them a few years back). | jvolkman wrote: | It's Amazon's Reader moment. | jmyeet wrote: | This is a little bizarre. | | Some of you may not know that Amazon went through a phase of | buying the #1 site in every space. DPReview is the one for | cameras. There were others (eg IMDB). Amazon's strategy seemed to | be to drive traffic to their site by buying these sites. | | Digital camera sales fell off a cliff. I think they peaked at | about 2010-12. Now we're at less than 10% of those sales, | possibly less than 5%. Of course because of phones. I still like | specialist cameras that do things phone can't (eg 300x zoom, | 1000fps recording). But these are now niche products. | | it seems strange to shutter the site however. How much upkeep | does it really require? You can pause actual reviews so all you | have to do is add new cameras when they're released, which isn't | that often these days. You can even close the forums if you don't | want to moderate them. | | it's similar to the Google Reader argument: it simply can't be | that expensive to maintain. | breakingrules wrote: | [flagged] | mikece wrote: | I really hope Amazon considers spinning off DPreivew. | int_daniel wrote: | With all the data that is available on DPReview one could have | made a nice product. Something like the IMDB for movies or | Discogs for music releases. It is sad to see that it should just | be closed down ... | codersfocus wrote: | I'm working on something similar to that | (https://cameralenspicker.com) | | If they're really gonna shut down, I'd better backup their site | and maybe use an AI summarized version of their content for my | site. | gesman wrote: | I'm sure there would be a line-up of good-willing buyer(s) for | DPREVIEW. | | This is an exceptional portal with second-to-none depth of photo | technology coverage. | | It feels like something is missing in "we're closing" message. | Cost is not the problem these days. | | Pending lawsuits? | | Blackmail from deep pocket disgruntled vendor? | twen_ty wrote: | Checks date - it's not April 1st. This is incredibly sad - and | also makes me angry how big corporations like Amazon can destroy | communities just like that. | | DPReview wasn't just about in-depth camera reviews which they | pioneered and excelled at but also about the forums where | photographers of all level of skills and interests would come | together to share their passion and thoughts. This more than | anything else would be a massive loss. | | What's next? IMDB? | okasaki wrote: | Wow, that sucks. I had a deep parasocial relationship with Chris | and Jordan. Hope they continue their youtube content somewhere | else. | Jiejeing wrote: | That hurts a lot, I got in way past the point where it was | acquired by amazon, but the forums were always a very nice place | to interact (with its lots of weird and single-focused people, as | every forum, that gives it charm). The reviews for most cameras | made in the last 20 years were invaluable and very detailed, | although lately they certainly struggled to maintain the quantity | of content they put out in the past. | | I cannot imagine that cutting the maybe 30 people (tops) required | to maintain the site and push content will make a difference in | Amazon revenue; but removing this great online resource is sure | to sadden thousands of users. | [deleted] | gannonburgett wrote: | Former DPReview News Editor (who left after getting news of | this back on January 18th) here: There were 8-10 members of the | editorial team that were full time and a small group of | freelancers. Add in about 8-10 more devs, who cycled in and out | for the most part. So, 15-18 people, tops. By my rough math | once, our entire operating cost for the year was about 10-12 | minutes worth of Amazon revenue. | codersfocus wrote: | Is it true that they're not going to sell the assets, and | just shut everything down? If I had connections to an | investment banker, I'd be trying to see if there's an in with | Amazon... | MR4D wrote: | I think they should go to LTT instead. They're both | Canadian, and the name is less relevant than the brand. | | If they got it ironed out before April 10th, they probably | could put a link to it. | gannonburgett wrote: | I wasn't privy to that information even before I left | (Feb), but from what a few people who were/are privy to | that information have told me, it doesn't appear as though | Amazon is at all interested in selling off the IP. So yea. | Just shut it all down. Which is a fucking shame. | dboreham wrote: | I've seen a few of these bonehead decisions in my career. | Typically it happens because "MBAs are eating the world" | -- someone with the idea that the number of things you | have needs to be made smaller makes a ranked list of all | the things in their area. Then they run "head -7" on the | list. | | I saw this happen long time ago when a company I worked | for decided to close a product division because it was | the fifth most popular i the company. The people working | on that product left, formed a startup, did the exact | same thing and made $$$. Today the product category is a | tens of billions industry. | codersfocus wrote: | It might be intentional then. Instead of having that | content out there again where they will presumably have to | pay affiliate commissions to the new owner, they must've | calculated it's more profitable to just get rid of it. | thih9 wrote: | In this case why not keep the old content online at | least? And continue paying affiliate commissions to | themselves? | codersfocus wrote: | From their announcement, that appears to be their plan. | They said they will keep the site up for an limited | amount of time. It's speculation on how long "limited" | is. Months, years? There might be some clues with how | quickly they shut down alexa.com "In December 2021, | Amazon announced that it would be shutting down its Alexa | Internet subsidiary. The service was then discontinued on | May 1, 2022." which would put it at 5 months. | gist wrote: | I used to visit this site a great deal but I haven't been there | in years. I don't even know how many years. | | Other than generally Amazon doing layoffs my guess is interest in | equipment that they talk about has dropped greatly and | specifically because of smartphone cameras (Iphone in particular | in my case). I have an expensive Sony Camera (several thousand | for the body with a $2000 lens and other lenses) and haven't used | it in years. I just use the Iphone. And I am someone that had a | darkroom years ago and really enjoyed photography (and made money | selling pictures even). It was a big deal to me to take pictures. | But it was more exclusive since most people didn't have a | professional camera. | | Photography has changed in the sense that back when I did and | enjoyed it there weren't any digital aids or easy ways to make | pictures look good. Or be able to just take as many pictures as | you wanted in all sorts of light conditions. And that was | actually part of the fun for me. I mean even my Sony camera can't | fix pictures like the iphone can on the fly. | | The iphone (I've had all of them now an iphone 14 pro max is what | I use) is just good enough to provide enjoyment. | dumpsterlid wrote: | [dead] | asdff wrote: | The thing with this website is that it is one of those leave it | until you need it situations. 10 years ago or so I was in the | market for a new digital camera, and used their site heavily | during that search. Of course, being a prosumer camera, it | still takes great photos 10 years later, so I haven't been in | the market. | | There was a time where upgrading your digital camera constantly | was necessary, because sensors at the time struggled in low | light and you saw some really big gains for a while especially | in the entry level. That said, even a 2005 5dmk1 is still a | great camera today as elderly as it is compared to any other | piece of consumer technology, and blowing up its 12 mega pixels | into a huge print down the side of a building will probably | still look a lot better than doing the same with a new phone | with twice as many pixels. Having pro cameras last a long time | of course hurts sites that favor a customer base that is | constantly changing gear and checking in. | ben7799 wrote: | I think this is a more common thing than people realize, people | who have quite a bit of expensive camera gear and have been | into the whole thing since the film days but yet are | simultaneously really happy with a smartphone. | | For me multi-lens phone cameras was the thing that really | tilted things. I know initially I was infatuated with SLRs and | DSLRs because of the big fancy lenses, especially the long ones | out beyond 200mm. | | But over time I realized the vast majority of my favorite | photos were all getting taken with lenses < 100mm in focal | length, and I simultaneously got bored with the whole "bokeh" | stuff and narrow depth of field. That's what made it so hard to | avoid using the phone more and more often.. a super wide, a | moderate wide, and a short telephoto cover so much. | | It can be hard to argue against a good smartphone + a small | drone as a travel photography kit. | dangerboysteve wrote: | I was in the same boat. Large Canon Full frame with IL lenses. | What got me in the end was the bulk and the worry about the | camera being stolen, broken, and then dealing with the media. I | find I take a lot more photos all the time with my iPhone 13 | Pro Max as I always have it with me. | hristov wrote: | This is a little disappointing. Shipments of interchangeable lens | cameras (the bread and butter of dpreview) have been going down | since 2010 due to the increasing quality of cell phone cameras. | However, at this point, both shipments of interchangeable lens | cameras and lenses are stabilizing and growing slightly. And at | about 6 million camera bodies and 10 million lenses per year | these shipments are not insignificant. Especially considering | that the average prices of these units are pretty hefty. | | So my point is it is still a pretty significant industry and it | still deserves a review website. That is one of the unfortunate | things of large companies buying niche sites like dpreview. They | look at everything at the 10 000 feet level and kill the website | even if demand for it still exists. I do hope the dpreview | editors find a way to continue their work at a new site in the | near future. | Zak wrote: | > Shipments of interchangeable lens cameras... have been going | down since 2010 due to the increasing quality of cell phone | cameras. | | I'm a bit skeptical of that. Phones almost eliminated the | market for the lower-end fixed-lens cameras that made up the | majority of camera sales. People mostly bought those because | they wanted to capture memories and share interesting things | they saw with their friends and families. Phones do a fine job | of that now, and are more convenient. Most of those customers | never bought interchangeable lens cameras. | | ILCs are for people who want to _do photography_ in some sort | of serious sense. Phones won 't replace ILCs for that market | any more than a multitool replaces a set of screwdrivers for a | mechanic. The biggest thing stopping people from buying new | ILCs is old ILCs. | | I have a seven year old Olympus. If I spent $2200 on the new | one, I'd get a bit faster burst rate and an autofocus system | that's better at tracking certain subjects. If I switched to a | different system in the same price range I'd get _slower_ burst | rates in most cases, but a bit better noise performance and | dynamic range. I could sell my current camera body for about | $500, making that a $1700 upgrade for... not a whole lot of | improvement. | mrandish wrote: | Wow... I've been reading their comprehensive reviews and news for | over 15 years. DPR got me into DSLR videography as a hobby which | I've spent well over $10k on - much of it at Amazon. This really | sucks as I don't know of another source I consider as | authoritative for objective, thorough reviews and analysis of not | only product but technologies and trends. | | _Super_ disappointed in Amazon for not at least keeping the 25 | years of content online. If nothing else, recent reviews will be | valuable for another 1 to 2 years and instructional content for | at least 5 years. A bigger loss is that the overall site content | documents much of the first 25 years of serious digital | photography - an important and unique historical record due to | the consistency of the editorial focus and review format. And | Internet Archive is unlikely to capture it well due to so much | CMS-based chart and hi-res RAW content in test reviews. | | (BTW, I don't agree with those saying mobile | photography/videography has (or will soon) make DSLR/mirrorless | irrelevant. As useful & impressive as mobile imaging is, larger | formats and interchangeable lenses still enable important | capabilities for pros, semi-pros and serious hobbyists that | mobile can't.) | digitallyfree wrote: | This really is an issue with many online magazines/boards/etc. | with a treasure trove of information that shut down on a whim. | I understand that continuing to operate the site and produce | content isn't profitable, but the cost of running an official | read-only archive is a drop in the bucket for the corp. | | Having a third party archive and distribute such a large amount | of copyrighted content also starts to get legally iffy. When | the Bioware RPG forums shut down there was a lot of debate from | the users on the best ways to save the content and distribute | it in a legal fashion. There are movies and shows out there | which were written off by the studios and are only available | illegally. Honestly the official owner should take the | initiative and ensure that future generations can enjoy the | content - but of course they don't care and will just move on | to other ventures. | solarmist wrote: | It'll never be irrelevant, but like medium format it'll become | niche. Even more heavily skewed to professionals. | | So 10x-100x smaller than in photography's hay day. (My guess is | 1980-2000's.) | Lammy wrote: | TIL they've been owned by Amazon since 2007 | https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresd... | | Will miss this site a lot :( | tylerhannan wrote: | DPReview has been a constant companion for the photography nerd | for a LONG time now. It will be missed. | jeffbee wrote: | Damn, I did not know this was part of Amazon. I assumed it | essentially printed money from affiliate links. | bmarquez wrote: | RIP. I'm really sad about this, and it's actually something that | finally makes me question the Amazon monopoly. Amazon spends so | much money on meh (IMO) Prime Video content yet can't keep this | site online as an archive. | | I know that phone cameras have taken over the market in the last | decade. For wide-angle lenses, they're great, but iPhones can't | quite keep up (yet) with 200-300mm telephotos so I still browsed | the site regularly. | | I'm sure some YouTubers might pick up the slack but I hate still | camera YouTube reviews because you can't download the files or | check image quality for yourself (DPR has this studio scene where | you could compare image quality at 100% side-by-side with | different cameras at different ISO's). | Topgamer7 wrote: | THIS makes you question it? Not any of these: | | - Blatantly ripping off products listed on their site, using | sales data from those products as decision making on which | products to steal. | | - The monopolization of every market they enter | | - Their search listings are garbage, amazon centric and filled | with junk | | - Anti-competitive practices such as pricing agreements for | products on amazon, when listed on websites other than amazon | | - They downright treat their employee's as serfs, nearly across | the board. | bmarquez wrote: | As an end user, a lot of Amazon's criticisms are invisible to | consumers. | | - Amazon screws up and sends a poorly packaged product which | is damaged? They just ship another one. | | - Amazon starts creating "Amazon Basics" branded items? | Either I buy it if it's a good price, or don't if it's not. | Amazon Basics actually helps fight against the flood of cheap | Chinese junk by creating a branded product of acceptable | quality. | | Stuff like anti-competitive practices or poor treatment of | employees isn't even noticed by most consumers. This isn't | like Walmart where both the customer experience and the | corporate experience are equally poor. | | Taking away existing products (like DPR) or slow shipment of | items DOES visibly affect the average consumer. | marricks wrote: | This is one of the first review sites I got into, and really set | the standard for what I came to expect from reviews. I fell into | and out of photography a lot but I was always left wanting... | this, exactly this in whatever other tech things I was interested | in. | | I learned a lot reading the review, and trusted them a lot. I | just recommended them to a sibling a week ago for a camera | rental. These days I don't get emotional or attached to websites | (or companies) but this one hits, and hard. | tonymet wrote: | This is likely a deliberate blow to Google. Web search for | detailed camera reviews will suffer . The remnant traffic will | hit Amazon Com product page. | redindian75 wrote: | Phil Askey's Photo Review (DPReview's old name) was a pioneer in | camera reviews even in back 1998/99 when I first encountered it. | I remember it was run from Singapore with the url | philaskey.net/~photo or something. He used to review cameras in | such clarity and detail that it was so popular among digital | camera nerds. | | Huge loss! | balletto wrote: | I'm guessing (but only have anecdotal info) that Amazon more | broadly is taking the broom to many little things. | anonu wrote: | Goes to show nothing lasts forever. Sites like dpreview were | great, but probably not monetizing like it did in the earlier | days of the web. People get their superficial reviews from Amazon | product pages and silly "top 10" sites and don't really care for | the indepth analysis. | chernevik wrote: | What a shame. I'm by no means a photographer but I found their | reviews incredibly helpful. | BooneJS wrote: | dpreview was my main source for getting into photography. I was a | faithful reader for many years. | daneel_w wrote: | A shame. DPReview is hands down the most methodical and thorough | review platform for digital cameras. I wonder if there's enough | time to mirror the content on such short notice. | steveBK123 wrote: | Been a reader for all 25 years, sad. | | It has been slowly dying since AMZN purchase, and I wonder why | they did in first place.. maybe were paying too much out to DPR | in affiliate link income? lol. | | The larger problem is long-form written word reviews are dead due | to the ad monetization models favoring video content. So now we | all need to sit through 40min YouTube videos of blathering. | | It does also seem like yet another signal that FAANG is killing | off all the weird "how does that make any money" side projects | they've collected over the last 10-15 years. | codersfocus wrote: | I am shocked. I'm about to release (...well it's technically | released but not yet finished) a product in the photography | space, cameralenspicker.com. I saw DPReview as the #1 | "competitor" in the space, and reading this is well... like | hearing your #1 competitor is dead. It really makes me wonder | where this industry is headed if they're shutting down. | jillesvangurp wrote: | Sad news. I've never bought a digital camera without first | checking that website. Invaluable resource. I've been following | their youtube channel as well for a few years as well and they | just did an episode on this: : | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLikDUacsC8 | | This does make you wonder if this was the only possible outcome | for Amazon or whether they are just too indifferent/lazy to make | an effort to sell this to somebody else. I bet there would have | been interested parties that could have taken over. It's the kind | of bean counter move where the effort of finding out the answer | to that question was balanced against the potential benefits | (millions?) and disregarded for some reason. I don't buy the | notion that this was not salvageable. It's an institute and a | great brand with a loyal following. That has got to be worth | something. | | From the sounds of it, not all is lost, the two people behind the | youtube channel sound like they will just continue on their own. | They grew the channel to 400K+ subscribers. So that's not | nothing. I hope Amazon does the right thing with the content of | dpreview. | Espressosaurus wrote: | This was always the likely outcome given the decline in camera | sales. They're not going to be making money hand over fist with | hockey-stick growth, which is what it takes to justify your | existence at a company like Amazon. | | I'm surprised they ever bought DP Review in the first place. As | a purchase it makes no sense for a company like Amazon. | visarga wrote: | Probably it was all to report reduction in headcount. | dboreham wrote: | In years past this was one of my favorite sites (from before the | Amazon acquisition). Then A few years ago they blocked one of my | posts. I don't remember the specifics, probably I included a link | to another site. Anyway suffice to say the post wasn't commercial | or spammy or negative. I deleted my account and never visited the | site again. It was quite hard to delete my account iirc. | Ciantic wrote: | This is one of the sites I still looked on camera reviews, sad to | see this go. I never really cared for "community" reviews, or the | user generated content, but the ones made by their team. I wonder | what the review team is going to do? Usually how these end up is | that those old habits are hard to kill, and the review team will | return if not with the same name then under different name. I | don't know how they owned things, but best would be to give out | the site for their team, remove all the community features etc. | greendave wrote: | Looks like the Amazon acquisition finally caught up. Sad, as DPR | was a great resource and had an interesting community, at least | until about 7 years ago when they started leaning in more to | video content and less into deeply-technical reviews and | discussions. | dcanelhas wrote: | Their test scene and side-by-side comparison across camera | settings was a great feature. I would never have purchased any of | my standalone cameras if it hadn't been for DPReview. | nunez wrote: | Wow; had no idea that Amazon purchased DPreview. End of an era. | wcerfgba wrote: | What is required to transition the site to community ownership? | shaman1 wrote: | I don't see why at least they don't keep it in read only mode for | longer - e.g. a few years - until the content becomes obsolete. | This will alienate many Internet dwellers and make the Amazon | brand sink even lower. Surely it doesn't cost them much. | jerrac wrote: | That stinks. I was just using them in the past few weeks | researching new lenses. | dumpsterlid wrote: | [dead] | Oras wrote: | Sad news, this was my favourite site 15 years ago when I was into | photography. It was the only website that you can read clear spec | about cameras and see a gallery of photos taken by it. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | This was one of the best sites ever, if you were into | photography, or worked at an imaging company (both, in my case). | | I'll miss their detailed analyses. | acomjean wrote: | Shame. | | It's probably hard as digital cameras have been replaced quite a | bit by phones. I used that sight for many point and shoot camera | purchases. The reviews were good and it had a good summary of all | the cameras that were out there. | | There's still the "Fred Miranda" board, but that's more user lens | reviews and a little dated. That site has shifted to focus on | photos more than gear, which makes sense. | | http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ | prpl wrote: | Been reading since 2008 or so, after I started playing around | with old DSLRs and posited an upgrade to a D200. Will be a ad to | see it go. One of the few websites I still check daily. | | Hopefully somebody builds an archive at least. | speg wrote: | I wonder if this will affect the YouTube channel I love, Chris | and Jordan! | | just reading the petapixel article: it does :( | firstSpeaker wrote: | I have such fond memories of searching and reading to choose my | next lens maybe a 1.5 decades ago. | PreInternet01 wrote: | Dpreview.com died when they got taken over by Amazon. Maybe the | forums were worthwhile for a while after that, but the main site | sure wasn't. Bigcorps just don't _get_ what makes their | acquisition targets tick. | | And it's not the first time that a niche-expertise site was | killed by a conglomerate. I'm still pretty salty about Google | strangling Zagat, to mention just one similar case. | TheRealPomax wrote: | Of course they get what makes them tick. But they also don't | _care_ what makes them tick, they care about whether they | generate (temporary) income. The biggest bigcorps don 't even | care what the thing itself is about, they just look at "what's | the return if we buy it, and if so, what will make us more | money: keep running it, dismantle it and use parts of it to | improve other parts of our company, or shut it down once the | revenue dries up". | | Bigcorp operate like ant colonies, and run based on what's best | for them. It's literally the defining aspect that separates | small business from big business. In the former, people are in | control. In the latter, the business is in control. | ge0rg wrote: | This is so ffffing sad to read. I've only recently become an | active user of the forum, as it's the last island of active | Samsung NX mirrorless camera users (some of which run Linux), and | it was really great to have a polite and civil discourse with | other nerds sharing the hobby. | [deleted] | sourcecodeplz wrote: | I don't understand why they can't just keep it online as a static | site. | xlii wrote: | Sucks. Got a great advice on the camera there. Loved the YT | videos. I doubt it'll be the end, though, as there seems that | there's still need for such site (or at least I hope so). | thih9 wrote: | Is there more context? Or any un/official reason behind the | decision? | TheRealPomax wrote: | I assume a full site mirror will be submitted to the | @internetarchive? Because it would be _insane_ to pull 25 years | of detailed information that cannot easily be found elsewhere off | the internet just because your dad doesn 't want you living at | home anymore. | blagie wrote: | Probably not. This is an incredible knee jerk. It's closing | with 2-3 weeks notice. | | This does not reflect well on Amazon. This could be sold, spun | out, archived, given back to the founders, or many other | things. 20 days is not enough time to do anything worthwhile, | though. | TheRealPomax wrote: | Small note: this doesn't reflect on Amazon. Barely anyone | knew Amazon owns them, and once the site's gone, no one who | didn't use dpreview will look unfavourably at Amazon for it. | This was a _great_ website that most of the world didn 't use | which is why Amazon can just pull the plug with literally no | repercussions =( | duffyjp wrote: | Unfortunately I agree-- no repercussions at all. I've been | visiting the site basically from the beginning and had no | idea Amazon bought them. I guess I missed that one blog | post from 2007. | | It's such a shame. | superkuh wrote: | Not them. But the archive team have been made aware and are | gathering in #dprived on hackint IRC. | khazhoux wrote: | A real shame. I've been visiting dpreview since 2000. | | Just a couple of days ago, I noticed all their review videos on | front page featured the same presenter, and it gave impression | they're down to just a couple of people running the site. | Zak wrote: | The video reviews ("DPReviewTV") are a mostly-independent team | who did the same thing previously as "The Camera Store TV" and | have already announced a deal with Petapixel. | | https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-d... | sitkack wrote: | Would it be possible to freeze the site in place? Is it archived | by the IA and the Wayback Machine? | mobilene wrote: | What bums me out about this is that the site will disappear. For | people like me who collect cameras and review them online, | DPReview is a gold mine of info on cameras from the digital age. | Ikatza wrote: | No Internet Archive mirror? | ben7799 wrote: | Definitely sad as this is a site that has been around and is/was | an important early website. | | However I don't really think it's much of a loss for photography. | DPreview was always pushing the whole equipment acquisition as | the goal part of photography that always seems so weird. They | would regularly talk about how you needed some new camera and | willfully ignore alteration to your technique that got better | results without needing the new equipment. Their forums and | comments were always ultra dramatic and controversial with all | kinds of brand bashing & cheerleading and other stuff that had | little to do with photography. | | I think it was OK at first as all the tech was new, as time went | on it became more and more counterproductive. | | I actually think smartphones getting people off the train of ever | fancier cameras every few years actually helped photography due | to: | | - Better UI | | - don't need to relearn a new camera constantly | | - Always have the phone, so everyone got more practice | | - Forced use of prime lenses made more people start moving around | to frame their photos | | - People started to forget about the tool and just use it | | I'm still holding a pretty high value amount of camera gear, | probably higher value than any other hobby I have. But it doesn't | get used as much, and I"m constantly thinking of selling it off. | I guess a lot of that being a result of no longer really caring | about the specific types of photos the expensive camera gear | facilitates. | vr46 wrote: | 100% this. | | Not only will I not miss it, I'm glad it's going, I found the | reviews to be extended advertising for camera manufacturers and | retailers, and the forums were packed with know-nothings | arguing over cameras they'd never used. | msie wrote: | Damn, the forums were useful in debugging some problems I had | with old inkjet paper. Got a nice history lesson about old HP | papers. | solarkraft wrote: | I'm not surprised but sad. They were amazing. To the point at | which I wondered how they were profitable. | BeetleB wrote: | This is absolutely shocking. Shutting down _the_ site for DSLR | enthusiasts. Just ... amazing. | acadapter wrote: | Why is so much of the good stuff from the internet disappearing | without being replaced? | EdgeExplorer wrote: | - Great thing gets created by passionate, independent team | | - Thing becomes popular | | - Megacorp takes notice and offers eye-popping amount of money | to acquire thing (or doesn't have to because the founders are | in over their heads anyway with how popular thing has become) | | - Megacorp shuts down thing because it is a distraction from | their other things which are printing unimaginable amounts of | money | | - Rinse and repeat | | Consolidation of the entire internet into the hands of a few | megacorps isn't just a problem because of their outsized | influence. | readthenotes1 wrote: | people wont pay for good when mediocre is there for free | asdff wrote: | Sites like these are almost like living fossils. They evolved | in a completely different environment than today, and therefore | nothing like them can evolve again today. When it first | started, DP review was just doing what plenty of other blogs | were doing in terms of longform, informationally dense content, | because when the founders looked around at similar stuff to | compare from that's what they saw, iterated on, and created. | | Today, the environment is different. If you want to get an | audience on your stuff today, you aren't going to make a | dpreview or a kenrockwell.com, because when you look around you | don't see that stuff very much. You see seoified crap articles, | and information drip fed over 20 mins on youtube with | advertising in between. Such is the game today and how it must | be played if you are to receive any views at all and get that | initial userbase. | dhbanes wrote: | Ken Rockwell invented the use of SEO crap content in this | space to sell cameras, lenses, and accessories. | asdff wrote: | Here's a 2007 article from when they were acquired by Amazon. It | seems at the time this made sense. Jeff Bezos identified the | website as the source of truth in the digital camera field and | sought to own that source and have it direct customers to his | website. The founders were naturally overwhelmed and busy as | founders of any company are, and were promised resources to make | their jobs easier and let them build out the features they wanted | (anyone know what these were? as far as I know dpreview has been | about the same as its always been in terms of features). | | https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresd... | | Today, maybe it no longer makes sense from Amazon to hold onto | dpreview. Maybe the source of truth for most people has moved on | from high quality texual sources, to other sources. Perhaps these | are youtubers who amazon supplies affiliate links instead in | order to capture this market. It goes to show to never trust the | hand that feeds you to look out for you, you can and will be cut | once its deemed convenient and prudent, and the larger the | company you hitch your wagon on the more likely are they to | behave like a cold large company. | ckozlowski wrote: | > Jeff Bezos identified the website as the source of truth in | the digital camera field and sought to own that source and have | it direct customers to his website. | | I wonder if that's the key point. It was Jeff's project, and | like Alexa, is no longer protected now that he's no longer | there. | pcurve wrote: | I cannot believe that was 16 years ago! | Apreche wrote: | I sure hope archive.org is on top of this. This is about as big | of an archive emergency as there can be. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-21 23:01 UTC)