Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology IT

Amazon-owned DPReview Shutting Down (dpreview.com) 82

Posted by msmash from the thanks-for-all-the-fish dept.
Photography and camera gear review site DPReview, writing in a blog post: After nearly 25 years of operation, DPReview will be closing in the near future. This difficult decision is part of the annual operating plan review that our parent company shared earlier this year. The site will remain active until April 10, and the editorial team is still working on reviews and looking forward to delivering some of our best-ever content. Everyone on our staff was a reader and fan of DPReview before working here, and we're grateful for the communities that formed around the site. Thank you for your support over the years, and we hope you'll join us in the coming weeks as we celebrate this journey.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon-owned DPReview Shutting Down More

Amazon-owned DPReview Shutting Down

Comments Filter:

  • Quote: "Everyone on our staff was a reader and fan of DPReview before working here"

    Just like "Rings of Power" shitting on fans made by Amazon *cough*. There Amazon couldn't touch us... but as they own DPReview... they can fire readers and fans...

  • That is sad news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @12:36PM (#63388069) Homepage

    I wish they would find a buyer, or at least spin off the company.

    However, it might just be wishful thinking, and dpreviews is probably running in the red. They definitely have staff costs (still updating the reviews after all), and infrastructure (those forums are very popular).

    Given ad revenue is probably dried up, the writing must be on the wall.

    It does not mean I am not saddened. I actually use the site, and learned a lot from the users over there. So, I might give a try to at least mirroring the forums myself.

    • I wonder if the interest in digital cameras dropped too much.
      I was an avid camera buyer and review-reader for more than 20 or so years until my last batch - they become so good (equal to my previous film SLRs) that I don't need a replacement any more.
      Before that I was buying new ones every 2 years or so.
      Also, the phone cameras are good enough for most people, "no one" needs a dedicated camera any more? (market too small)

      • I wonder if the interest in digital cameras dropped too much.

        I was an avid camera buyer and review-reader for more than 20 or so years until my last batch - they become so good (equal to my previous film SLRs) that I don't need a replacement any more. Before that I was buying new ones every 2 years or so.

        Also, the phone cameras are good enough for most people, "no one" needs a dedicated camera any more? (market too small)

        Hell, my main focus these days...is more into Medium Format FILM photography...esp

        • I was saddened by the news as well, having used the site since the early days of DSLRs.

          Having taken a break from photography in the last 5 years, I totally missed the arrival of mirrorless. What makes them so great?

          • Their size and their weight. That also is true for the lenses.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Zarhan ( 415465 )

            I totally missed the arrival of mirrorless. What makes them so great?

            I've now had Canon R6 for half a year and compared to my old 5D Mk II I have to say that I love it.

            When just grabbing casual snapshots or scenery photos, there's no practical difference. However, when doing anything fast moving, the focusing is just magnificent. First time I tried it out and some seagulls were flying around the coast, and I pointed my 100-400 mm at them, it just locked on to one of them, complete with a locking rectangle,

          • Because there is no mirror swinging toward the lens, you can fit just about any old lens on a mirrorless body with an adapter. You can also see what ever film simulation (such as b+w) in the EVF in real time. Also all the histograms, etc are available in the EVF.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by slaker ( 53818 )

            Subject and object tracking. My R5 and R6 will follow a car or bicycle across a frame or lock on an animal's eye from dozen of yards away while I shoot 12 or 20 frames in a second. IMO Nikon isn't quite as good as Canon and Sony are for that but they're all basically magic compared to anything that came before.

            It's incredibly helpful for video as well, and really made hybrid work a reality for me in a way I never would've imagined, coming from a Canon 5D.

            The bodies tend to be smaller and lighter if that's h

            • I was always a fan of the optical viewfinder, but this seems interesting. And good to know my EF lenses would work with the adapter. Given it's just a ($100) spacer, I imagine there's not quality loss when using it.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by slaker ( 53818 )

                At least for Canon, it's definitely worth getting its mount adapter rather than someone else's. I got official Canon adapter as a pack-in with my R5 and wound up buying a couple cheap adapters for my R6. They worked when they worked, but sometimes I'd have to turn off my body and re-fit my lens. I eventually got a second OEM adapter and those problems vanished.

                Another deeply cool thing about mirrorless cameras: They provide visual feedback on the viewfinder when you're in manual mode. I get three converging

                • My old FD 55/1.2 was a nice lens when stopped down, and was nearly a soft focus "portrait" lens at 1.2. One of my best pictures was a still life at 1.2 in available light, where the softness was aesthetically pleasing in the final result. The FD 50/1.2 L was costly, but was quite sharp at 1.2.

          • I have a very early mirrorless, but not interchangable. It's from 2006 but it was a taste of the future. And I really liked that taste.

            I also shot for decades with SLR, TLR and Rangefinder.

            The biggest draw, for me, of mirrorless is you don't get the *THWACK* gun-like report of an SLR, you get a smaller, lighter body, no mirror vibration. You can make what behaves like an SLR be as small as a rangefinder.

            My next camera.. if I ever do get another digital, would be mirrorless, probably micro 4/3, and most li

        • I loved and miss 4x5. A completely different discipline than 35mm.

          With 35, you shoot, shoot, shoot and cull. Ditto with digital, but more of it.

          Working in 4x5, you (might) spend hours doing a set-up, getting the lighting just right, adjusting the focal wedge, taking a few disposable polaroids (what do they do for those now?), adjusting more, all to get a few great exposures with amazing resolution.

          A more cerebral pursuit, and often a less hurried pace. I miss my old Sinar.

          • Working in 4x5, you (might) spend hours doing a set-up, getting the lighting just right, adjusting the focal wedge, taking a few disposable polaroids (what do they do for those now?), adjusting more, all to get a few great exposures with amazing resolution.

            A more cerebral pursuit, and often a less hurried pace. I miss my old Sinar.

            Well, polaroid, is hard to find, even the new clones.

            However, this is an interesting little unit...a Instax Graflok Back [lomography.com] for shooting Intax instant film on a 4x5 back.

            Eve

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ebunga ( 95613 )

            You can still work slow with the fastest equipment, but it really does allow for some less-enjoyable ways of working. I enjoy the slowness of my Pentax 645D more than the "this is video" 15fps continuous mode on the Canon 1Dx Mark II.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            , taking a few disposable polaroids (what do they do for those now?)

            Polaroid's technology was adopted by The Impossible Project who later acquired the Polaroid name.

            You can buy new Polaroid cameras and film because they recreated the factory to make the film. Note that this new film is not compatible with old cameras because the old cameras had the battery integrated with the film pack, while the film they make lacks the battery and thus requires the user to use standard batteries.

            I've seen the cameras and

            • Yeah, I knew about that standalone Polaroid renaissance, but for 4x5, it was a different thing.

              With a 4x5 film camera, you're composing the image on a ground glass screen at the back of the camera, upside down. You get used to it, and it can even help to have an inverted image: things become compositional shapes, vs. fruit in a bowl, f.e.

              But eventually you want to check lighting and focus rendered to film, so you insert a "Polaroid back" - a special holder that takes 1 sheet of Polaroid material, in the sam

              • My best photograph ever, was 4x5 on Polaroid Type 55 P/N. I stumbled upon excellent post-storm winter lighting, which somehow held for the 25 minutes that it took to unpack, set up, try filters, and focus. A good negative exposure would give a washed out positive, but that was part of working with Type 55. The negative was a bit smaller than 4x5, and had a fragile surface, but could carry excellent detail and tonal range, and responded nicely to filters for getting a good balance between sky and foliage.

          • Much of what you say is not 100% true. Some people shoot a ton and cull with 35mm film, while I think the better photographers are much more deliberate and shoot less (sports and fashion photographers excepted). I also like medium and large format (but no longer have a medium format and always wished I had a large format). I agree that large format shooting can be a totally different mindset, but that depends on what your starting mindset is.

        • I sold all my darkroom shit in 2001. Stupid, stupid stupid. Omega enlarger capable of taking from 35mm to 4x5 inch. Sold my trays, everything.

          I may get back into film myself. I did mainly 35mm and 6x6 cm. Cooked it right in my bathroom. Bathtub held the 3 trays. Enlarger went on top of the toilet. Everything taped up so no light got in.

          I'd have to re-purchase all of that. Especially a really old 5x7 Speed Easel that was the bomb to print 5x7s with.

          4x5 inch is sublime. Find an old Speed Graphic in

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by slaker ( 53818 )

        I'm in the weird prosumer space where I can't really make a living with a camera but also have a camera bag that's worth more than the MSRP on my car. I did pretty well with camera work during the pandemic, actually. I was making almost as my salaried job, but that was a side-effect of everyone being stuck at home as anything else.

        Overwhelmingly, the end result of showing people photos taken with off camera flash and relatively fast lenses is people seeing that there really IS a difference between whatever

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rgmoore ( 133276 )

          I think the thing about "phone cameras are just as good as dedicated cameras" is more about the photographer than anything. When phone cameras first came out, they sucked even worse than contemporary digicams, which was pretty bad. They were nice because you'd have one with you all the time, but that was the only thing to recommend them. Now they've advanced to the point that a typical casual photographer will usually run into the limits of their own skill before they run into the limit of their phone ca

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 )

        ^^ THIS. I agree 100%.

        Back in the early 2000s when Canon released their EOS Digital Rebel DSLR at $999 it brought a LOT of people, myself included, to dpreview as it was THE place to see camera reviews. Having a "standardized" or consistent set of pictures to compare against made the site fantastic.

        Today, smart phones are "good enough" for the mass consumers. i.e. A bad camera (smart phone) is still better then no camera.

        • ^^ THIS. I agree 100%.

          Back in the early 2000s when Canon released their EOS Digital Rebel DSLR at $999 it brought a LOT of people, myself included, to dpreview as it was THE place to see camera reviews. Having a "standardized" or consistent set of pictures to compare against made the site fantastic.

          Today, smart phones are "good enough" for the mass consumers. i.e. A bad camera (smart phone) is still better then no camera.

          Well, Lightroom is subscription only, so why bother shooting raw . . .

          jerks

      • They still make high end digital cameras, so there's a market for that. And all the other digicam forums seemed to die off except for DPReview, so it still seems to have pretty good traffic. Unfortunate there will no longer be a place to discuss stuff, and even more unfortunate is the loss of a huge knowledgebase of posts over well more than a decade. Hope someone can archive it.

    • Same here, wish they can be around longer.

      I have been visiting that site on and off every once a while. Especially if I or someone I know is looking for a camera.

      Unfortunate that they are not able to stay open.....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shmlco ( 594907 )

        No, it's unfortunate that Amazon can just blow it up whenever they feel like it.

        I've been divesting myself of all things Amazon for awhile now. Guess this is just one more...

    • However, it might just be wishful thinking, and dpreviews is probably running in the red.

      It could be that DPReview is mildly profitable, but Amazon just doens't want the headache of managing them....

      Then again, maybe you are right, and ad revenue has dried up too much along with users. I used to be a very regular user on the site right up until the pandemic - unfortunately the inability of being able to go many places for so long, basically killed my photography, and along with it my use of DPReview. Now

  • The lead photo for every review of every camera is a photo of Chris holding the camera.

  • How long before the DPR v2 pops up?
    Do the people currently there have a non-compete agreements?

    • In order to compete, you have to have an operation. As they no longer have one...

      • I am assuming there is still an interest in camera reviews, the rest - operation/website can follow (somewhat) easily.

        • I am assuming there is still an interest in camera reviews

          What little interest remains is I think still pretty well served by small independant reviewers, or video bloggers.

          That may seem odd to turn to video bloggers for reviews of a camera, but anymore 99% of people buying a "real" camera want to make sure it has good video support, even if they also want to use it for great stills.

  • Someone should save this site, it still has to have value, if it doesn't have value for the photography community.
  • But I've gotten out of photography. I would imagine I'm probably the standard case in why they're going under: Lots of people dabbled.

    • Re:I used to read this site all the time (Score:4, Insightful)

      by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @12:51PM (#63388137) Journal
      They are going under because a huge corporation bought them and it's nothing to them to shut it down for any reason whatsoever. If dpreview was still independently run, the people would make the changes needed to keep the site going.
      • I don't think so. The total market for standalone cameras has absolutely tanked.

        • I don't think so. The total market for standalone cameras has absolutely tanked.

          Yes it has, but were it independent the site could let go of 90% of the staff and just shrink accordingly to match the remaining market. Heck if it had been an independent site they probably would have naturally trimmed long ago, but being part of Amazon I doubt they ever reduced staff before this as they didn't have to react to market conditions.

          Amazon has no interest in management overhead of such a tiny resulting entity, so

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      Yeah, I used to be semi-pro. Sell pics was more than half my input for a few years about 25~20 years ago, but then everybody and their dog started posting pics on forums so that pretty much dried up. And as many said the smartphones pics are enough for most people, so the low-end camera market just died. And the high end got a lot better but also a LOT more expensive. I mean a Nikon F5 used to be, what, 3000$ and it was the top of the line. Now look at the prices for top of the line and they are MUCH higher

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pjt33 ( 739471 )

        I was kinda broke at the time and bought a mid-range 5100, and it sucks ass. You can't use manual mode (it's there but it's unusable, you have to go to menus to set either aperture or shutter time, you can't do both at the same time with the buttons, which entirely defeats the purpose)

        In M mode you change the exposure time with the wheel, and the aperture by holding the +/- button and using the wheel. You can also configure the Fn button to change ISO using the wheel so you get the whole triangle on buttons

  • Just how did Amazon manage to get their dirty paws on it? The whole digital camera scene is in the doldrums at the moment though. Shitty mobile phone cameras, shitty mirrorless cameras, this is all before you get to the whole "death of human creativity by AI" thing. They need to start coming out with real dSLRs again
    • Eh, today's mirrorless cameras are as good as the old film SLRs in quality, with some better features - you can see your photos immediately.

    • Re:Used to be a great site (Score:4, Informative)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @01:22PM (#63388241)

      Just how did Amazon manage to get their dirty paws on it?

      Paid the owner 7 figures, IIRC.

    • They need to start coming out with real dSLRs again

      There really is no need for the mirror slapping anymore....today's new mirrorless cameras are amazing.

      And, as I mentioned previously, one of the really cool things is...that without a mirror in the way, you can now adapt almost ANY vintage lens ever made to "color" your images with some extremely creative looks.

      It's fun to hang a Hasselblad film medium format lens with a quality focal reducer (metabones speed booster) on a modern camera, or maybe one of

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ebunga ( 95613 )

      While I strongly prefer SLRs and will never go mirrorless, the mirrorless cameras are significantly lighter and smaller. The move to mirrorless has nothing to do with AI. That's more of a cellphone thing trying to convince you to upgrade each week. For real cameras, it's just that there is no need to have a physical shutter in front of a sensor these days and live view became a primary feature. It also lets the camera makers pocket the $100+ that would have gone into the mirror box and shutter as pure profi

      • The mirrorless cameras still have a physical shutter (though you can switch it off to use an electronic one). But they do not have a mirror, since they do not have an optical viewfinder to which one has to redirect the light. They use the sensor for preview and to the actual photo. For that reason, you do not have to change the focal length for the preview vs. sensor (no more missed focus because of incorrect adjustment for this). There are benefits like seeing the live preview of the actual photo, includin

  • The subject matter is of declining utility (Score:3)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @12:54PM (#63388147)

    Cameras on phones serve the needs of most people who formerly would consider a low end DSLR. A whole class of buyer is simply gone. That means less advertising revenue in the pool. Photography with dedicated equipment is increasingly a professionals-only market.

    I always liked DPReview, but I'm still using my full frame Nikon that I purchased in 2013, and my lenses are all at least that old. One of the great things about the camera industry is that dedication to backwards compatibility means that great lenses last a very, very long time - far longer than bodies. But that also means that fewer and fewer people are in the shopping pool.

    I'm sorry to see the site go, but I get it. World's a-changing.

    • No your confusing DSLR's with fixed lens point and shoot's. Phone camera's are almost as good as mid range ($1k-$1.5k) point and shoots but will never compete with something like a Fujifilm X100V let alone a Leica M11.

      The new Mirrorless camera's are light years ahead of a DSLR on per-production editing and now price with Cannon's new EOS R50 entry level mirrorless.
      Anyone thinking DSLR's can compete have not used anything from this decade.

      • No, I'm not confusing them. I'm saying that there is a huge group of people that are realizing their phone cameras are "good enough". There are plenty of people who overvalued their needs in the past. Mirrorless and DSLR cameras are clearly better. But the point that matters for this story is that the market is being cannibalized by commodity embedded hardware that has grown to be really, really good, and is already purchased.

        • "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole ...."

          I seriously doubt a huge group of people find there phone camera "good enough" it's literally the only thing they know.
          The vast majority of the planet has no idea how the magic box works let alone how to compare 52mm fixed lens optics.

          • I'd rather not pursue this further, because I don't understand your point here.

            https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]

            If it's not the fact that phones are ubiquitous, and their cameras have become much better, then why the chart above? It's not just the rise of mirrorless... they've only really gained traction the last few years. The decline in sales has been steady for a decade.

            People aren't taking fewer pictures.

          • It is both "good enough" and "the only thing they know".
            And the second part doesn't actually make any difference: show them a fancy DLSR or w/e pro gear, and they'll just say "pictures look like your pictures, and my camera doesn't cost me anything, it's free with my phone".
            Face it, to the average Joe, people who criticize cellphone cameras are just cork-sniffers. And, for their usage cases, they are correct in that assessment.

        • No, I'm not confusing them. I'm saying that there is a huge group of people that are realizing their phone cameras are "good enough". There are plenty of people who overvalued their needs in the past. Mirrorless and DSLR cameras are clearly better. But the point that matters for this story is that the market is being cannibalized by commodity embedded hardware that has grown to be really, really good, and is already purchased.

          While I agree phone cameras have gotten to the point where they are good enough for most people and are a lot more convenient; I suspect what really hurt DPR was the death of the P&S market. I suspect that was a significant part of the viewers who simply wanted a review of the latest P&S and when that traffic dwindled the regulars were not enough to warrant keeping the site running.

          I suspect you’re also right about the impact camera phones have had on the low end DSLR market but as a stated a

  • Ken Rockwell (Score:4, Informative)

    by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @01:02PM (#63388169)
    Best Semi Pro Reviewer out there.... https://www.kenrockwell.com/ [kenrockwell.com]

    • Re:Ken Rockwell (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday March 21, 2023 @02:50PM (#63388461)

      Bahahahaha. No sorry not even close. He's nothing but a cheap hack for Nikon, his reviews are unscientific and the results of most of what he comes up with are completely objective. He has quite often and openly "reviewed" gear he by his own admission never touched or used.

      It's truly sad that he's still around spreading his bullshit in 2023.

      • Bahahahaha. No sorry not even close. He's nothing but a cheap hack for Nikon, his reviews are unscientific and the results of most of what he comes up with are completely objective. He has quite often and openly "reviewed" gear he by his own admission never touched or used.

        It's truly sad that he's still around spreading his bullshit in 2023.

        Those who can, do, those who cannot, shit on those who do.

        Is Rockwell perfect? Nope, not even close. He does something, though, and I do not think that he even takes

        • But you are touting KEN ROCKWELL, the guy who literally tells people "I'm just goofin' around, don't take any of this seriously, I make shit up".
          Ken really likes his Nikons. Ken is a extremely subjective reviewer. He's not a very reliable source of info on cameras, and he literally tells you that on his blog's "about" page.
          Ken is a Nikon fan with a blog. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not exactly a replacement for anything.

        • Those who can, do, those who cannot, shit on those who do.

          I will happily shit on cheap hacks spreading bullshit without every having the inclination to do it myself. It's a curse that I have both integrity and self respect.

    • That was supposed to be modded funny, right?

    • The only thing Ken Rockwell is good at is SEO. His site is garbage, and he even says that no one should take it seriously at all.

      But don't take my word for it, he says it himself [kenrockwell.com].

      I'm also a big kidder. I never said any of this is true and I like to fool arond now and then and simply make stuff up.

      Don't take anything here as seriously as something you read scribbled on a bathroom wall. In fact, it's easier to put things on websites than it is for a vandal to write on a restroom wall.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Potor ( 658520 )

        With your tendentiously hostile interpretation, I don't think you represent that page well. He's saying nothing more than that gear does not make you a good photographer.

        But don't take my word for it, he says it himself:

        SUMMARY

        Lens quality has nothing to do with the quality of the images that are produced with it. A sharp lens makes it easier to produce sharp results, but a talented artist can get his or preferably her point across with any equipment. I prefer sharp representations, but that's certainly not the only valid interpretation.

        I put this information up here because I'm good at it and have spent the time researching this. I want you not to spend too much time worrying about making photos of resolution charts and wants you to to go out and make great images. Don't be an armchair camera collector who, if he makes any images at all, makes really boring ones.

        I hope I help debunk some of the snake oil out there. Doing this for no commercial purpose gives me the complete freedom to say what I mean. I hope you find these reviews helpful.

  • For some baffling reason, DP review took an awfully long getting around to reviewing Pentax cameras, back in the day.
  • "Kill every product that people actually like." - Google

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close