Graeme Hird said:
So Tom, why bother buying the rag? If you ignore it, it WILL go away. And did you really expect an in-depth review from a magazine with a name like that?
Hi Graeme,
I get Popular Photography for three reasons, primarily:
1. When they do a full test of hardware, particularly lenses, they are reasonably objective. For example, it allows me to drool over unobtainable lenses like the new Leica 50 Summilux ASPH.
2. I enjoy Herbert Keppler's monthly column on the SLR. He knows the history of the SLR (hell, he lived it!). Over the last year, he's had a lot to say about the advantages of film, pros reembracing film after moving to digital, and cautions against the follow the herd rush to digital. Considering the audience he reaches, he's a very influential voice of reason and deliberation.
3. Last Christmas, 5 people asked me which point and shoot digital camera they should buy. There was no dissuading them, based on the write ups in Pop Photo, I was able to give good recommendations based on the price range they were interested in. While they like the immediate feedback of digital, the day two second thoughts are predictable. The tiny digital sensor, combined with the harsh built in flash, make for very ugly people pictures.
Finally, it costs about a dollar a month.
I guess what burned me about the anti-film comment in the Nikon review (after searching for a tongue in check aspect to the comment (there was none)), was the unfairness of it. For every disadvantage that film has, digital certainly has offsetting problems. Nikon chose to do the R&D to produce a top of the line film camera for a dwindling niche market (remembering that photojournalism is now essentially digital). Nikon should be lauded for the decision, instead we get this pithy little put down from the photography magazine with the largest circulation in the world.
Still fuming,
Tom