[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)