A very Happy New Year, everyone! Hope that you all have the best year ever in 2024!
I had an interesting experience recently. Many of the YouTube channels I follow have a tradition of publishing their predictions for the coming year, as well as their assessment of the best and worst products of the past year.
In one such review (and I won’t name the channel), the reviewer put out a poll to their viewers and asked them to weigh in on the best and worst cameras of 2023.
I’ll just analyse one of the results: the worst camera. The camera voted as the worst camera of the year by that crowd of several hundred (wonder what statisticians would say about that response rate with a subscriber base of 50K…), with 54% agreeing, was the Canon EOS R100. So just above break even. And that was deemed worthy of a dedicated video. Ok, then.
The Canon R100 was released in July 2023 for a retail price of $799.99 CDN, with the included RF-S 18-45 f/4 kit lens. The camera was marketed as an entry level, first interchangeable lens camera, for new content creators and those moving from their cellphones to their first real camera. It was marketed as the replacement for the T-series of DSLR’s and the M-series of early mirrorless cameras (which have since been discontinued). It provides a low cost entry point with some, in my view, admirable features taken from its higher end brothers and sisters.
But the complaints of this particular group included: no flippy screen and no touch screen and no high speed burst rates or high megapixel count. So obviously a piece of crap. Seriously?
This made me wonder about the standards generally used by these reviewers to assess best and worst. At the end of the day, it takes a lot of skill to offer an objective view of a product, particularly when you yourself are an advanced user of typically much more sophisticated products. Tony Northrup, long regarded as one of those with a lot of this skill, called the EOS R100 a “capable” camera. So why such a difference in views?
In this case, I think it boils down to the simple task of crowdsourcing an opinion. The channel in question is known for mining the opinions and research of other people and makes its name by packaging those for delivery and saving you the time of going out to do your own research. It doesn’t really offer unique perspectives – only those published by others. So it’s not surprising that an opinion on best and worst of the year would be sourced the same way.
Apart from that, I wondered why there was this chasm of divergence in views between Northrup and this other channel. I guess it comes down to what you personally mean by best and worst. The biases that you apply to an opinion are the foundation for debate in a democratic society and we relish those. I certainly do. But I also expect to see a factual basis for a particular viewpoint. And maybe even an agreed standard way of assessing something that purports to provide a ranking at the end of the day. That didn’t happen here in the case of the poll. No standard questions were provided, no guidance on what to consider and what to leave out.
Separately, another channel I very much respect (and which also will not be mentioned) conducted a poll of viewers as well to determine the best cameras and lenses for the current year. Not surprisingly, the cameras and lenses that won top prize just happened to be the ones used by the channel owner and the majority of its viewers.
Manufacturers are partly to blame for this divergence in views as well, shaping expectations of the next great thing by plugging speed, capacity, automation and the quality of the results. At the highest price points, that makes sense. But those same expectations now seem to be applied to more budget friendly options, and is the source of most of the “indignation” and complaints found online when a budget product does not deliver what Joe Public feels it should. In this case, it’s a ridiculous list of expectations in a camera that costs less than 10% (with lens) of the highest price models in the same family (without lens).
In fact, Tony Northrup, in one of his most recent videos, made the case that its time to stop pumping out more megapixels and more speed, and instead make the gear more usable, with things like built-in face recognition security to help prevent thefts, LCD screens you can see in the sunshine, internal storage and reliable wireless transfer of files.
And I guess as a final comment, those same manufacturers (and channels like the one mentioned) are creating an even bigger problem, convincing us (or trying to) that we need those extra features and capabilities just to be functional. In 2015, I purchased a Canon EOS 5D Mark III, which at the time was regarded as one of the best DSLR cameras on the market. It has 20 megapixels, no flippy screen, no touch screen, no high speed burst rate and no tracking of human, animal or insect. I still own the camera and still use it regularly. It gives me the same great quality images I expect from any Canon pro camera. It’s still listed on Canon’s website. But I guess against the standards of the aforementioned channel, it wouldn’t even make the list of has-beens.
That said, in all fairness, I also own two of the EOS R series cameras: the R5 and the R6 Mark II. Both serve very specific purposes and fill very specific needs. It was NOT the hype that lead me to these purchases.
The bottom line: take reviews and gear rankings with a grain of salt. Understand the basis of the opinion and judge if the person giving the opinion is worth listening to. It wasn’t in this case.
oldgirlphotography.ca 