"Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 PRO Review Roundup" —Fujirumors headline
My copywriter ex-wife is laughing at me. Why? Because I'm about to complain about loose language usage, and in my 20's, I was one of the biggest offenders at this; the number one red pencil comment in her edits of my early work was "ww" (wrong wording). Heck, I even got an (sarcastic) award from a prestigious journalism organization for being the first one to write "this computer screams" to indicate how fast it was (the computer was actually very quiet in use ;~). Now here I am complaining about others writing misleading things because of word usage.
The problem here is that this headline appeared on August 16th. The lens was not announced to the public until August 21st. Only one of these "reviews" had been mentioned previously. Worse still, we have summary judgment in the article under the headline: "In short: excellent lens, but the fast f/1.2 aperture has a negative impact on size and weight." (By the way, one of the "reviewers" says "from what I can tell, it does have superior image quality," which is another form of problematic wording, as he's giving himself lots of leeway to be wrong. ;~)
It should be clear that the four "reviewers" in question were hand picked by Viltrox to receive early access to copies of the lens. Moreover, given that Viltrox allowed them to publish prior to the lens announcement itself, you have to take that as meaning that this was part of Viltrox's marketing campaign. These are not reviews, they're previews that were targeted to drive interest in the lens prior to release. One of them did call his "first look," which is a much more appropriate wording. The fifth so-called review was just a montage of video taken with the lens.
Moreover, we have the word "roundup." This, in conjunction with the word review, implies that we're done: the lens has been reviewed by everyone and here are all the opinions you need.
I get it. Everyone wants to be first. Well, they were first to make misleading statements in this case, for sure. That this is driven by commerce—yes, there's a link and coupon to the Viltrox store in the article, which amusingly didn't have the lens listed at the time of the post—is one of the things that has made the Internet problematic. I remember the original discussions about what Arpanet derivatives could become: provide access to accurate information equally and widely. Pretty much every medium has had a similar early discussion as it was developing. And pretty much every medium has turned into a cess pool of commerce, with a sideshow of entertainment.
Don't get me wrong: the five posted videos—well, four of them, since the other doesn't say anything—could be basically right, that this is a good and useful lens. But given their timing, they're previews or first looks that suggest to us we should take a closer look at this lens. Suggesting more—reviews are all in: excellent lens—is just poor word usage that makes it more difficult for people to figure out what they should and shouldn't believe on the Internet.
"The reason why some are wondering about a Z9 mark II is very simple, I think: the Z9 is 2 years old, there has been no drop in price yet, and any prospective buyer just doesn't want to buy at full price a camera that would subsequently turn out to be replaced shortly after their purchase... It has nothing to do with anything that is really missing, but with the money "invested." —reader email
I wrote it in my article: "have you actually tried a Z9 with the C4.00 firmware?"
Too many people think of cameras as an "investment" in the wrong way. They get caught up in current value versus what they paid. The real worth of a tool investment analysis is how much work did/does/will it do for the money you paid. The Z9 doesn't have a mechanical shutter, but it's a 1 million shutter activations type of camera. It's a workhorse tool for those of us who are using it for paid work, and should be too for serious enthusiasts who photograph regularly and/or constantly. Those two groups will get value for what they paid.
If, on the other hand, you bought a Z9 and it's mostly a closet camera, getting only sporadic or occasional use, and then only for a few images at a time, you probably bought the wrong camera. If you then think you're going to dump the Z9 for a Z9 II two years later, you're just throwing money into the wind, you're not "investing" in anything.
Note: the reader did respond to me saying that meant to ask whether the Z9 still held value, to which my first comment ("have you actually tried a Z9 with the C4.00 firmware") still applies ;~).
"We've heard a lot about Canon and Sony — but Nikon has been very quiet." —Phoblographer article attempting to explain why there should be a Z9 followup soon.
Language is sometimes not your friend. "We've heard a lot..." refers to hearing rumors regarding a Canon R1 and a Sony A9 Mark III. "But Nikon...quiet" seems to refer to Nikon's own marketing. Actually, Canon and Sony have been quiet, too ;~). It's the rumor mill that has been stirring up all the fan boy salivating that's going on.
The article doubles down on "isn't it time that [Nikon] deliver something on a much higher end?" Oh, you mean like an Auto Capture function that none of the competitors have? ;~)
The logic in the article just continues to degrade as it attempts to ask nonsensical questions: "if you're shooting the Olympics, why would you choose Nikon over Sony?" Uh, because you're a Nikon user, perhaps? I'm not currently scheduled to cover the Paris Olympics, but it would take me, for instance, one hell of a lot of money in new pro purchases from competitors instead of just bringing the perfectly fine Nikon gear I already own and use. Moreover, I'm pretty much a master of the Nikon gear I own, whereas trying to pick up new gear at the last minute is a recipe for either a nervous breakdown or image failures, your pick.
Eventually all of this illogic gets us to the article's real point: promoting the author's own version of what Nikon should make. I'll save you reading the article: Z9s with 33mp and 60 fps stills, maybe 120 fps. For sports, I'm already getting 45mp at 120 fps when I need it, so I don't really see what this Z9s would solve. Oh, wait, the author thinks we all submit raw files at events where first to post wins.
Update: fixed the roman numeral ;~)
