The Problem with Camera Reviews

I’ve been noticing something recently with the “professional” camera review websites and channels. It’s not anything new, rather business as usual for most of them, but it’s something that I only recently really paid any attention to. Well, I just used the words “business” and “paid” in the last sentence, and those are great big hints as to what I’m talking about. I mean that camera reviews are, the vast majority of the time, longform product advertising. And that’s a problem for photographers who are into gear.

Nearly any camera review goes into detail about the camera’s specifications and features, and for this reason most of us read or watch them when researching gear. That’s not a bad thing in and of itself, although it does the manufacturers a big favor, since we would probably tune out of an ad that went into so much detail. But, since it’s a website or a YouTube personality that we are familiar with, we will give more of our time. This isn’t enough to make a case that these are really longform ads, but a more damning detail is that most reviewers don’t really say anything bad about any of the cameras they review. Almost nothing bad. That should strike us as a bit questionable, since, from our own experience, we know that some cameras just don’t gel with us at all. Are the reviewers just that much more magnanimous with all of their gear? Probably not. It’s just not good business (remember, these websites and channels are intended to make money) to harp on the annoyances that individual reviewers find with cameras. Or, in the case of some review outlets, there are one or two features which are minor, but almost every camera that gets reviewed lists these same bugbears in the negatives column. Huh, could it be that these omnipresent quibbles are the outlet’s way of seeming to give a critical evaluation, while in reality still being something of a longform advertisement?

Behind the scenes, or rather at the bottom of the page or the end of the video, you’ll usually notice that the outlet provides sponsored links to purchase gear, which is the most overt way in which these reviews are monetized. But more than this, popular review outlets usually receive testers of all the new gear, which is the lifeblood of the site, because, without loaners of all the new cameras, they wouldn’t have new content. That’s a symbiotic relationship with camera manufacturers, and, again, it’s not the worst thing in the world. It’s just capitalism. But in practice it’s a problem.

Speaking strictly for myself, I find the lure of new cameras very enticing. I have to remind myself quite frequently that what I have does what I need it to, and when I do actually purchase new gear or upgrade gear that I have, I need to have a very good reason for it. Sometimes I haven’t, historically. For example, I bought a Ricoh GRII in early 2018, and sold it for the GRIII upon release of that camera in early 2019. One year was enough to teach me a few things about the GRII, including that I really value a pocketable, high-quality 28mm-equivalent camera, and that the sensor dust problem is real (but not the end of the world). I got some good photographs from the GRII. But one thing that I never did get to experience was really knowing that camera like the back of my hand, and its capabilities inside and out. Instead I fell for the marketing of the new model, for its increased resolution, image stabilization, et cetera. There are some real upgrades. The GRIII is a wonderful camera, one which I plan on using and learning until I have the absolute familiarity and muscle memory that I didn’t get with the GRII.

But the GRII is a wonderful camera too. Still. Even though the marketing hype train has long passed it up. By and large, the reviews for the new camera were glowing. But the “service” provided by all the reviewers is a disservice as well, for remaining happy with the gear we have. The reviews are all a part of the upgrade treadmill, and we can’t forget that in the rosy glow of specifications.

I’m not against capitalism. But I am against bad decision-making and wastefulness. At least a few of the reviewers have started to tell the truth in their reviews: that a bad camera really hasn’t been made in years, and anything that is put out these days, if it at least roughly fits your basic feature needs, will make good photographs. As the consumers, of both camera goods and online reviews, we need to be the ones to stop being infatuated with anything new and different. The first step may be to be a bit more skeptical of the reviews which only mention good things. Every one of those cameras has just as many weird design oversights and finicky electronic features as yours does. What is the one thing that no new camera comes with? Complete familiarity. Nothing is going to feel as good as the camera you’ve grown with, and produced your best work with. That feature only comes from not buying the newest and best thing. Now, I’ve got work to do, with the gear I have.