What value are Youtube equipment/techique reviews

[Codebreaker]

This is prompted by a discussion thread on another forum about Written vs Youtube reviews and the value of each.

There are some things on Youtube that can be very helpful such as techniques for processing or manipulating images but then there are reviews that are just 'Unboxing' or try to show you that one technique is better than another.

I occassionally watch the 'Unboxing' reviews, some of which are terrible, when I need to be sure - well, what's in the box, because the suppliers don't always make it clear. As an example I once bought a lens that didn't appear to come with a Lens Hood so I bought one, only to find that one was included. Ditto WIFI adapter for my Canon 7D2.

Recently a friend sent me a link to a Youtube video on different sharpening techniques. While it was instructional to see what steps to go through it was pointless in trying to show that one was better than the other because the results were being presented through a video that had been compressed and also there was no mention of performing sharpening at 100% on screen. I could not tell any difference between any of the methods.

I have watched some videos of lens performance which were reasonably well done and sufficient to show the difference in quality. Which may mean the differences were significant enough to show up in a compressed video.

So what value do you place on Youtube videos in assessing equipment and techniques?

[royent]

I don't watch videos on Youtube or anything else. Do they ever condemn anything? Or say that a piece of equipment is useless

[pschlute]

I like the PiXimperfect videos for Photoshop.

[DanK]

Anyone can post something written, and anyone can post a video, so both can be superb or utter garbage. So I don't think it's too useful to try to rank the two media generally.

Holding quality constant, I often prefer written presentations when there is no particular advantage to video. One can go at one's own speed, and videos are often far slower than reading. It's easier to go find specific sections you want to review. Written presentations can be more detailed and allow you to pick and choose what detail to focus on. You can easily skip or skim what you already know. I prefer videos when it is helpful to see how something is done, although often static images embedded in a written document is just as clear.

[rpcrowe]

Some YouTube videos have been very valuable to me while others are outright trash.

Often camera reviews on YouTube are skewed towards the needs of the vlogger making the review, such as giving inordinate emphasis to a flip up or fold out screen that makes it easier for the vlogger to compose.

Well, I never intend to do any vlogging and shooting a selfie is certainly not my thing!

Another annoying thing is for the video reviewer to hold the lens in his/her hand and remark, the build of lens "A" is better than the build of lens "B" because lens "A" is heavier than lens "B"...

Another thing about YouTube videos is for the reviewer to judge a lens by shooting at a tree or a brick wall. Or a review with the title "perfect portrait lens" that shows images of cans of fruit with no portraits illustrated...

Finally, along the lines of "technique" videos...

many of the images presented by "technique" reviewers are absolute trash. I will respect the judgement of a reviewer if his or her images are in my opinion very good to excellent.

I like the wedding images of Roto and am interested in his suggestions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtyGIlza1bU&t=582s

and I like the female portraiture of Manny Ortiz and I also agree with most of his suggestions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAySQGDWOX8

[Dave Humphries]

Hi,

I watch a lot of YouTube, some of it is "reviews" on equipment, others are "techniques".

I generally avoid videos with 'unboxing' in their title, unless I have a specific need of one as Colin outlined. Typically, you can be fairly certain it has been made with enthusiasm for their latest purchase and they will be looking to prove they made the right decision in purchasing, so as Roy suggests, they are often too positively biassed.

There are some reliable/honest reviews, usually by channels with a history of reviewing items - this means you can check out a review of something you already own, compare their comments with your own experience - and form an opinion whether they might be trustworthy for something you intend to purchase. I always did this.

I have not been researching to buy photographic kit for years, so am hesitant to suggest any particular channel here as my experience is too old to be useful. There were only a couple of channels that had the breadth of experience to know what they're talking about and make useful comparisons with competitors products. There were others that were frankly a joke Others were just odd bods who'd bought something new and thought they could unbox and review it, most of these were just too inexperienced and ignorant of the technicalities to be helpful.

Watch many and form an opinion based on several example videos.

Cheers, Dave

[Codebreaker]

Thanks for your thoughts. This then leads onto the question of how do you choose your photographic equipment and other technology?

Certainly where I live good photographic shops are rare, the nearest being a three hour drive away. I have to rely on respectable review sites such as DxMark and Photozone to at least give some quantative data about lens/cameras. But while numbers give a comparison between items they don't necessarily convey the real end product difference. Is it worth spending more on a lens, say, that has a couple of points better than another, when you may not be able to tell the difference in real life?

There are some reasonably good review sites that do at least give examples of real life usuage - Ken Rockwell perhaps.

Of course internet shopping does at least give you some chance to try before you buy. I tried the Sigma 150-500 from WEX but decided it wasn't for me - image quality and handling. An easy process to return and you can also do the same via Amazon.

I did once choose a lens - well to be honest narrowed down the choice - by watching a Youtube video. I had a couple of wide angle zooms in mind and Youtube in the end did persuade me to make the choice. The video was sufficiently well done to be able to tell the difference in performance between those on my list. This one for example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4o4oMf3AvI

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for your thoughts. This then leads onto the question of how do you choose your photographic equipment and other technology?

Certainly where I live good photographic shops are rare, the nearest being a three hour drive away. I have to rely on respectable review sites such as DxOMark and Photozone to at least give some quantative data about lens/cameras. But while numbers give a comparison between items they don't necessarily convey the real end product difference. Is it worth spending more on a lens, say, that has a couple of points better than another, when you may not be able to tell the difference in real life?<>

I live 60mi away from Houston but the traffic sucks at all times and I haven't been to the big store or any other in years.

Like yourself, I read reviews but only those that provide normal technical data -so not DxO, sorry. I purchase mainly from ebay, sometimes Amazon, rarely B&H, Adorama, Roberts.

Being technically oriented, I rarely look at example images. Post-processing is so advanced these days that even I can make a sad, soft lens look sharp as a tack!

[Manfred M]

The problem I have with most of the online reviews is that they test what is easy to test and do not dig into the subtleties that are important. Lens sharpness tests are fine, but unless you are doing large prints, they are somewhat meaningless.

None of the manufacturers turn our poor quality products; the internet is brutal and duds will be outed as soon as they are released. Most of the reviewers are dependent on the manufacturers and importers to supply them with material and will get blacklisted if they don't cooperate (so far as I can tell, Nikon blacklisted the well known site Luminous Landscape a number of years ago and they are still don't get products for review). I also worry about the samples that are sent to the reviewers being "cherry picked", i.e. the best of the best products being supplied, rather than what is typically shipped to the retailers.

The other issue I have with the reviewers is that the photographers tend to be specialists, so having a landscape photographer reviewing gear aimed at the portraiture, sports, wildlife, etc. market are going to have issues reviewing those items.

You mention Ken Rockwell - unless you are interested in straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) JPEGs, ignore his ramblings as that is how he works. He also has not figured out the difference between analysis and opinion; his reviews are fun to read, but should be taken with a grain of salt (actually a very large grain of salt).

In my view, Roger Cicala at Lensrentals is probably closest to what I would look at as a strong reviewer, but he writes his reviews and does not post on YouTube but does have podcasts. He spends much of his time on lenses, rather than other types of photo gear His work tends to be quite technical, so will probably not satisfy many non-technical readers. He does take the lenses apart and does comment on lens construction issues. As Roger runs an equipment rental company, he sees equipment that goes through heavy use and does not rely on brand-new straight out of the box equipment when judging gear.

[Polar01]

I have found Steve Perry (backcountrygallery.com) very good for Nikon cameras and lens. Usually only posts on his site and u-tube channel after at least a month of using the item. Big bird and critter shooter.

Cheers: Allan

[xpatUSA]

<agreed>

In my view, Roger Cicala at Lensrentals is probably closest to what I would look at as a strong reviewer, but he writes his reviews and does not post on YouTube but does have podcasts. He spends much of his time on lenses, rather than other types of photo gear His work tends to be quite technical, so will probably not satisfy many non-technical readers. He does take the lenses apart and does comment on lens construction issues. As Roger runs an equipment rental company, he sees equipment that goes through heavy use and does not rely [just] on brand-new straight out of the box equipment when judging gear.

And, into the bargain, he tests a statistically significant quantity of samples not just the one sample so often reviewed by others.

So if a reviewer says MTF=0.5 -that tells you nothing. But if Roger says MTF=0.5 with an SD of say 0.1 then you know that you could get one 3 SD low at MTF=0.2. Unlikely but still possible.

One of my favorite authors who knows everything and more ...

"There's lies, dam' lies and there's statistics" (Twain?).

[Chataignier]

I like the PiXimperfect videos for Photoshop.

Me too : interesting, informative and practical.
I'm also a fan of Glyn Dewis for lighting techniques mainly : www.glyndewis.com


In general I'm very wary, as has been said anyone can post anything so "caveat emptor" applies. Try watching one or two about equipment you already have and see how it compares to your personal view.

[Codebreaker]

Some interesting names to follow up on, thanks.