>>4196239>I've come across some opinions that these guys are hack frauds. Why?They are hacks, full stop. They don't properly test stuff, they just play around with the new shiny for a week and give their opinions based off that other technical reviews that actually do the heavy lifting. They're harsh, and don't know what matters what actually matters and what doesn't. They don't know how to get the best results from raw files, they don't know how to edit. Especially, they don't know that basically any FF mirrorless from the last 5 years is gonna be more than enough for almost everyone, and any FF DSLR from the last 10 years will be enough for most.
Most of photography is being in the right place, at the right time, aka planning, having the right lens for the job and getting a well timed, well composed shot. Which is pretty easy if you have anything decent (FF mirrorless or DSLR) and you know what you're doing.
Anytime they mention ""color science"", you can stop watching right there. They have zero clue about color science, color management, or how these concepts are actually applied in practice to get the results you want. Especially when their testing methods include, well that looks more saturated than the other camera. Not knowing that 90% is shit you can change(camera input profile, raw editor, working color space, working gamma).
If you actually want content from people that know what they're talking about, The digital dog is a great youtube channel, website, and also has a book about color management for photographers. While he could go into more detail about the fundamentals, if want to get accurate color, he'll tell you how to do it.
http://www.digitaldog.net/Jim Kasson has a blog, in which he reviews camera bodies, lenses, and discusses related topics in photography. He's a retired EE and color scientist. His stuff is also top notch.
https://blog.kasson.com/ 
