|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Jan 26, 2023 22:02:13 GMT
Well I just clicked to visit the AP forum and noted it’s now gone.
So that’s that then. I stopped buying AP some 20 odd years ago as it’s repetitious cycle year on year was at best banal. The non stop plugging of new gear, the somewhat condescending topics that frankly bored me to death.
So, they did away with the classified section and now they’ve removed the forum section too.
Trying to wonder what exactly they think will lure new readers. Most modern mirrorless cameras seem to be geared up for video work more than photography.
Personally I think AP has run its course. Next time I’m in the shopping centre I’ll head off to the news stand to take a look and see if anything’s changed in the past 20 odd years since I last picked up a copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Jan 26, 2023 22:08:35 GMT
I haven't seen a copy of AP in the one bookshop which used to stock it here, for many months. There were problems with overseas mail. The library is well behind with issues, too.
One feature I used to read 20 odd years ago was Ivor Matanle's series on classic cameras.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Jan 26, 2023 22:24:59 GMT
Well I just clicked to visit the AP forum and noted it’s now gone. So that’s that then. I stopped buying AP some 20 odd years ago as it’s repetitious cycle year on year was at best banal. The non stop plugging of new gear, the somewhat condescending topics that frankly bored me to death. So, they did away with the classified section and now they’ve removed the forum section too. Trying to wonder what exactly they think will lure new readers. Most modern mirrorless cameras seem to be geared up for video work more than photography. Personally I think AP has run its course. Next time I’m in the shopping centre I’ll head off to the news stand to take a look and see if anything’s changed in the past 20 odd years since I last picked up a copy. I've just tried the AP Forum too - it will soon be just a vague memory, so now we can all be grateful for the creation of this Forum. Re. the magazine: I agree with much of what you say, and I would certainly never pay the shop price since many of the articles and reviews are of little interest to me. However, at the subscription price it's reasonable value for the articles that do interest me. The magazine caters for a great variety of readers, and I assume that research shows that many of them buy it for the content that I ignore (mobile telephones, this month's new Sony camera body that costs more than I have spent on hardware in the last 20 years, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jan 26, 2023 22:40:02 GMT
I have to subscription but I sometimes wonder why. The tested accessories rarely interest me, I don’t need any more camera bags, power packs, hard drives etc. I spend more time using radio mics than most reviewers and have enough experience to know that really good sound isn’t something most amateurs are going to master quickly. All the reviews are of things I won’t be buying anytime soon and I am more interested in where pictures were taken than how.
The magazine needs to be owned by someone who wants it, and wants it to thrive, unlike the past few who seem like have wanted the prestige without the effort. Most of the contributors do a good job but if you aren’t going to buy a mirrorless camera they are, seemingly, programmed to convert you. I am infinitely that happiness isn’t having what you want it is wanting what you have. I’m happy with what I have thanks. However about some articles on how to get more out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Jan 27, 2023 8:22:22 GMT
If you don't like the content pester them to take an article you write on what you want to see. Worked for me!
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 27, 2023 9:22:02 GMT
I still think AP is far better at not regurgitating the same content year on year than the Monthlies, but I don't think now represents a golden age for the mag - or indeed for the magazine industry as a whole. It's difficult when there's so much online stuff these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Jan 27, 2023 16:18:29 GMT
I have to subscription but I sometimes wonder why. The tested accessories rarely interest me, I don’t need any more camera bags, power packs, hard drives etc. I spend more time using radio mics than most reviewers and have enough experience to know that really good sound isn’t something most amateurs are going to master quickly. All the reviews are of things I won’t be buying anytime soon and I am more interested in where pictures were taken than how. The magazine needs to be owned by someone who wants it, and wants it to thrive, unlike the past few who seem like have wanted the prestige without the effort. Most of the contributors do a good job but if you aren’t going to buy a mirrorless camera they are, seemingly, programmed to convert you. I am infinitely that happiness isn’t having what you want it is wanting what you have. I’m happy with what I have thanks. However about some articles on how to get more out of it? I too notice that the places where photographs were taken is often not mentioned - especially in reviews of expensive new camera bodies, when often the pictures are the only bits of interest to me. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Jan 31, 2023 13:22:08 GMT
In this week's AP there is what should be an interesting article on second-hand cameras and lenses. On the first page of the article the second suggested pairing is a Nikon D300 with a Nikkor AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens. Great you say except that the D300 isn't compatible with AF-P lenses!
Not the best way to encourage new users/readers.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Jan 31, 2023 14:41:55 GMT
In this week's AP there is what should be an interesting article on second-hand cameras and lenses. On the first page of the article the second suggested pairing is a Nikon D300 with a Nikkor AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens. Great you say except that the D300 isn't compatible with AF-P lenses! Not the best way to encourage new users/readers. A pity about the mistake. I have added a thread in the equipment room which contains a link to definitive compatibility information from Nikon. I placed a link to this on the old AP forum; its just another useful (to Nikon DSLR owners) bit of information that's gone AWOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Feb 2, 2023 22:49:51 GMT
In this week's AP there is what should be an interesting article on second-hand cameras and lenses. On the first page of the article the second suggested pairing is a Nikon D300 with a Nikkor AF-P 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens. Great you say except that the D300 isn't compatible with AF-P lenses! Not the best way to encourage new users/readers. A pity about the mistake. I have added a thread in the equipment room which contains a link to definitive compatibility information from Nikon. I placed a link to this on the old AP forum; its just another useful (to Nikon DSLR owners) bit of information that's gone AWOL.
I have purchased a few second hand lenses in the last 15 years, since getting my first DSLR. If buying from a shop, I would take my camera body and try the lens on it. If buying from a dealer's website, I would first email them to tell them what model camera body I wanted to use with the lens, and getting a reply confirming that a complete refund would be available it they said the lens was compatible and it proved not to be. I have had no trouble with any of these lenses. |
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on Feb 2, 2023 23:19:43 GMT
Well I just clicked to visit the AP forum and noted it’s now gone. So that’s that then. I stopped buying AP some 20 odd years ago as it’s repetitious cycle year on year was at best banal. The non stop plugging of new gear, the somewhat condescending topics that frankly bored me to death. So, they did away with the classified section and now they’ve removed the forum section too. Trying to wonder what exactly they think will lure new readers. Most modern mirrorless cameras seem to be geared up for video work more than photography. Personally I think AP has run its course. Next time I’m in the shopping centre I’ll head off to the news stand to take a look and see if anything’s changed in the past 20 odd years since I last picked up a copy. I certainly consider that it has deteriorated in recent years, only an occasional buy for me now, I did purchase more copies during the first lockdown. One factor that I find annoying is the variation in cover price frequently for supposedly special issues, more than I am prepared to pay. If I was going to buy every issue I would just take out a Readly subscription which gives online access to a large range of magazine titles. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Feb 3, 2023 10:44:30 GMT
The question one has to ask is, what would induce you to buy a paper magazine?
I suspect the answer will be similar to mine, nothing. Paper magazines are very inconvenient they take up space and have to be recycled. There is relatively little actual content and, perhaps more to the point, very little relevant content. For example, I have no interest in reviews of mirrorless lenses, that could change of course, I don't want any more camera bags, external drives, computers, battery chargers, phones etc. and I am not planning to change camera systems. Which leaves little of real interest. The second hand guide was quite interesting, except that I don't actually agree with some of the suggestions but then I am not looking for a replacement camera and lens.
For AP to thrive it needs to be on-line and sensibly priced. The repetition that is common in print simply isn't acceptable in an on-line magazine because all the previous issues are to hand. However replacing the "how to..." with a video tutorial would be a huge improvement. Video camera reviews could show much more than simply sample photographs. The photo science articles could be more detailed.
I think paper magazines are facing extinction but on-line magazines, with interaction might be the way forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Feb 3, 2023 12:07:22 GMT
I’d not use an online magazine. I spent my life looking at computers. I do subscribe electronically to The Times and use the “classic app” which, one article at a time, front to back is as close to “paper” as I have found. I subscribed while I worked abroad to have the English version. Don’ like the international version. The main Times “app” and The Times online are just dreadful. I looked at the first AP online demo mag - horrible.
I basically like a linear read of current stuff - pick your route with mixed new, old, ancient articles - of the BBC news website is a dreadful example just annoys me. If I want “more” I don’t want old stuff uncorrected for matters arising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Feb 3, 2023 16:38:03 GMT
The question one has to ask is, what would induce you to buy a paper magazine? I suspect the answer will be similar to mine, nothing. Paper magazines are very inconvenient they take up space and have to be recycled. I think paper magazines are facing extinction but on-line magazines, with interaction might be the way forward. Personally, I find the long and often incomprehensible 'this month's new full frame Sony mirrorless body' reviews are an ideal accompaniment to more difficult bowel movements. I do not want do all my reading on a PC monitor. However, for fiction or factual books without illustrations my Kindle has become my prime reading 'platform'. The problem with any magazine that is only available online is collecting revenue to fund it, unless it has so many advertisements that no person would have the patience to read it for very long. And as Netflix has shown, a paid subscription service dependant upon passwords doesn't work because people share their passwords and defeat the system. Basically, most of the population will not pay for something they can find a way to get for free. My printed copies of AP get recycled after 6 or 7 weeks, with a very small number of articles cut out for my 'reference' cuttings folder. After this time, any review of a new camera body or lens is probably obsolete anyway because of the short life cycles of modern hardware. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivor E Tower on Feb 3, 2023 21:02:31 GMT
I'm another who prefers a magazine to be made from paper and not viewed on a computer screen
|
|
