Source for independend & neutral information?

[bedford]

Hi,

until a while ago I really enjoyed visiting dpreview.com

This has changed with all the Sony marketing (in my feeling) on that site.

Here's one thing I find especially troubling:
Looking at the comments section of http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3274812720/mirrorless-as-the-universal-mount-brian-smith-at-pix-2015?comment=2039396530 when logged in gives the first screenshot below.

When visiting the site anonymously I get a different picture (-> second screenshot):

So, what alternatives to dpreview are out there?

Regards,
Oliver

PS: How can I post inline images here?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Fans of various models are always concerned that their model is getting downplayed because of favoritism of another model.

Its nothing to be concerned about. Sony has produced some innovative Cameras recently after flubbing their cameras up for 15 years. That's big news, and will get lots of attention.

For a long time, Canon fans complained that DPR was favoring Nikon.

The Digital Picture is a site that is a Canon leaning site.

Luminous Landscape has been favoring Sony now for a few years.

Fred Miranda has forums for each model, and is fairly neutral.

I read all of the above sites frequently, and enjoy the differing points of view. I do not worry about any perceived favoritism.

 

[bedford]

Perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit: what I do not find acceptable is the fact that dpreview silently hides critical content (in this case created by me) and at the same time creates the impression that this content has been published. I suspect if a site does not respect the truth in this context they won't regarding other topics either.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[RGF]

It will be hard to find a site that everyone considers to be "fair". I may consider a site fair it share my bias.

If you find something please let us know.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Perhaps I should have been a bit more explicit: what I do not find acceptable is the fact that dpreview silently hides critical content (in this case created by me) and at the same time creates the impression that this content has been published. I suspect if a site does not respect the truth in this context they won't regarding other topics either.

Regards,
Oliver

Then don't post there. Unacceptable comments will be removed from this site as well. Its ok to give a opinion, but to criticize someone's opinion is unacceptable, its the stuff of flame wars.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I sometimes read DP Review during slow times at work. (I work at a photo lab counter, so staying up to date on photo topics is part of my job). I do not have a login so I am not familiar with the screens showing different replies. What I do know is several of the people who post on there are childish and rude. It is to the point I do not like to read forum posts any more and just read the news items posted by the site admins.

Fred Miranda seemed to be better, but when I finally joined my first post received the following response: "You wouldn't know the truth if it kicked you in the a**." So I asked to have my account deleted (although it seems there is no way to do that) and have not looked at it since.

In my experience, this site (CanonRumors) seems to have the most mature and civil forum discussions of the photo sites I have seen. Which is why I am a bit surprised that MtSpokanePhotography answered you so harshly above. As far as I can tell your post on DPreview was not unacceptable or rude.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I sometimes read DP Review during slow times at work. (I work at a photo lab counter, so staying up to date on photo topics is part of my job). I do not have a login so I am not familiar with the screens showing different replies. What I do know is several of the people who post on there are childish and rude. It is to the point I do not like to read forum posts any more and just read the news items posted by the site admins.

Fred Miranda seemed to be better, but when I finally joined my first post received the following response: "You wouldn't know the truth if it kicked you in the a**." So I asked to have my account deleted (although it seems there is no way to do that) and have not looked at it since.

In my experience, this site (CanonRumors) seems to have the most mature and civil forum discussions of the photo sites I have seen. Which is why I am a bit surprised that MtSpokanePhotography answered you so harshly above. As far as I can tell your post on DPreview was not unacceptable or rude.

Since the post was apparently truncated, I can't tell. DPR is noted for removing posts and banning members who criticize or question DPR. Fred Miranda is generally pretty calm, so I would not let one bad example scare you away. CR also has to deal with posters who are consistently crossing the line.

I apologize if I was rude to the OP. Sometimes if you do not agree with a sites direction, its better for your peace of mind if you just don't go there. With DPR, when you question a moderators actions, even in a private e-mail, they will ban you.

I stopped visiting the DPR forums at least 2 or 3 years ago, but read the news articles. Yes, I notice that the Sony Cameras are hogging the headlines now. Canon was hogging them earlier with the 7D MK II and 5Ds series, so everyone gets a turn if the release something that is of interest to the readers. Nikon will be back in the headlines.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Anything written by a human will have bias. That is just the way our brain works. So looking for a source of unbiased information is futile.

What I would recommend is learning how to identify the bias of what you are reading. Then you can deliberately seek out sources with different biases. Then you will be in a much better position to evaluate each of the sources articles.

But don't waste your time seeking an unbiased source. There ain't none. The best we can hope for is a compilation of balanced biases and even those are hard to find.

 

[FEBS]

But don't waste your time seeking an unbiased source. There ain't none.

Fully agree. There does not exists an unbiased source, sure not free but also not payed. That's rather live.

Agree that you should look for more sources and find yourself an answer most suited for your case.

 

[Don Haines]

Anything written by a human will have bias. That is just the way our brain works. So looking for a source of unbiased information is futile.

A perfect example of bias is the thread about Canon testing other manufacturer's sensors....

I work in a lab. We are constantly testing other peoples gear to see what is good/bad about it, testing for compatibility, testing to see if they conform to standards, etc etc..... To my mindset, it is inconceivable that Canon would not test other's gear.... just as Sony must be testing others gear, and Nikon, and so on... This is a normal function of research..... know what others are doing!

That said, almost all the posters in the thread are convinced that this means Canon will use Sony sensors in it's next DSLR.

This is a perfect example of how a different background (and bias) will lead different people to a different conclusion. It's not right or wrong, it just is.....

Funding (or support) will also bias a site's administrators. Let's say that Canon refuses to send you "free stuff" and Nikon sends you pre-production units to evaluate.... The first thing that happens is that your Nikon reviews now come out when the equipment is announced while your Canon reviews have to wait for gear availability. Since you have to pay for the Canon gear to evaluate, you tend not to evaluate every thing they release, while with free samples from Nikon, everything gets covered.... and that becomes automatic bias no matter how noble your intentions are..... as this continues, you fell resentment towards canon and the bias grows... before long you are another DXO where things are so biased that you "cook the reviews" to make things conform to your bias...

 

[sanj]

There is one. I am trying to remember its name.. Give me a second. It is loved by so many on this forum. What is it... AAAaaaaa that reviews sensors at 100 ISO. I just Googled it.


D x O

 

[distant.star]

.
DPR is owned by Amazon. DPR is a marketing function of Amazon masquerading as photography journalism. You will see nothing on that site that could put an Amazon sale in jeopardy or that would truly displease a manufacturer/supplier.

I've seen no journalistically objective sources in the photography world. The closest I've seen is Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals. Once in a while he writes something about equipment, and he provides an objective report. However, that's not his job so it's just a nice gift to the community.

Rumor and forum sites make no claim to objectivity and operate at the whims of the site owners -- you get what you pay for, which is usually nothing.

 

[bedford]

Then don't post there. Unacceptable comments will be removed from this site as well. Its ok to give a opinion, but to criticize someone's opinion is unacceptable, its the stuff of flame wars.

I won't be posting in the future. At leat I'll try not to.

Again: I do not have a problem with my post removed. But then the site should notify me ("You're post does not comply with our regulations and was discarded" or something similar) and not create a false impression.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[bedford]

But don't waste your time seeking an unbiased source. There ain't none.

Fully agree. There does not exists an unbiased source, sure not free but also not payed. That's rather live.
[...]

Sorry, but I can't accept that. Philosophically this might be true, but practically I still believe high ethical standards in journalism are possible.

Bias is OK, when it's disclosed as such.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[bedford]

.
[...] DPR is a marketing function of Amazon masquerading as photography journalism. [...]

I've seen no journalistically objective sources in the photography world. [...]

Perhaps I was a little to naive. I really thought DPR would adhere to journalistic standards.

Your post made me think...

Kind regards,
Oliver

 

[AcutancePhotography]

... I still believe high ethical standards in journalism are possible.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what journalism is.

A common definition of journalism is "Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news, and information related to news, to an audience." The key word in this definition is processing.

By its very nature, journalism is biased. That's the whole point of journalism. Journalism is not simply collecting and disseminating the facts. That would be reporting. Journalism involves the interpretation of the facts, which involves bias.

This is why the skill set for being a reporter is different from the skill set of being a journalist. Unfortunately, the terms are often used without discipline.

Even though the terms "journalism" and "reporting" are often used interchangeably, they are not the same.

So the ethics of journalism is a well reasoned, well thought out, and supported interpretation of events. The ethics of reporting is the accurate and complete recording of the facts pertinent to the event.

Which is why if you intend on conducting your own analysis, you would want to avoid a journalistic source and use a reporting source. The problem is finding it. Even reporting sites can be biased if they don't deliver all the data/facts.

Getting back to photography, there are sites that offer interpretations (opinions) about equipment and their capabilities. There are also sites that offer data that can be evaluated. Both types of sites have value. But each offers something different. The important point is not to confuse one with the other.

Probably more than you ever wanted to know. But I am a professional researcher and I deal with this every day. It can be frustrating.

 

[bedford]

... I still believe high ethical standards in journalism are possible.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what journalism is.

A common definition of journalism is "Journalism is gathering, processing, and dissemination of news, and information related to news, to an audience." The key word in this definition is processing.

By its very nature, journalism is biased. [...]

Clearly we have a different understanding of journalism (or of the ideal journalism to be more precise).

You're referring to a "common definition", so please let me quote wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards) as probably the most common source of information:

"While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of—truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability—as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public."

For me (and as proves the existence of the wikipedia article for many other people) "journalism" which doesn't fulfill this ethical code is not journalism.

I don't have a problem with interpretation (even if it tell's me my favorite camera toy is crap), but it should try to respect "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness".

BTW: "media bias" has a negative connotation, I doubt any journalist would agree that he is biased.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Which is why in order to have any viable discussion, an agreement on terms and definitions needs to be made.

Different people have different definitions of journalism and reporting.

It is my opinion that any journalist that does not recognize their own bias is not a very good journalist.