DPReview seems to have rather balanced reporting (I'm not a regular reader), so they do seem to be at least somewhat independent of being directly sponsored by whoever they're reviewing at the time. Compare this to pretty much every photo-vlogger/blogger/grammer out there, which have massive audiences while making unclear claims of independence and un-biasedness while shilling very hard.

DPreview was owned by Amazon last time I looked. They exist mostly to pump up the camera market and generate sales.

Their writing is very much in the vein of "your gear is inadequate if a new version has come out."

They are really the bottom of the barrel. They continually write about how some new piece of gear is so revolutionary because it allows you to take a particular photo and it was impossible before, as long as you didn't know about the 50-100 year old technique to get around the issue that actually works better even if you have the brand new camera.

> DPReview seems to have rather balanced reporting

It's big enough and has a diverse enough community that it can avoid the worst excesses of pay-per-review.

A while ago I read a comment that was really eye opener: most big YouTube photography channels out there are mostly about gear, not about "taking pictures". It shows how much money the industry moves (or how prevalent GAS is).

Same situation with my hobby, making electronic music. While there are a ton of amazing tutorials for how to write music there are way more gear review videos with orders of magnitude more views. Its fun to shop for new toys, learning new things is work.

The forums for guitar players are often dominated by gear discussions unless carefully moderated. The good forums make efforts to sequester all the GAS discussions to their own corner.

> GAS

Haha... I was getting sucked into this, still am in a way. I spent about a year (2019) with a now cheap Sony Nex-5n with an 18-55 kit lens... but wanted to upgrade, more MP, higher video quality... got an A7II (24MP, 1080P) and then an A7RIII (42MP, 4K) ... I bought a 12-24mm F4 G lens at $1.3K __USED__ which to me is insane and that's not even that much in this space. It's just my car is $2K... I still can't comprehend it... I've been poor most of my life till recently, I still am poor but yeah... just interesting climbing the levels... Since the last month or two purchased 6 other lenses recently all under $1K but yeah... it's like "I need that 55mm" or "I need "12mm" just funny... then you think, this money is just sitting on your shelf not invested... idk.

I am self aware though, FIRE and make more money in general, try to avoid the above.

On contrast, I've been into photography for more than 20 years, and I currently own a Nikon D60 that was gifted to me 2 or 3 years ago (and that would cost less than $200 if I would have bought it instead). I can afford an A7IV or whatever is the latest gear, I just don't want to.

Yeah the Nex-5n with the kit lens was $140 and it was fun to shoot around with. That's what I shoot for primarily other than creating YouTube content is to go outside/be in the park, mostly doing macro since the place I live at sucks landscape wise. But yeah I shoot to have my own wallpaper and that's gotta be 4K res at least.

All my stuff is used, the latest Sony Alpha 1 is $6.5K ha a bit out of my budget.

Anyway the talk of money is bad/pointless, I saw one cinema lens that was $100K like wth... levels in life.

The most I've ever spent on a camera was just under $2K, in July of 2019, for a 35mm manual rangefinder, without a light meter, built in 1953.

Sony's $2k cameras are extremely worth it, and they can mount rangefinder lenses, which saves you buying their (also good) FE-mount lenses.

Wait, you got a car for $2,000?

Seems right for a used Civic in good working condition. And it will get you wherever the beautiful shots are without giving trouble.

Huh. I’ve never owned a car or tried to buy one—I live in NYC and I never got around to getting a driver’s license. I was just under the impression cars cost many times that much at minimum.

The price floor for a barely-usable car in a US state that doesn't require an inspection to register it is probably around $500, but that can fluctuate as low as $0 (I literally watched a friend give a beat up, but driveable old van to a random construction worker in the apartment complex they were moving out of).

$2000 could easily get a 15 year old Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla or similar compact car with a reputation for longevity, without major issues. Shopping in that price range can, however be risky if you're not mechanically inclined enough to inspect the condition of the car and don't have the aid of someone who is.

A lot of people did recommend Honda Civics, I considered it but they also apparently are at a higher risk of getting stolen too... so I didn't get one.

Yeah a used one from the lot, it was a mistake, lots of money to fix it... another stupid moment.

Not saying you can't get a good car for that price but yeah.

Most big YouTube photography channels have video descriptions absolutely stuffed with affiliate links. They have a strong incentive to both attract viewers who are already interested in buying gear, and to convince viewers who aren't sure they want more gear that they really do want more gear.

Most people putting out high-production-value videos regularly aren't doing it for fun or to make the world a better place; they're closely watching how much money they make from it.

As an amateur, and speaking at the amateur level, I always find myself disagreeing that with that last statement whenever I see it.

I've used a bunch of cameras ranging from smartphones to high end point-and-shoots all the way up to full frame "prosumer" mirrorless. While I have no doubt someone whose work gets featured in say, NatGeo, can take an iPhone4 and make wonderful shots, I can't help but feel the rest of us Average Joes and Janes get a tremendous boost from having better gear.

And even that NatGeo featured pro would produce much better pictures with a FF DSLR than being limited to a iPhone 4, no?

> much better

Define "better"

Seconded.

Kai W (& Lok) was solid when he was there, since he would trash things that deserved it and his juvenile objectivity was humorous. Now they seem more generic in the "this marginally better camera is 100% worth buying" sense.

slight correction:

In good light, great photographs can be taken with any camera.

"Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography." -- George Eastman

The trick is knowing what can be made with available light.

That's true although the best smartphones have made pretty significant gains. I've been slowly working my way through my catalog of photos to clean it up and go back to a lot of my older phone photos taken in dim restaurants and the like and the photos were generally pretty awful.