Popular Photography WTF?


Don

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 14:26
it seems like they've been postponing publishing thier review of the k5 for ages...
yet Canon releases a new rebel and two days later they got a review done?

So they can't find a way to bash the Pentax, and so they say nothing at all?

maybe they're holding off publication until Canon or Nikon releases a new model that beats the k5?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 08/02/2011 - 14:28

Smeggypants

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 15:58
Is 'Popular Photography ' anti Pentax?


I have little interest in magazines and their reviews to be honest.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

jeff0000

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 16:03
it dont matter pentax wins hands down anyway
playing firm but fair all the way

Don

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 16:03
Smeggypants wrote:
Is 'Popular Photography ' anti Pentax?


I have little interest in magazines and their reviews to be honest.

no but they are wh0res for canon ad dollars.
they just reveiwed the canon 60 d.
they start off by saying the only other competitor is the nikon 7000 then give the win to the canon... not even mention the k5.
As far as I'm concerned that rag hasn't been worth the $5.00 since Herbert Kepler died, and I'm not gonna buy another edition, until Keppler comes back.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 08/02/2011 - 16:06

robbie_d

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 16:03
Think about which brands spend a lot of money advertising in various publications.

Remember also that a good review is far better exposure (pun intended) than any advert.

Now I'm not for a second suggesting that major brands use the threat of pulling their advertising revenue to discourage publication of stellar reviews for products from a rival who spends sweet FA on advertising, but....hold on, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

dougf8

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 16:07
BJP feb has a Pentax 645 inside

The article titled "Moving On Up" seems to lack any presence of Nikon or Canon. There's a picture of a Nikon showing what is being moved up from.

There are magazines and there are magazines.
Lurking is shirking.!

thoramay

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 18:32
Noticed that Practical Photography has voted Jessops as best retailer of the year 2010. I quote.
"Winning our best retailer award for the 15th year running is no mean feat, so its testament to the fact that Jessops' combination of face to face and online retailing is just what the consumer desires. And it's a well deserved win" !!!!!!
No! I did not buy the magazine or any of the others
Last Edited by thoramay on 08/02/2011 - 18:34

Dangermouse

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 19:24
Do Jessops buy a lot of advertising space in the mag by any chance?

I never cease to be amazed by magazines in other areas which will at one point say a product is great, then when the updated version turns up a year or so later the original one gets described as poor. However, truly honest reviews seem to be an increasingly risky business - manufacturers seem more inclined to threaten legal action or withdraw future review samples rather than responding to reasonable criticism by improving the product.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

Smeggypants

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 19:29
Before the Internet it was terrible to be generally beholden to the information bottleneck few often corrupt people's opinions on equipment.

Reviews to me are now almost worthless. If I want information on a product I find a forum(s) and listen to what actual owners have to say and get an average from that.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Don

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 19:34
I stopped buyin motorcycle magazines after a debacle where a journalist was fired for accurately reporting that snell testing was causing increased brain injuries in accidents.
the snell standard was supposed to be tougher than DOT testing and most helmet manufacturers started producing snell approved helemts costing twice as much as the dot counterparts. It was true, the helmets were tougher, but in being tougher they transmitted more force through to the brains causing brain injuries, in similar accident situations dot helmets were not causing similar injuries.
That was a situation of both manufacturers and one magazine publisher conspiring to kill the consumers of thier products over ad money.
The journalist got fired when helmet manufacturers threatened to pull thier ad money.

story got out and snell revised thier testing standards and snell approved helmet prices went down.
here is the NY times artical that got the writer fired from Motorcyclist Magazine...
link
Quote:
In one comprehensive study of real-world impact performance based on research done for Motorcyclist Magazine, presented by Mr. Thom to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, a $79.95 helmet certified to Transportation Department standards performed the best of the 32 tested, withstanding the most violent hits while transmitting as much as 67 gs less impact force to the headform than a $400 Snell-certified helmet.

sure cameras don't kill people but we are talking about thousands of dollars for a system, and getting duped into buying the system from the mags biggest advertiser is still fraudulent reporting. Call an ad an ad and if the review is bought, call it an ad.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 08/02/2011 - 19:52

johnriley

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 20:31
These are pretty extreme views being expressed and it might not be exactly as suggested.

I have done a few reviews now for EPZ. How much editorial pressure has been felt to achieve a given end result? None whatsoever.

How much pressure has there been from advertisers? None whatsoever.

The views and conclusions presented were entirely my own. People are free to agree or disagree with them, but that's a different matter.

What is perceived as editorial bias may be personal bias or may be just a conclusion that is valid and we don't like.

All I can suggest is keeep an open mind. There may be less conspiracy than we think.
Best regards, John

Don

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 20:41
will try.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

thoramay

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 21:57
Opinions are opinions based on knowledge and perception.
When the opinion is different from our own, it becomes us to accept the integrity of that opinion.
We draw our opinions from an open mind and then hold or change them as we see fit.
I refuse to purchase photo magazines simply because, in my opinion, the magazine staff cannot be free from pressures to appease their main advertisers. I do not blame them because it is commercial necessity and their livelyhood is at stake. Without advertising revenue there would be no magazine
The compromise they make is to alienate many potential readers who use products whose manufacturers do not support their magazine through heavy advertisments.
One has only to read their reviews of pentax products and compare these with reviews on Forums to draw a negative conclusion. Making that point is valid.
I doubt that there is a single Forum member who would claim Jessops as the Premier Retailer. You really do have to wonder just why this magazine should chance its reputation by making such a claim.

Opethian

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 22:05
Thank you for outing Popular Photography as a Canon fanboy's magazine.

But to be honest, Pentax is quite far from being as popular as Canon.

Canon's got Jackie Chan. Pentax should woo someone like.. I dunno... Sylvester Stallone, or Arnold Schwarzeneger, or Jet Li... Or anyone who's "bad-ass" LOL

Twitter | Someone said time-lapse?

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 08/02/2011 - 22:56
They've got... err, Bonnie Pink... Lol

Is she bad-ass enough?
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 08/02/2011 - 22:56
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.