Do YOU agree?? In order to be unbiased, it's just as important that we don't say something negative when we don't get access to a camera as it is to not give a glowing review because we did. It HAS to work both ways. I don't get sent every camera or invited on every trip and it's crucial for me to not be negative towards a camera or brand just because I didn't get it before launch. And that's MORE important than failing to highlight a flaw. Bias works both ways but if you fail to highlight something that could potentially be negative, you're just a bad unbiased reviewer but intentionally saying something negative because you got personal is wrong. I know tons of Sony fans who give glowing videos of ever Sony camera they touch. That's not wrong, it's just biased but being biased is ok. Most of us don't care how good a Samsung smartphone is because we are biased towards Apple and that's ok, but you probably shouldn't do iPhone reviews lol. But to openly criticize and trash a brand because you didn't get early access is absolutely wrong
100% Dan. Can’t agree more with you on this. Love Gerald but this puts a ding on the love. Stay in your lane and keep being a lab nerd. Love that part too. But to mix in S9 and Pana because you weren’t invited seems salty. It would have been better to address the issue in general which applies to all camera OEMs, not just S9 and Pana. Pana was addressing a different consumer with this S9 launch and Gerald wasn’t one they felt would talk about it as he gravitates towards high end reviews. They paid for the event so they have every right to invite who they want and who they don’t want to invite. These cameras OEMs do what they need to sell their products and give you opportunities to build your reputation and brand so remember that when you ascend up. Not bite them back and criticize them now that you have food on the table and full. Appreciate it and be clear to share that you’ve evolved and want to share your differences in a productive way but it only one’s person view. If you don’t do that, expect unintended consequences to result from lack of clarify in your point of vire Anyhow everyone should come out better as everyone will learn what works and doesn’t work.from this situation. Your video has me wanting to double subscribe but there’s no button to do so. Keep hungry, keep being humble and don’t lose your way what got you there. Keep delivering high quality content!
You’re simply wrong. You can and yes you should say something negative about a dishonest/unfair practice. I think what you’re trying to say is that you shouldn’t write a negative review about a product solely because you didn’t get invited to an event, to which I agree.
@@nomad0714 Appreciate that! I tend to agree. Obviously that doesn't mean that all S9 reviews were honest, but that's on the creator and not the manufacturer in every case I've encountered
Great points. I think the issue with a few viewers is "how can you make a balanced video while the brand pays for the press trip?" But like you said, It's more work than it is a vacation. And I would say 99.9% of us are genuinely trying to do the best coverage we can in that short period of time. Brand covering costs of travel, food, hotel + setup shooting experiences is just the cost of marketing. We don't get paid. It usually costs us money to go to these things which has always been a misconception. AND! This is how it is in every industry. I think most people understand this but this drama got so out of hand over the S9. I will blame how it was marketed and who it's for as the actual issue here.
Yeah, I used to be a reporter, and I had a press trip with all expenses paid by British Airways to London, and another trip with all expenses paid by an aerospace manufacturer to the Caribbean. I’m pretty much felt used. Nothing should interfere with your honest fair opinion because that’s what your readers and your viewers want. It was like I was on the take. My employers expected I would not offend the companies. That’s not a position a responsible journalist wants to be in.
There definitely has to be a reason for the press trip...if it's just to wine and dine, that's not legit. If it's to test something in a way that would otherwise be impossible, that's legit. I've been on both kinds but MOST camera events are focused around actually testing and shooting
two different things you were working for somebody else, and you have to follow their guidelines, us youtubers work for us so we make our own choices, you can be honest, fair and give positive and negative feedback without fear of being put on the blacklist, if a company do, another will be happy to bring you in.
@@AliexFolgueira, Amen to that! I call it work mask vs personal mask. At work, you need to do work that the firm wants and you may disagree with it but once the decision has been made, you need to follow as it’s not yours to change and you didn’t pay for it. You can still disagree for sure, but not be defiant unless getting fired is your thing. But at home or away from work, you can be your true self. That’s why some are entrepreneurs because they want to be them and decide what they want.
... it seems like ANY segment that involves new product releases will have drama-filled launches from here on out. Since the UA-cam influencers have become unofficial marketing members for these corporations, this relationship should be acknowledged at the start of their videos...
There was as much hype about the Lumix S9 as there was when we finally got the Global Shutter, so it's hard to take these press tours seriously, and that's only possible because there are a lot of UA-camrs who don't dare to be honest, and I wonder why 😂
No shade, but maybe Gerald is choosing to only hang out at press events rather than use the cameras for their intended purposes to hide the fact that he doesn't actually have any videography or photography skills. I can see him being insecure about his lack of skills rather than not wanting to provide the camera brand with a video influenced by an expensive trip they paid for. SERIOUS POSSIBILITY 🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️
... I would counter that statement by saying maybe Gerald does not do it because there are already so many influencers doing the exact same thing... pushing out the same cookie-cutter content! Gerald Undone may be choosing a different approach by providing useful information others are not covering or do not even know about...
Hello Dan, Your video seems quite confusing and is filled with contradictions. Firstly, it appears you might not have watched Gerald’s video in its entirety. He clearly explained that he wasn’t invited because Lumix contacted him about it. Additionally, you didn’t mention the Sony setup at the Olympics, which involved extremely expensive lights with six stops over-this is crucial context you’re missing. By omitting these details, you’re spreading misinformation. It’s important to cover all relevant points before discussing Sony and Panasonic. Furthermore, it’s evident that you weren’t invited because of your consistent negative remarks about Lumix, particularly their autofocus. You frequently favor Sony in your discussions, which is likely why Lumix chose not to invite you.
So I did watch his video 3 times...I believe he wasn't invited to the S5II and they called him for the S9 and said he wasn't invited because he wouldn't like it. They didn't tell me why I wasn't invited but I didn't bash them. Also, I was obviously at the A9III event and only 1 area had lights... The volleyball and basketball areas were not lit. They only had lights in 1 out of the 3 areas with sports going on so that's not fully correct. But I don't see how them bringing lights is an issue. They mostly had strobes with monolights only and that was because the global shutter allowed higher sync speeds so seems normal they wanted to show that off. My images were not using the strobes if that makes you feel better but if someone gave the impression everything was lit, that was incorrect. I actually dissed Panasonics autofocus way more before the S5II which was the first good one and they invited me. But even if they didn't, it would be wrong for me to Turn around and trash them based on a hunch. Also, you're not an unbiased reviewer if you turn around and bash a company when you don't get sent a product or invited to an event...it goes both ways. Maybe he doesn't praise a company for inviting him to a trip but he absolutely bashed a company for not which is biased...just negatively biased
@@timgangloff It definitely wasn't Sony telling us what to do...outside of the shooting events we had full access to the cameras for 3 days so we could shoot nightscapes and anything else we wanted...it's not like we could ONLY shoot inside the event and ONLY shoot boxing or whatever was lit. We all just shot whatever sports we wanted to shoot that worked with our content...we were given the camera and sent to shoot whatever we wanted. I have video of the unlit volleyball area personally but didn't include most of it in my content because I decided to pick a character to shoot so I grabbed the boxer and did some solo shoots with him
Thank you for acknowledging the value that these opportunities that we're very fortunate to have. It stinks of privilege and narcissism to throw the whole practise and everyone who engages in it under the bus. If you think it costs us by attending these trips, imagine how much more it would cost us in terms of time and money to try and arrange an equivalent set of shooting opportunities in order to make our content. Gerald flat out lied about his experiences with Panasonic (Watch the pod he did with Brandon Washington for the truth, straight out of his own mouth) and it's put me off his content entirely because he clearly has a bias towards Sony and against Panasonic. He said so himself in the video you're responding to (without shame). As for your final point, none of us have any right to be invited anywhere. PR people will invite who comes to mind and who they think is going to make the most of the opportunity. As reviewers, it's our job to be professionals and to be objective. If brands attempt to control what we say or punish us for sharing a professional opinion that they don't like, then we call them out on it WITH RECEIPTS, not bogus assumptions. That's how to ensure some level of accountability and transparency.
I stopped watching the Northrups a few years back after they went to NYC for a Sony event, and the sport that was shot was hockey. I made an observation in a comment about a camera with overheating issues was tested out in a cold environment. Back and forth comments providing thoughts about the issues were made and instead of acknowledging my concern, they got indignant and I think that they blocked me.
So that's what needs to change. I think the fact that they were using the A9 in a real life hockey game is a good thing, but we can't be afraid to talk about overheating. But I've done plenty of overheating videos that didn't go well for Sony and I've still been invited back
@@learningcameras He made that entire video because he was angry about not being invited. Trust me, I've gotten mad too when I see brands I've reviewed before-and my reviews sold units for them-sending other UA-camrs samples or review units and not me. I wanted to speak out and call them out, but why? Why do that? What's the point? It's not going to help me. If anything, it's going to make sure I don't get anything from them in the future.
Calling out a company’s practice that is intentionally designed to influence and encourage positive reviews and limit negative reviews as opposed to more honest reviews about the product they’re selling has no merit?
@Arthur-le8ec honest???? That video from Gerald was awful, and I may argue dishonest because he clearly was mad at them for not inviting him, instead of listening to the reasons why, which are valid, he would not like the camera it isnt for him, he choose to make a rant video. He should have just let it go.
@@Arthur-le8ec What practice??? Do you think camera manufactures created press events? Trust me, they exist in almost every industry and long before Panasonics latest cameras. Panasonic has probably had the fewest press events of any camera manufacturer. Sony would probably be the taker of most press events especially before covid. If Apple invites mostly Apple users and even Apple fanboys to the latest iPhone release is that wrong? Obviously they do...half of the channels that cover those literally have an "i" in the title of the channel haha. Because the Invite is to Japan (which is Panasonic headquarters), does that somehow limit negative reviews? And to bigger channels, a trip to Japan is a negative because these events are unpaid so having a longer trip with more travel time means less time to put in to other content, sponsorships, and other work
As someone that likes to take gear on paid client jobs before I do a review, I agree with you. Real world tests are important. If a UA-camr is spewing specs without their opinion that has real world substance, what’s the point. A good technical analysis is always appreciated, but this is the reality. Consumers wanting to buy a new product watch almost every video on UA-cam before making a purchase. Every UA-camr is unique. UA-camrs need to embrace their own style and way.
I totally agree with what you said: If Gerald says about himself that he would not have used the Osaka event to test the S9 - and he is known for that too... Then why would Panasonic (or any other company) invite him? It's basically 10+ tonnes of wasted CO2 and a several thousand USD a company could spend elsewhere. BTW: If you ever ask yourself why you were not invited - just ask your PR/Marketing/Company contact. 99 % of the times it is a simple as "we were only allowed to invite x people from our region" or "we think the product is made for x and your audience is primarily into y" etc.
Dan, so simple 1. You are advertisers for large corporations 2. It’s a mutual benefit for you and them 3. Anyone watching your videos or any reviews should know this 4. I will still watch your videos
Well said. It’s ok to acknowledge this and still enjoy all our favorite camera reviewer youtubers. Just understand the possible biases when you make purchase decisions. People want to be spoon fed info, and refuse to think for themselves. Then they’re upset when they find out things aren’t as they seem.
I genuinely think the trips makes sense, “ especially when down right “ as you said, I think the issues come from actually seeing certain cameras fall short but the reviews don’t feel so genuine to what’s wrong, another thing is I love Gerald’s content and would love to see him doing more real tests as how I’d see how others like you use the camera
i picked that video of Gerald apart, he gave really bad advice in that video, very bad, specially if you are just starting your youtube career or like you said you don't take stuff too seriously you just want to bring your audience in with you.
Yeah...I think he also assumed the only reason people watch videos is for the review/tests/limitations portion. Like I said, I watched a bunch of PORSCHE 911 videos this week and I sure as hell can't afford to buy one lol. I just wanted to see my favorite youtubers give me their thoughts and impressions. I purchased a Fujifilm X100vi personally... and couldn't care less how fast it overheats because I just use it for family memories. Maybe I'll do a review on it but I bought that for fun and even as a camera reviewer, I don't care how many stops of DR I can push from the sensor so I still find value in watching event videos even if it's not the ideal test bed
@@learningcameras totally agreed! I watched your sony heating video back in the day, I didn't care if it overheats, like at most I'm only filming like 30 mins continuously, I still bought the camera, still have it, no need to upgrade since this is plenty for me, like i dont care about s log or whatever feature. I just want to press record, be in focus and look "nicer" lol
Gerald Undone literally belittled the intelligence of those that went to the Panasonic event while attempting to raise the supposed level of his own intelligence. That alone makes him unworthy of watching any of his Videos for me. What gives him the Blanking Right to think he is somehow morally better then anyone else. He isn't any better. So those that want to Praise Gerald might need to rethink things more than just a little bit. He behaves as if Folks are not capable of thinking for themselves just because they are invited to a given event. Nor have the intelligence to form a initial Review. But sure, some folks want to Praise him. I mean really.
It’s not complicated at all. You should disclose if the company paid for your expenses or anything for a trip and product launch/presentation. If you don’t, you try to hide it. Simple as that. I don’t care how you “feel” about it
When you’re involved in these trips, you ARE biased because of this. You’re corrupted. There’s no way around it. OK, do it, no problem, but disclose it.
What happened to Tony and Chelsea, huge photo UA-camrs with milion of followers, after they criticized the first Nikon Z cameras ? Nikon stopped inviting them, or sending them cameras. Geez, I wonder why most other UA-camrs didn’t get blacklisted. Oh wait, is because they tried so hard to ignore the obvious flaws that plagued those cameras, and they were rewarded for that.
Don't worry about the camera nerds/brand loyalists. You've always been very fair, positive vibe/attitude in general and make good points. If any goofballs want to complain (viewers), oh well. That's just how the internet works. You have to learn to ignore the people that will always be negative. I wish people would take that old advice: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" Really. Why do people whine and bash strangers they don't know on the internet. They wouldn't do that to your face, you know...
I worked as editor in chief for a PC magazine back in the 90s and we had those press trips as well. For me as a camera buyer it is a two step process. The initial release will give me info that a new camera is on the market and its main points. That will already tell me if it might be something for me or not. If the initial video also includes some hands on testing in a good environment that aligns with the cameras purpose of use, it is even better. I will still not buy it just because of this info. For me to purchase a camera, I will also look up more "scientific" tests as well like DPR, Gerald Undone, DXOmark, PhotonsToPhotos and others. A new camera is after all an investment which costs a lot of money and one has to get it right. I think what you as a UA-camr needs to do is to decide if you focus on only the initial release or on a later more scientific test with a production product. And if you do a more scientific test, use a standardized testing method so one can learn how you do your tests. You can as a UA-camr off course also do both types of videos.
Yours must be "the best" (i.e. my favourite) video on the subject so far. Like the part (23:42) where you say "I can't factually make that statement". That's one of my biggest gripes with Gerald's rant. He made some serious accusations but didn't back them up in any way - the most obvious one was that all of this is based on the word "strange". Now I don't think it's easy to maintain objectivity at release events. Most people enjoy it I reckon and thus naturally don't want to sour the relationship unless they "have to" - what that means is very subjective. For some it means being as positive as possible, for others maybe not mention some minor inconvenience they found in the camera. Some people might mention everything but sugarcoat it if they can. Then there are different types of reviewers - independent professional reviewers, (mostly) affiliated users, and camera stores and it looks like some people aren't able to manage expectations accordingly, or even make the distinction. On the note of transparency - this is a very difficult one. It's hard to be transparent about a secret event. All of these companies are large corporations and their go-to attitude to PR is basically a chocolate factory. Secrecy as much as possible, tinned PR statements, never admit to anything, spin everything that the public can't verify (like sales data) as positive. I am obviously biased, but I think Panasonic is one of the better ones with Lumix Live at least. Although that's mostly towards the general public. I really can't think of anything to make specifically the business around these release events more transparent, honestly. For example the several years guarantee invitation you suggest sounds very risky, especially in the eyes of a corporation like that I suspect. Whist I'm always for more transparency from , I don't actually think we really need it - not about release events anyway. Reviewers could always do more disclaimers. Maybe those videos shouldn't even be called reviews. But I think most people understand what these videos are. Or at least that's what I thought, now I'm not so sure haha
I've been there seen it and done it. These events are basically press and media events print, web and you tubers. If your a professional commercial photographer such as myself then you don't need the money and don't need to suck up to the camera makers. Your job is to be transparent that's why we watch you guys. Any review I do I own the gear so I own it all. Leica, Hassy, Nikon Fujifilm but no Canon or Sony as they are not part of my tools. If you own you can say where ever you want dude you paid for it. But if you suck up to these guys your viewers are going to smell a rat very fast .
I like to see reviewers feedback after the press trip. It's benefit to both brand to get feedback right away, and to reviewer to properly test the equipment and raise concerns/questions to engineer when it occurs. For someone who doesn't want to go, let him review on his sofa. I am not interested because I never used my camera on my sofa anyway. And brand has right to choose who to invite. Similarly, reviewer had right to choose which trip to go.
I think you did a good job of currying favor with major manufacturers, and spinning Gerald’s comments in a critical way, but you didn’t move the needle for me that he was wrong. Also, you weren’t fully candid in describing your Canon criticism, even though you misstated your comment on the heels of playing the clip. Why? The hyperbole wasn’t even needed to land your point.
I do think that part of staying neutral and unbiased is also not getting personal or hurt when you don't get products or sent on trips. There are plenty of cameras I wasn't sent and trips I wasn't invited on like the S9 trip, but as a reviewer I can't let trips influence what I say whether I get to go or whether I don't. My only other point is there is a lot of value to a well done press trip when you use it correctly. Not sure what the issue was exactly with the Canon criticism ...I'm just working on that video so I had that top of mind and obviously had no issue calling out the downsides along with the good. But I was also very harsh on the Canon R5 overheating timers (had a few videos on that). But the point is that I think most manufacturers allow us to point out weaknesses and don't punish us. I think the reason Gerald wasn't invited to Japan had absolutely nothing to do with a bad review and I personally didn't think that was a justifiable claim at all given there are plenty of other good reasons he wouldn't be invited that have nothing to do with a review title
It would be marketing without the press trip. Gerald is still perfectly fine having them send him pre release cameras...it's not like we wouldn't make videos. When covid shut down press trips, manufacturers still had the same content, it's only the shooting opportunities that changed
Thank you for lending your voice and perspective, I think it’s super valuable to chime in on things as we’re all part of the community. As someone who caught my fair share of harassment, I’d say it’s disappointing to see large creators make things like brand deals and press trips bad , when we spent years watching them do the same thing. I wouldn’t know half these cameras existed if I didn’t see a Gerald video on launch day, so it was jarring to see to be honest. Wanting to be first to post on a camera is learned behaviour from the very people saying it’s not worth it, so it feels like someone pissing in the pool on the way out. I have no qualms with more transparency in disclosures, as it helps the audience feel like they’re getting an informed decision, but sometimes the critique isn’t treated with the same scrutiny, accuracy, and sometimes honesty as the criticism which again isn’t a good feeling. I think the worst part is feeling like I have to lie about this trip, and pretend I didn’t enjoy it, or the S9, which is an ironic version of authenticity as it’s not pretending to hate a camera you actually like 😅 One thing NO ONE might have mentioned is a lot of smaller creators were on this trip, and we all know that mental health is a very important issue for some people , I know no one who made these kinds of videos meant to filter the hateful end of the audience towards these folks, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either some of these guys never make an S9 video again (which actually sucks for people who buy this thing and need more info) or worse, quit entirely because making videos impacts their mental health. I got a really sad dm on Instagram and didn’t even think that was a possibility At any rate, these trips give people a chance to feel seen, test cameras in environments they might not have at home, ask questions and make friends, lumix didn’t ask us to make a launch day video, we all chose to, and as long as it’s disclosed how we got there, and we do our best to give value, and balance, that’s all we can do Also great videos, stumbled across this on my feed today 🙏🏾
Great points man! It really sucks for people like you who went hands on with the S9 and gave a super honest unbiased video and are now being made to feel less legit. I watched your review and you did everything right, were super open about everything, gave great feedback, and showed the value of these trips since you were able to provide your feedback directly to Panasonic and get to test out the camera in ways that otherwise would have been difficult especially for smaller channels. Like you said, the issue is now that you have to almost try to hate on a camera, even if you enjoy it, which is not authentic. The good side to Geralds video is we will be more aware of what we say and how we say it but the bad irony is future videos will likely be LESS honest and fair because now he created a massive fear of being seen as unauthentic simply for enjoying a camera...and that didn't exist before. And from that mental health perspective you mentioned, it's way harder emotionally when this pressure is coming from fellow peers and from DM's & comments
You guys should be paid because you are saving Sony and others millions of dollars in advertising if they had to advertise on television. Your bills don't stop while you are on press trips, your time, patience and ability needs to be compensated. Doing a review just to do a review won't pay a house or car note. Even if Sony gave you a camera, it isn't compensation enough. Camera brands should make you sign NDA because its there intellectual property. This issue is huge in the Audiophile word.
Unfortunately there isn't a way to do a paid review. Anything titled review on my channel can't be paid...there is way too much room for bias They never give us the cameras either...sometimes we'll get extended loaners but almost never anything more than that. Usually we give back the cameras after the event which sucks because I'd love to do more tests back home
They are essentially being paid if they don't pay for the gear out of pocket nor the Trip. Don't underestimate the True value of getting early access. Gerald isn't going to Buy nor Rent most of the Gear he wants to use, and just ask the Fro, he owns multiple Properties due to being granted early access and what that had done to build his Channel and Business. Meanwhile the overall Camera Industry has literally Collapsed over the last decade. So just maybe, the companies should ask for their MONEY back. Because essentially they are already getting paid.
I enjoyed the video and I thought you offered some good counterpoints to Gerald's video. Couple of issues. If you are there at a Sony even to "work", as you said, then you should be getting paid. Otherwise, you're being used to promote their product and from the tone of your video, a cheap promoter willing to pay out of pocket which further erodes one's credibility. Let Sony fully pay your way or don't go. I think that's what Gerald was getting out. Don't be a cheap schill. I'm a Sony shooter (a1's and a7r5) but I think it's disingenuous to state that the staged Sony sports shoots (8:40 in your video for example) mimic the real world of sports shooters. Every Sony promotional video I've seen has sports venues with more light than you'd ever find in the real world. A boxing ring next to a full wall of windows...yeah right. It's not pushing the camera, but rather setting it up for success. Let's see Sony take you to a high school football game with poor lighting and test the high ISO performance. Or a boxing ring in a dimly lit gym. I've never seen a review point that out. That hey, the camera worked great, but Sony pumped in a bunch of light to help it out and I have no idea of what it can do in the dark sports environment.
So I agree with you but once there is an exchange of money, it becomes difficult to stay unbiased because you might NEED these press trips to keep going. When they cost you time and a little money, it becomes just as easy for you to turn them down. So yes, at the A9III event there were some lights, but they also had unlit basketball going on and unlit volleyball with crap gym lighting and Sony has taken us to plenty of sporting events without lighting. So I'm sure they want our images to look good but they provided plenty of opportunities for bad gym lighting to push iso and test flicker. In my A9III opening sequence, I shot with the lights behind my subject so my key light was still poor gym lights
The question is Gerald a videographer, cinematographer or photographer? That is the problem with him. Tony Northrup said also the same as you said about the test trips. Look at his video. Robin Wong made a blogspot about Gerald video. He said why this guy hangs out at an event where the manufacturer paid a lot a money is a bit slap in the face of the manufacturer.
Gerald made business personal. I don't think that was a good look overall, but he did make a few good points. But hey, he's human, so whatever. I'm still a fan of his videos...and still a fan of Panasonic Lumix. Great breakdown from your perspective Dan.
I tend to agree. That video made him feel biased, especially against Panasonic and towards Sony and I always viewed him as very unbiased. But he still does some of the best testing and numbers don't lie so he has that going for him
Very interesting comments and good to have more information about press trips. I have been watching Gerald Undone for years and I’m a fan. Gerald is an important source of information but is only one source I use when reviewing videos about new cameras or gear. I usually watch between ten to twenty reviews on a specific camera, lenses and accessories before I make my decision to buy. I want all the technical information, the tips and tricks and real field tests by the photographers I follow. There is no one reviewer that can provide all the information in one review. What I am concerned about is companies like Sony selling expensive cameras that ignore the latest technology and providing monitor screens that are useless in sunlight. I had commented about this the other day and sorted it out. I subscribed to your channel today because I am of the view that you can provide an honest review.
Dan, I really love what you do. We the average consumer do not have a direct contact with manufacturers except through a purchase. Your contact with these companies is how we learn what decision they will make on release of new gear, and what the will remove from existing gear thinking the consumer will not notice in order to profit from old technologies. Thank you again for being a conduit for us to them .
The fact that Gerald goes to these trips is the biggest hypocrisy of all. It’s like America’s Test Kitchen goes out to a trip with Michelin starred, professional and amateur chefs to showcase what a newest non-stick pan can do. And when he doesn’t get called, he suddenly starts virtue signaling while tainting other chef’s dishes. Camera is mostly science but photography is mostly art. The fact that he indirectly critiques a camera without ever touching it is unethical in itself. Does he disclose how many equipments he gets to unofficially keep? If camera companies release only one camera a year, photography might actually benefit, consumerism will go down, but his channel will be the first one to suffer because he is dependent on it the most. The rest of the UA-camrs will do fine because they are not dependent on the camera companies like Gerald. He said the timing of releasing review videos on the dot right after embargo is not important, but he sure chose a good time to release his video. He could have done it a month ago, a year ago, or 5 years ago. The problem was always there, but why now? And will he critique Sony or someone like Peter McKinnon? Will he stop going to these kind of trips? Will he start buying the products he is reviewing?
Awesome points! I definitely wonder how you "review" a camera without even using it on a real shoot and the timing definitely seems like revenge for Panasonic not giving him a camera
Out of all of this drama, I feel like you had the best response, too me. You stated that you didn't get invite and you didn't take it personally. You tests the cameras in the real world. where they will mostly be used when invited. Your take has a positive spin . Thank you.
Means a lot. Absolutely, I feel like in order to be unbiased, it's just as important that we don't take it personally when we don't get invited as it is to not make it influence our content when we do get invited. He stated his video was about staying unbiased, and yet he came off as extremely biased against certain brands for not getting invited. It HAS to work both ways. I don't get sent every camera or invited on every trip and it's crucial for me to not be negative towards a camera or brand just because I didn't get it before launch
I think these press trips should cover your other expenses. I can see why some people might not care because its a free trip some place. I know you still are working but if if someone is having fun then I guess that's good enough for them. But I think they should give you guys even pocket money to go out and doing things buy food and other things. These companies are in the game for themselves.
So we don't get pocket money but they do cover travel...again, there was a trip I was literally so broke on I could barely even attend because I needed $400 to cover airport parking, bag fees, initial food, and the hotel deposits. The Panasonic event, we had to cover most meals and getting around Japan from our own pockets. But other than meals, manufacturers have never taken us on activities that weren't directly related to shoots so some shoots might be more fun than others lol, but we're never having fun and not also working
There's definitely a symbiotic relationship with companies and reviewers that the audience need to understand. For me, as someone who consumes these review videos, UA-camrs need to be honest about the products they are reviewing/previewing. I think theres'a a way to do that that and still be respectful to the companies. At the end of the day, all UA-camrs started out small that gave them the freedom to to be honest, and that's how their channels grew. I don't know if I would keep watching a channel if they weren't honest about the products...I might as watch an infomercial at that point.
Agreed. I think it's going to be harder these days to find honest reviews. When there were only a few of us, manufacturers needed us even if we said something bad. These days it's super easy to find some Sony fan with 100k Subs that will say whatever Sony wants. I know a few personally. It's actually better when manufacturers stick to the same core group of reviewers when you want honest opinions because we are reasonably sure that our thoughts don't influence our ability to test
seriously!! It was tough, not going to lie. Had to shoot sunrise to midnight to even come close to getting enough content (some youtubers didn't so I'm not sure how they accomplished anything) but I think I pulled it off pretty well: ua-cam.com/video/pwa_W9oGSIA/v-deo.html
Some people were unhappy about this specific event for how some reviewers minimize real flaws of the new camera but in the past similar limitations were considered critical in other brands. We need people who are honest in mentioning whenever they are not going to be unbiased so the people is aware.
I'm not going to disagree with that. If you feel a reviewer wasn't honest, you shouldn't watch them! But Panasonic didn't tell them what to say so I don't think it's Panasonics fault. Every Sony event has Sony fanboy youtubers that will sing their praises no matter what. If you like them, watch their videos but know they aren't unbiased
I would agree with that...so don't watch a review that's advertising. And if inviting someone to an event is enough to sway them positively then is not inviting someone to an event enough to sway them negatively? I have created a few videos that contained advertisements (none of them camera reviews) but in almost every instance the advertiser had some control over the content or at least previewed it before hand. With event videos, I can say whatever I want, no manufacturer has EVER seen a video or commented on a video. I do think some people making "reviews" aren't reviewers but that's on the content creator not the camera manufacturer
1. From what I’m seeing, Gerald is more of a synthetic tester. I understand it might not reflect real usage, but the tests are designed to put the camera in extreme scenarios. 2. I also thought he was negative then I saw two UA-camrs comparing Fujifilm camera with Sony A6000… and Sony hands down won on that test. It’s a good stills camera, as in your subject must be still. If I had seen only the positive reviews, I would have not come across this issue at all, and would have considered the camera.
The question is Gerald a videographer, cinematographer or photographer? That is the problem with him. Tony Northrup said also the same as you said about the test trips. Look at his video. Robin Wong made a blogspot about Gerald video. He said why this guy hangs out at an event where the manufacturer paid a lot a money is a bit slap in the face of the manufacturer.
Yeah, I see Gerald as a camera tester, but I've never seen him actually take a real photo or create a video other than his test videos. So obviously he wouldn't find anything useful about a press event where we are actually shooting with a camera. The question is why he is so negative when he didn't get invited on a trip when he obviously doesn't appreciate being there
@@learningcameras Yes, yesterday a watch on of my favorite You Tubers Robin Wong. He was former employee and Ambassador of Olympus. He said that this behavior is an insult to the company who paid for all the trip and you don’t do anything and also don’t give them feedback on the camera. So why invite you and make a this expenses with you when you occupy a place for someone who does give feedback at those trips. As Robin Wong said in his blogspot. If you are not invited then you are not important as you think you are. The positive of this discussion is that I found a lot of new You Tubers who covers cameras due to the algorithms who all replied to the video of Gerald. All of them disagreed with them on different points. My point is that the whole discussion is more a way to vent his frustration. Many arguments he made and the tone were contracting each other.
Bravo! You have provided a very valid perspective. I was going to point out that until UA-cam, about the only ways to influence camera design/features was largely through unit sales (or lack there of), manufacturer reps., and on-line camera forums. The S9 makes me wonder how it was ever green-lighted. WTH! Lumix needs to get busy placing PDAF sensors in the higher end models.
@@tedcoats4148 Before and after UA-cam you had magazines as the defunct Popular Photography, were there journalists got trips, not far like now, to review a camera. All products in shops are pushed by manufacturers buying space or giving the shops more commission if you sell their products. Have you ever noticed when entering a consumer electronics shop brands are more exposed and get a better space where others not? Many times the sales person will show you only the products with most margin for them. Not necessary the product that fits you. Samsung does this very much in the television market. On question. Have studied marketing, business science or product development? Most consumer electronics products are made by an interdisciplinary team of experts within a company. There is not anything like greenlichted. The team has found that there is a space in the market for this products.
Agree, it's only an initial test but still valuable IMO. These days with all the firmware updates, any review is outdated unless updated. But a week of solid shooting makes for some great initial hands on impressions valuable for determining if it's worth pre-ordering and more tests can always follow later. But just tests without any hands on is also only a partial review. Although Panasonic gave us a week on the trip to shoot with the camera and then let us take it home for tests for another 2 weeks before launching with the S5II. That was the ideal situation. Nothing will ever be 100% but that gave us the opportunity to be as thorough as possible
Lol ah. I just thought u were trying to be cool with the sticker. Whenever I'm at the mall I always go up to the ppl and tell them they left their sticker on their hat and ask if they want me to take it off for them.
Seriously, just ignore "Gerald Whatever," a tool and a non-artist geek who fluffs his numbers and recites press releases with "tests" that make Captain Obvious "conclusions." Spending your life fighting for attention this way is deeply pathetic.
You go to these events, you’re corrupted. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. There is no “doing it right” except properly disclose it on every video and review of that gear.
Apparently if you don't go to these press events, you can be corrupted as well. You might get negative content from someone who didn't get invited and felt like they should have been as evidenced by Geralds video. I agree with disclosure. But press event videos aren't designed usually to produce full reviews. They are usually initial thoughts with greater depth than the manufacture press release after testing a camera for a few days. I would argue that information is still extremely valuable and way better than reading a press sheet. I watched those videos long before I was ever invited to an event personally. Plus an event might give a chance to test a feature out in the field so for example, we got to test out the A9III autofocus in a sports setting which was great because this camera was geared more towards sports photographers. I'm still not sure how to accurately review an autofocus system on a sports camera doing studio tests and not actually shooting sports events.
@@learningcameras Honestly, I would prefer companies to not give away free stuff to reviewers, including gear, trips, loaners, nothing. I’d be ok finding out later from people who actually buy and use the products. Companies can present the products on their own channels and presentation events. Wouldn’t that be enough ? In fact, the only “reviews” I take seriously are those made by nobodies with 1K subscribers that bought the hear themselves and are actively using it. Everything else to me is advertising, by definition.
@@learningcameras What happened with Chelsea and Tony after they negatively reviewed the first Nikon Z cameras ? Almost all other “reviews” were almost apologetic and preaching patience and forgiveness which is exactly why they were still invited on future events. One reviewer (forgot now exactly who” said “Some people would complain about the single card slot” and “Autofocus is manageable and does the job but not quite as fast as Sony’s” Really ? I can’t even call this sugar coating, it’s just pure bias for a company that pays your expenses. Simple as that. The autofocus was the worst on any mirrorless by a large margin, it was barely working, and the single slot was an insult to any pro photographers. These beginners cameras (not even amateur level) were released by a company who had real professional DSLR’s in the market at that time.
@@d3xmeister again, they rarely ever give us anything except coach plane rides and dinner plus like Gerald said, press trips cost us money so it's a negative
I'm no tax expert, but I'd wonder if there is tax liability for press trips regarding indirect value provided by these companies. Especially if there is an expectation of a video being created as a result. That would be my main concern if these companies were to offer me a trip someday. Just assuming that where the case for the sake of argument, I'd wonder if it would be enough of a tax expense where a loaned piece of gear and setting up my own photoshoot would be as viable financially. I'd think a robust loaner program by these companies would produce a larger variety of content in that case. Like you were saying, I understand that it does provide good situations to use gear you'd normally not have access to. Press trips do often make entertaining videos and I do generally enjoy watching them. 👍
I mean they don't ask us to make videos. Press trips started way before youtube and used to bring newspaper or magazine editors to write a column. When I first started going, there were only about 5 youtubers and most were print magazines or blogs. There might be an unstated expectation of some kind of coverage but there are a few people that don't seem to make content on these trips. Usually it just works out that they are mutually beneficial...I would cover new camera releases in my videos no matter what, even if I didn't have the camera. They just saw me covering their camera and decide to either loan me a camera to test or bring me to a location to test it so I'm still making the content for me. When Apple hosts an event for the next iPhone, tons of UA-camrs will be there to cover it because it's mutually beneficial
I see, thanks for the info. I talked with a friend that works for the government in tax related cases against people. At least his opinion was more in line with what you are saying besides the idea of "barder" or tax considerations being on the company's side (marketing deductions). 👍
In a world where children are suffering everyday from war and famine, whether or not a UA-camr gets to go on a trip to Japan to check out the latest camera is not something I could care less about. I think the world of UA-camrs need to appreciate the opportunities they have and not rely on large camera companies to wine and dine them. If you talk trash about a product I made, I probably wouldn't want to invite you to a trip where I foot the airfare and hotel costs. Gerald just sounds entitled and like a child whining they didn't get to hang out with the cool kids because they told them they sucked and now they don't want to hang out with him.
Robin Wong said the same. Gerald sits and walk around but does do nothing but his expenses is paid. Why you will invite him again? He doesn’t give you any feedback. Waste of money.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t even watch those stupid boondoggle videos. What do you think you are going to get from them? “Oh, hey! Sony invited me here to the beach and we just had a bunch of cocktails and this camera is great!” These types of videos provide no value to me, so I don’t watch them
I already known this much that if you bad mouth certain companies, they will black list you because they only want POSITIVE feedbacks. One thing I love about Sony is that they stand by their products and will take good and bad feedbacks to improve themselves. Their Alpha series is a great example of listening to their fans and using these feedbacks to improve their cameras thus why they are #1 right now in the Mirrorless tech. Sony a7ii to a7iii is a HUGE leap forward and they invited a lot of photographers because they stand by the a9, a7Riii and a7iii that much. When a company black list you, then feel free to blast them and say whatever you want. Gerald is right in one way or another.
He wasn't actually blacklisted though...they didn't invite him because like he said, he doesn't use the cameras. I'm not sure why he's mad at them! Why would he spend a week traveling around the world to not actually shoot with the camera. And no, if when you get blacklisted you blast a company, you're biased in the negative. Sure me might not praise a company for giving him a camera but you don't want to chew them out when they don't
@@learningcameras You both are not wrong. I watch Gerald's videos for the specs and technical side of lenses and cameras. I'll watch you and other for real world test of the lenses and cameras. But it is true though that if a company stands by their camera, then they need to allow photographers and videographers say whatever they want about the cameras they've tested. So companies need to not be bias and actually allow as many people test their products so that there will be no bias. And do not worry about fans. You can never please them and they will always complain about every little thing from rival companies. I get heated arguments with Canon fanboys all the times especially ones that have come after the a7iii era. I usually tell them to show me their work and most of the times, a bunch of them won't and will just go silent. Say what you need to say Dan and who cares what the fanboys says. They will always troll and talk BS rather than just discuss and listen.
Press trips are all about promoting a product. It's about creating a buzz. It's a form of advertising. Why spend money on someone who isn't going to puff the goods?
I'm sure any manufacturer loves rave reviews but in every industry, unbiased press is essential and most manufactures understand that across industries and will invite product reviewers or press no matter what they say...as long as it's fair. What we have seen in the past 5 years is a new group of youtubers who are not press, they are not unbiased, they are users of a brand and are also getting invited on these trips. Press trips used to be small...about 10-12 press outlets most of which were print/web based and a few youtubers when I started doing this. You might have 1-2 ambassadors but everyone else was unaffiliated with the brand. These days you will find far less of that original 10 and way more youtubers/ig influencers. Personally I know several that make great content but should never call one of their videos a "review" because it's far from it and they honestly don't even want to make reviews. In my opinion, what changed is that youtubers started seeing camera reviews getting views 5+ years ago and so EVERYONE started creating camera reviews...no matter how biased they were, no matter what brand they were affiliated with, and no matter how much they actually hated making "reviews" lol. This saturated the market with lots of reviews that are not actually reviews. I don't blame the manufactures for this though...this is on individual creators. I just don't see anyone crying foul when Apple invites hundreds of people to it's campus, half of which have the letter "i" in their IG handles so obviously are not unbiased. I
And yet he knows more about the camera you would…I wouldn’t say he’s a reviewer but my god down playing what he does for the community is absolutely crazy to me
Gerald and his review style is absolutely relevant. Nothing at all wrong with “scientific tests”. The smart consumer will take as much information in as possible before buying a camera or lens (or anything).
The point is see the thumbnails and the over-exaggerated titles to described this garbage S9 camera, like "changed me, game changer, changed the way I think" while it is a regressive camera that shouldn't exist at that price range or at all. Gerald Undone was 100% spot on.
That's on the creator though. It's up to the person covering the camera to do so honestly and if they don't, feel free to stop watching! When Apple does an event, they have 100s of youtubers that are massive fanboys who would buy it even if it sucked and no one cares. If anything, Apple events are 10x more biased in coverage. Sony invites a few fanboys too usually but if you see a review that is over exaggerated, blame the creator of that content more than the camera or manufacturers
@@learningcameras Fair points, and that's what we're doing: blaming those creators. Same and worse goes to Apple Macs when they avoid showing H.265 editing/rendering with all the effects etc. Had to go to very small channels who actually bought their macs and used them in their actual workflow. iPhonedo (Farook) is the best apple reviewer AFAIK.
Do YOU agree?? In order to be unbiased, it's just as important that we don't say something negative when we don't get access to a camera as it is to not give a glowing review because we did. It HAS to work both ways. I don't get sent every camera or invited on every trip and it's crucial for me to not be negative towards a camera or brand just because I didn't get it before launch. And that's MORE important than failing to highlight a flaw. Bias works both ways but if you fail to highlight something that could potentially be negative, you're just a bad unbiased reviewer but intentionally saying something negative because you got personal is wrong.
I know tons of Sony fans who give glowing videos of ever Sony camera they touch. That's not wrong, it's just biased but being biased is ok. Most of us don't care how good a Samsung smartphone is because we are biased towards Apple and that's ok, but you probably shouldn't do iPhone reviews lol. But to openly criticize and trash a brand because you didn't get early access is absolutely wrong
100% Dan. Can’t agree more with you on this.
Love Gerald but this puts a ding on the love. Stay in your lane and keep being a lab nerd. Love that part too.
But to mix in S9 and Pana because you weren’t invited seems salty.
It would have been better to address the issue in general which applies to all camera OEMs, not just S9 and Pana.
Pana was addressing a different consumer with this S9 launch and Gerald wasn’t one they felt would talk about it as he gravitates towards high end reviews. They paid for the event so they have every right to invite who they want and who they don’t want to invite.
These cameras OEMs do what they need to sell their products and give you opportunities to build your reputation and brand so remember that when you ascend up. Not bite them back and criticize them now that you have food on the table and full. Appreciate it and be clear to share that you’ve evolved and want to share your differences in a productive way but it only one’s person view. If you don’t do that, expect unintended consequences to result from lack of clarify in your point of vire
Anyhow everyone should come out better as everyone will learn what works and doesn’t work.from this situation.
Your video has me wanting to double subscribe but there’s no button to do so.
Keep hungry, keep being humble and don’t lose your way what got you there. Keep delivering high quality content!
You’re simply wrong. You can and yes you should say something negative about a dishonest/unfair practice. I think what you’re trying to say is that you shouldn’t write a negative review about a product solely because you didn’t get invited to an event, to which I agree.
@@nomad0714 Appreciate that! I tend to agree. Obviously that doesn't mean that all S9 reviews were honest, but that's on the creator and not the manufacturer in every case I've encountered
Dan Dan damn dan this maybe the best take on all the ridiculous drama.
Very insightful video. I appreciate you adding extra context to the situation. This is probably the most sensible video I've seen so far on the topic.
Great points. I think the issue with a few viewers is "how can you make a balanced video while the brand pays for the press trip?" But like you said, It's more work than it is a vacation. And I would say 99.9% of us are genuinely trying to do the best coverage we can in that short period of time. Brand covering costs of travel, food, hotel + setup shooting experiences is just the cost of marketing. We don't get paid. It usually costs us money to go to these things which has always been a misconception. AND! This is how it is in every industry. I think most people understand this but this drama got so out of hand over the S9. I will blame how it was marketed and who it's for as the actual issue here.
You made the most respectful pushback I have seen yet. Great well thought out video. Btw, I'm a Gerald Undone fan like most of us.
Yeah, I used to be a reporter, and I had a press trip with all expenses paid by British Airways to London, and another trip with all expenses paid by an aerospace manufacturer to the Caribbean. I’m pretty much felt used. Nothing should interfere with your honest fair opinion because that’s what your readers and your viewers want. It was like I was on the take. My employers expected I would not offend the companies. That’s not a position a responsible journalist wants to be in.
There definitely has to be a reason for the press trip...if it's just to wine and dine, that's not legit. If it's to test something in a way that would otherwise be impossible, that's legit. I've been on both kinds but MOST camera events are focused around actually testing and shooting
two different things you were working for somebody else, and you have to follow their guidelines, us youtubers work for us so we make our own choices, you can be honest, fair and give positive and negative feedback without fear of being put on the blacklist, if a company do, another will be happy to bring you in.
@@AliexFolgueira, Amen to that!
I call it work mask vs personal mask. At work, you need to do work that the firm wants and you may disagree with it but once the decision has been made, you need to follow as it’s not yours to change and you didn’t pay for it. You can still disagree for sure, but not be defiant unless getting fired is your thing. But at home or away from work, you can be your true self. That’s why some are entrepreneurs because they want to be them and decide what they want.
These are not journalists.
This was such a thoughtful response, Dan! As a consumer (and camera gear review lover haha), I appreciate sharing your perspective on this!
Thanks so much!
This was a very informative video. I’m not trying to take any sides, I just want to learn. 👍🏻 Keep up the good work!
Appreciate that!! Definitely no need to take sides, just different perspectives based on the types of videos we make or don't make at events
... it seems like ANY segment that involves new product releases will have drama-filled launches from here on out. Since the UA-cam influencers have become unofficial marketing members for these corporations, this relationship should be acknowledged at the start of their videos...
There was as much hype about the Lumix S9 as there was when we finally got the Global Shutter, so it's hard to take these press tours seriously, and that's only possible because there are a lot of UA-camrs who don't dare to be honest, and I wonder why 😂
No shade, but maybe Gerald is choosing to only hang out at press events rather than use the cameras for their intended purposes to hide the fact that he doesn't actually have any videography or photography skills. I can see him being insecure about his lack of skills rather than not wanting to provide the camera brand with a video influenced by an expensive trip they paid for. SERIOUS POSSIBILITY 🤷🏿♂️🤷🏿♂️
... I would counter that statement by saying maybe Gerald does not do it because there are already so many influencers doing the exact same thing... pushing out the same cookie-cutter content! Gerald Undone may be choosing a different approach by providing useful information others are not covering or do not even know about...
He definitely has the technical skills, maybe not the creative skills but he could just make a technical video on the trip
Hello Dan,
Your video seems quite confusing and is filled with contradictions. Firstly, it appears you might not have watched Gerald’s video in its entirety. He clearly explained that he wasn’t invited because Lumix contacted him about it. Additionally, you didn’t mention the Sony setup at the Olympics, which involved extremely expensive lights with six stops over-this is crucial context you’re missing.
By omitting these details, you’re spreading misinformation. It’s important to cover all relevant points before discussing Sony and Panasonic. Furthermore, it’s evident that you weren’t invited because of your consistent negative remarks about Lumix, particularly their autofocus. You frequently favor Sony in your discussions, which is likely why Lumix chose not to invite you.
So I did watch his video 3 times...I believe he wasn't invited to the S5II and they called him for the S9 and said he wasn't invited because he wouldn't like it. They didn't tell me why I wasn't invited but I didn't bash them.
Also, I was obviously at the A9III event and only 1 area had lights... The volleyball and basketball areas were not lit. They only had lights in 1 out of the 3 areas with sports going on so that's not fully correct. But I don't see how them bringing lights is an issue. They mostly had strobes with monolights only and that was because the global shutter allowed higher sync speeds so seems normal they wanted to show that off. My images were not using the strobes if that makes you feel better but if someone gave the impression everything was lit, that was incorrect.
I actually dissed Panasonics autofocus way more before the S5II which was the first good one and they invited me. But even if they didn't, it would be wrong for me to Turn around and trash them based on a hunch. Also, you're not an unbiased reviewer if you turn around and bash a company when you don't get sent a product or invited to an event...it goes both ways. Maybe he doesn't praise a company for inviting him to a trip but he absolutely bashed a company for not which is biased...just negatively biased
@@learningcamerasif that’s the case then why zero clips from the unlit areas. Do you see the disconnect?
@@timgangloff It definitely wasn't Sony telling us what to do...outside of the shooting events we had full access to the cameras for 3 days so we could shoot nightscapes and anything else we wanted...it's not like we could ONLY shoot inside the event and ONLY shoot boxing or whatever was lit. We all just shot whatever sports we wanted to shoot that worked with our content...we were given the camera and sent to shoot whatever we wanted. I have video of the unlit volleyball area personally but didn't include most of it in my content because I decided to pick a character to shoot so I grabbed the boxer and did some solo shoots with him
He's unsubbed by a lot of creators now because he needs a Waaaambulence
Lol
Great video Dan! Appreciate you keeping it honest instead of spreading BS because you didn’t get invited, much respect to you.
Thank you for acknowledging the value that these opportunities that we're very fortunate to have.
It stinks of privilege and narcissism to throw the whole practise and everyone who engages in it under the bus. If you think it costs us by attending these trips, imagine how much more it would cost us in terms of time and money to try and arrange an equivalent set of shooting opportunities in order to make our content.
Gerald flat out lied about his experiences with Panasonic (Watch the pod he did with Brandon Washington for the truth, straight out of his own mouth) and it's put me off his content entirely because he clearly has a bias towards Sony and against Panasonic. He said so himself in the video you're responding to (without shame).
As for your final point, none of us have any right to be invited anywhere. PR people will invite who comes to mind and who they think is going to make the most of the opportunity. As reviewers, it's our job to be professionals and to be objective. If brands attempt to control what we say or punish us for sharing a professional opinion that they don't like, then we call them out on it WITH RECEIPTS, not bogus assumptions.
That's how to ensure some level of accountability and transparency.
Also, you've got a new sub. Love your balanced point of view. Bodes well for how you'll speak about gear.
Videos like this , is why I always trust your reviews and your point of view on camera gear! Thumbs up !
Means a lot!!
I stopped watching the Northrups a few years back after they went to NYC for a Sony event, and the sport that was shot was hockey.
I made an observation in a comment about a camera with overheating issues was tested out in a cold environment. Back and forth comments providing thoughts about the issues were made and instead of acknowledging my concern, they got indignant and I think that they blocked me.
So that's what needs to change. I think the fact that they were using the A9 in a real life hockey game is a good thing, but we can't be afraid to talk about overheating. But I've done plenty of overheating videos that didn't go well for Sony and I've still been invited back
People forget that bias goes both ways, positive or negative, thanks for bringing it up.
Absolutely. As a watcher of Gerald personally, , I now feel he's biased against Panasonic and maybe Fuji and I never would have thought that before
@@learningcameras He made that entire video because he was angry about not being invited. Trust me, I've gotten mad too when I see brands I've reviewed before-and my reviews sold units for them-sending other UA-camrs samples or review units and not me. I wanted to speak out and call them out, but why? Why do that? What's the point? It's not going to help me. If anything, it's going to make sure I don't get anything from them in the future.
Calling out a company’s practice that is intentionally designed to influence and encourage positive reviews and limit negative reviews as opposed to more honest reviews about the product they’re selling has no merit?
@Arthur-le8ec honest???? That video from Gerald was awful, and I may argue dishonest because he clearly was mad at them for not inviting him, instead of listening to the reasons why, which are valid, he would not like the camera it isnt for him, he choose to make a rant video. He should have just let it go.
@@Arthur-le8ec What practice??? Do you think camera manufactures created press events? Trust me, they exist in almost every industry and long before Panasonics latest cameras. Panasonic has probably had the fewest press events of any camera manufacturer. Sony would probably be the taker of most press events especially before covid. If Apple invites mostly Apple users and even Apple fanboys to the latest iPhone release is that wrong? Obviously they do...half of the channels that cover those literally have an "i" in the title of the channel haha. Because the Invite is to Japan (which is Panasonic headquarters), does that somehow limit negative reviews? And to bigger channels, a trip to Japan is a negative because these events are unpaid so having a longer trip with more travel time means less time to put in to other content, sponsorships, and other work
Giving critique is not wrong, but how you give it and the tone you use is important.
As someone that likes to take gear on paid client jobs before I do a review, I agree with you.
Real world tests are important. If a UA-camr is spewing specs without their opinion that has real world substance, what’s the point.
A good technical analysis is always appreciated, but this is the reality. Consumers wanting to buy a new product watch almost every video on UA-cam before making a purchase. Every UA-camr is unique.
UA-camrs need to embrace their own style and way.
I totally agree with what you said: If Gerald says about himself that he would not have used the Osaka event to test the S9 - and he is known for that too... Then why would Panasonic (or any other company) invite him? It's basically 10+ tonnes of wasted CO2 and a several thousand USD a company could spend elsewhere.
BTW: If you ever ask yourself why you were not invited - just ask your PR/Marketing/Company contact. 99 % of the times it is a simple as "we were only allowed to invite x people from our region" or "we think the product is made for x and your audience is primarily into y" etc.
Dan, so simple
1. You are advertisers for large corporations
2. It’s a mutual benefit for you and them
3. Anyone watching your videos or any reviews should know this
4. I will still watch your videos
Haha... Well said
@@learningcameras love your videos no matter what your bias is! Keep it up stud
Well said. It’s ok to acknowledge this and still enjoy all our favorite camera reviewer youtubers. Just understand the possible biases when you make purchase decisions.
People want to be spoon fed info, and refuse to think for themselves. Then they’re upset when they find out things aren’t as they seem.
I genuinely think the trips makes sense, “ especially when down right “ as you said, I think the issues come from actually seeing certain cameras fall short but the reviews don’t feel so genuine to what’s wrong, another thing is I love Gerald’s content and would love to see him doing more real tests as how I’d see how others like you use the camera
What certifications does Gerald have that qualifies him to do Real Tests.
First good answer to Gerald's video ... the rest I've seen are just emotional takes.
i picked that video of Gerald apart, he gave really bad advice in that video, very bad, specially if you are just starting your youtube career or like you said you don't take stuff too seriously you just want to bring your audience in with you.
Yeah...I think he also assumed the only reason people watch videos is for the review/tests/limitations portion. Like I said, I watched a bunch of PORSCHE 911 videos this week and I sure as hell can't afford to buy one lol. I just wanted to see my favorite youtubers give me their thoughts and impressions. I purchased a Fujifilm X100vi personally... and couldn't care less how fast it overheats because I just use it for family memories. Maybe I'll do a review on it but I bought that for fun and even as a camera reviewer, I don't care how many stops of DR I can push from the sensor so I still find value in watching event videos even if it's not the ideal test bed
@@learningcameras totally agreed! I watched your sony heating video back in the day, I didn't care if it overheats, like at most I'm only filming like 30 mins continuously, I still bought the camera, still have it, no need to upgrade since this is plenty for me, like i dont care about s log or whatever feature. I just want to press record, be in focus and look "nicer" lol
Fantastic points and a very good take on the subject! Good stuff.
Gerald Undone literally belittled the intelligence of those that went to the Panasonic event while attempting to raise the supposed level of his own intelligence. That alone makes him unworthy of watching any of his Videos for me. What gives him the Blanking Right to think he is somehow morally better then anyone else. He isn't any better. So those that want to Praise Gerald might need to rethink things more than just a little bit. He behaves as if Folks are not capable of thinking for themselves just because they are invited to a given event. Nor have the intelligence to form a initial Review. But sure, some folks want to Praise him. I mean really.
I feel bad for the people that went on that trip and made genuinely good videos on the S9 only to have this happen
It’s not complicated at all. You should disclose if the company paid for your expenses or anything for a trip and product launch/presentation. If you don’t, you try to hide it. Simple as that. I don’t care how you “feel” about it
When you’re involved in these trips, you ARE biased because of this. You’re corrupted. There’s no way around it. OK, do it, no problem, but disclose it.
What happened to Tony and Chelsea, huge photo UA-camrs with milion of followers, after they criticized the first Nikon Z cameras ? Nikon stopped inviting them, or sending them cameras. Geez, I wonder why most other UA-camrs didn’t get blacklisted. Oh wait, is because they tried so hard to ignore the obvious flaws that plagued those cameras, and they were rewarded for that.
Don't worry about the camera nerds/brand loyalists. You've always been very fair, positive vibe/attitude in general and make good points. If any goofballs want to complain (viewers), oh well. That's just how the internet works. You have to learn to ignore the people that will always be negative. I wish people would take that old advice: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" Really. Why do people whine and bash strangers they don't know on the internet. They wouldn't do that to your face, you know...
Great input on this issue. I agree with you on this.
I worked as editor in chief for a PC magazine back in the 90s and we had those press trips as well. For me as a camera buyer it is a two step process. The initial release will give me info that a new camera is on the market and its main points. That will already tell me if it might be something for me or not. If the initial video also includes some hands on testing in a good environment that aligns with the cameras purpose of use, it is even better. I will still not buy it just because of this info. For me to purchase a camera, I will also look up more "scientific" tests as well like DPR, Gerald Undone, DXOmark, PhotonsToPhotos and others. A new camera is after all an investment which costs a lot of money and one has to get it right.
I think what you as a UA-camr needs to do is to decide if you focus on only the initial release or on a later more scientific test with a production product. And if you do a more scientific test, use a standardized testing method so one can learn how you do your tests.
You can as a UA-camr off course also do both types of videos.
Well said. There is definitely value to both
Yours must be "the best" (i.e. my favourite) video on the subject so far. Like the part (23:42) where you say "I can't factually make that statement". That's one of my biggest gripes with Gerald's rant. He made some serious accusations but didn't back them up in any way - the most obvious one was that all of this is based on the word "strange".
Now I don't think it's easy to maintain objectivity at release events. Most people enjoy it I reckon and thus naturally don't want to sour the relationship unless they "have to" - what that means is very subjective. For some it means being as positive as possible, for others maybe not mention some minor inconvenience they found in the camera. Some people might mention everything but sugarcoat it if they can. Then there are different types of reviewers - independent professional reviewers, (mostly) affiliated users, and camera stores and it looks like some people aren't able to manage expectations accordingly, or even make the distinction.
On the note of transparency - this is a very difficult one. It's hard to be transparent about a secret event. All of these companies are large corporations and their go-to attitude to PR is basically a chocolate factory. Secrecy as much as possible, tinned PR statements, never admit to anything, spin everything that the public can't verify (like sales data) as positive. I am obviously biased, but I think Panasonic is one of the better ones with Lumix Live at least. Although that's mostly towards the general public. I really can't think of anything to make specifically the business around these release events more transparent, honestly. For example the several years guarantee invitation you suggest sounds very risky, especially in the eyes of a corporation like that I suspect.
Whist I'm always for more transparency from , I don't actually think we really need it - not about release events anyway. Reviewers could always do more disclaimers. Maybe those videos shouldn't even be called reviews. But I think most people understand what these videos are. Or at least that's what I thought, now I'm not so sure haha
I've been there seen it and done it. These events are basically press and media events print, web and you tubers. If your a professional commercial photographer such as myself then you don't need the money and don't need to suck up to the camera makers. Your job is to be transparent that's why we watch you guys. Any review I do I own the gear so I own it all. Leica, Hassy, Nikon Fujifilm but no Canon or Sony as they are not part of my tools. If you own you can say where ever you want dude you paid for it. But if you suck up to these guys your viewers are going to smell a rat very fast .
I like to see reviewers feedback after the press trip. It's benefit to both brand to get feedback right away, and to reviewer to properly test the equipment and raise concerns/questions to engineer when it occurs.
For someone who doesn't want to go, let him review on his sofa. I am not interested because I never used my camera on my sofa anyway.
And brand has right to choose who to invite. Similarly, reviewer had right to choose which trip to go.
I think you did a good job of currying favor with major manufacturers, and spinning Gerald’s comments in a critical way, but you didn’t move the needle for me that he was wrong.
Also, you weren’t fully candid in describing your Canon criticism, even though you misstated your comment on the heels of playing the clip. Why? The hyperbole wasn’t even needed to land your point.
I do think that part of staying neutral and unbiased is also not getting personal or hurt when you don't get products or sent on trips. There are plenty of cameras I wasn't sent and trips I wasn't invited on like the S9 trip, but as a reviewer I can't let trips influence what I say whether I get to go or whether I don't. My only other point is there is a lot of value to a well done press trip when you use it correctly.
Not sure what the issue was exactly with the Canon criticism ...I'm just working on that video so I had that top of mind and obviously had no issue calling out the downsides along with the good. But I was also very harsh on the Canon R5 overheating timers (had a few videos on that). But the point is that I think most manufacturers allow us to point out weaknesses and don't punish us. I think the reason Gerald wasn't invited to Japan had absolutely nothing to do with a bad review and I personally didn't think that was a justifiable claim at all given there are plenty of other good reasons he wouldn't be invited that have nothing to do with a review title
Press trips lol
Marketing trips is more accurate.
It would be marketing without the press trip. Gerald is still perfectly fine having them send him pre release cameras...it's not like we wouldn't make videos. When covid shut down press trips, manufacturers still had the same content, it's only the shooting opportunities that changed
Boom, subscribed! Good words.
Also, why is the lower left accent light tilted? 😉
Thank you for lending your voice and perspective, I think it’s super valuable to chime in on things as we’re all part of the community.
As someone who caught my fair share of harassment, I’d say it’s disappointing to see large creators make things like brand deals and press trips bad , when we spent years watching them do the same thing. I wouldn’t know half these cameras existed if I didn’t see a Gerald video on launch day, so it was jarring to see to be honest.
Wanting to be first to post on a camera is learned behaviour from the very people saying it’s not worth it, so it feels like someone pissing in the pool on the way out.
I have no qualms with more transparency in disclosures, as it helps the audience feel like they’re getting an informed decision, but sometimes the critique isn’t treated with the same scrutiny, accuracy, and sometimes honesty as the criticism which again isn’t a good feeling.
I think the worst part is feeling like I have to lie about this trip, and pretend I didn’t enjoy it, or the S9, which is an ironic version of authenticity as it’s not pretending to hate a camera you actually like 😅
One thing NO ONE might have mentioned is a lot of smaller creators were on this trip, and we all know that mental health is a very important issue for some people , I know no one who made these kinds of videos meant to filter the hateful end of the audience towards these folks, but I wouldn’t be surprised if either some of these guys never make an S9 video again (which actually sucks for people who buy this thing and need more info) or worse, quit entirely because making videos impacts their mental health. I got a really sad dm on Instagram and didn’t even think that was a possibility
At any rate, these trips give people a chance to feel seen, test cameras in environments they might not have at home, ask questions and make friends, lumix didn’t ask us to make a launch day video, we all chose to, and as long as it’s disclosed how we got there, and we do our best to give value, and balance, that’s all we can do
Also great videos, stumbled across this on my feed today 🙏🏾
Great points man! It really sucks for people like you who went hands on with the S9 and gave a super honest unbiased video and are now being made to feel less legit. I watched your review and you did everything right, were super open about everything, gave great feedback, and showed the value of these trips since you were able to provide your feedback directly to Panasonic and get to test out the camera in ways that otherwise would have been difficult especially for smaller channels. Like you said, the issue is now that you have to almost try to hate on a camera, even if you enjoy it, which is not authentic. The good side to Geralds video is we will be more aware of what we say and how we say it but the bad irony is future videos will likely be LESS honest and fair because now he created a massive fear of being seen as unauthentic simply for enjoying a camera...and that didn't exist before. And from that mental health perspective you mentioned, it's way harder emotionally when this pressure is coming from fellow peers and from DM's & comments
You guys should be paid because you are saving Sony and others millions of dollars in advertising if they had to advertise on television.
Your bills don't stop while you are on press trips, your time, patience and ability needs to be compensated.
Doing a review just to do a review won't pay a house or car note. Even if Sony gave you a camera, it isn't compensation enough.
Camera brands should make you sign NDA because its there intellectual property. This issue is huge in the Audiophile word.
Unfortunately there isn't a way to do a paid review. Anything titled review on my channel can't be paid...there is way too much room for bias
They never give us the cameras either...sometimes we'll get extended loaners but almost never anything more than that. Usually we give back the cameras after the event which sucks because I'd love to do more tests back home
They are essentially being paid if they don't pay for the gear out of pocket nor the Trip. Don't underestimate the True value of getting early access. Gerald isn't going to Buy nor Rent most of the Gear he wants to use, and just ask the Fro, he owns multiple Properties due to being granted early access and what that had done to build his Channel and Business. Meanwhile the overall Camera Industry has literally Collapsed over the last decade. So just maybe, the companies should ask for their MONEY back. Because essentially they are already getting paid.
That’s fine, but disclose it as paid reviews/presentation, because that is exactly what they are.
Thanks a lot for the detailed arguments, very solid
I enjoyed the video and I thought you offered some good counterpoints to Gerald's video. Couple of issues. If you are there at a Sony even to "work", as you said, then you should be getting paid. Otherwise, you're being used to promote their product and from the tone of your video, a cheap promoter willing to pay out of pocket which further erodes one's credibility. Let Sony fully pay your way or don't go. I think that's what Gerald was getting out. Don't be a cheap schill. I'm a Sony shooter (a1's and a7r5) but I think it's disingenuous to state that the staged Sony sports shoots (8:40 in your video for example) mimic the real world of sports shooters. Every Sony promotional video I've seen has sports venues with more light than you'd ever find in the real world. A boxing ring next to a full wall of windows...yeah right. It's not pushing the camera, but rather setting it up for success. Let's see Sony take you to a high school football game with poor lighting and test the high ISO performance. Or a boxing ring in a dimly lit gym. I've never seen a review point that out. That hey, the camera worked great, but Sony pumped in a bunch of light to help it out and I have no idea of what it can do in the dark sports environment.
So I agree with you but once there is an exchange of money, it becomes difficult to stay unbiased because you might NEED these press trips to keep going. When they cost you time and a little money, it becomes just as easy for you to turn them down.
So yes, at the A9III event there were some lights, but they also had unlit basketball going on and unlit volleyball with crap gym lighting and Sony has taken us to plenty of sporting events without lighting. So I'm sure they want our images to look good but they provided plenty of opportunities for bad gym lighting to push iso and test flicker. In my A9III opening sequence, I shot with the lights behind my subject so my key light was still poor gym lights
The question is Gerald a videographer, cinematographer or photographer? That is the problem with him.
Tony Northrup said also the same as you said about the test trips. Look at his video.
Robin Wong made a blogspot about Gerald video. He said why this guy hangs out at an event where the manufacturer paid a lot a money is a bit slap in the face of the manufacturer.
Gerald made business personal. I don't think that was a good look overall, but he did make a few good points. But hey, he's human, so whatever. I'm still a fan of his videos...and still a fan of Panasonic Lumix. Great breakdown from your perspective Dan.
I tend to agree. That video made him feel biased, especially against Panasonic and towards Sony and I always viewed him as very unbiased. But he still does some of the best testing and numbers don't lie so he has that going for him
Very interesting comments and good to have more information about press trips. I have been watching Gerald Undone for years and I’m a fan. Gerald is an important source of information but is only one source I use when reviewing videos about new cameras or gear. I usually watch between ten to twenty reviews on a specific camera, lenses and accessories before I make my decision to buy. I want all the technical information, the tips and tricks and real field tests by the photographers I follow. There is no one reviewer that can provide all the information in one review. What I am concerned about is companies like Sony selling expensive cameras that ignore the latest technology and providing monitor screens that are useless in sunlight. I had commented about this the other day and sorted it out. I subscribed to your channel today because I am of the view that you can provide an honest review.
You know what's crazzy I thought you were a billionaire for real wow I feel messed up. Fantastic video you opened my eyes.
Why not make a 90 mins full featured movie on this topic?
Why at all get undone?
As a private company, Sony, Panasonic, Canon or whoever, can invite whomever they want. Don’t overthink it. Good points otherwise.
Dan, I really love what you do. We the average consumer do not have a direct contact with manufacturers except through a purchase. Your contact with these companies is how we learn what decision they will make on release of new gear, and what the will remove from existing gear thinking the consumer will not notice in order to profit from old technologies. Thank you again for being a conduit for us to them .
23:04 actually, that’s not what happened. 11:52 on Gerald video
... I picked that up, too, and was about to respond...
The fact that Gerald goes to these trips is the biggest hypocrisy of all. It’s like America’s Test Kitchen goes out to a trip with Michelin starred, professional and amateur chefs to showcase what a newest non-stick pan can do. And when he doesn’t get called, he suddenly starts virtue signaling while tainting other chef’s dishes. Camera is mostly science but photography is mostly art. The fact that he indirectly critiques a camera without ever touching it is unethical in itself. Does he disclose how many equipments he gets to unofficially keep? If camera companies release only one camera a year, photography might actually benefit, consumerism will go down, but his channel will be the first one to suffer because he is dependent on it the most. The rest of the UA-camrs will do fine because they are not dependent on the camera companies like Gerald. He said the timing of releasing review videos on the dot right after embargo is not important, but he sure chose a good time to release his video. He could have done it a month ago, a year ago, or 5 years ago. The problem was always there, but why now?
And will he critique Sony or someone like Peter McKinnon? Will he stop going to these kind of trips? Will he start buying the products he is reviewing?
Awesome points! I definitely wonder how you "review" a camera without even using it on a real shoot and the timing definitely seems like revenge for Panasonic not giving him a camera
Out of all of this drama, I feel like you had the best response, too me. You stated that you didn't get invite and you didn't take it personally. You tests the cameras in the real world. where they will mostly be used when invited. Your take has a positive spin . Thank you.
Means a lot. Absolutely, I feel like in order to be unbiased, it's just as important that we don't take it personally when we don't get invited as it is to not make it influence our content when we do get invited. He stated his video was about staying unbiased, and yet he came off as extremely biased against certain brands for not getting invited. It HAS to work both ways. I don't get sent every camera or invited on every trip and it's crucial for me to not be negative towards a camera or brand just because I didn't get it before launch
I think these press trips should cover your other expenses. I can see why some people might not care because its a free trip some place. I know you still are working but if if someone is having fun then I guess that's good enough for them.
But I think they should give you guys even pocket money to go out and doing things buy food and other things.
These companies are in the game for themselves.
So we don't get pocket money but they do cover travel...again, there was a trip I was literally so broke on I could barely even attend because I needed $400 to cover airport parking, bag fees, initial food, and the hotel deposits. The Panasonic event, we had to cover most meals and getting around Japan from our own pockets.
But other than meals, manufacturers have never taken us on activities that weren't directly related to shoots so some shoots might be more fun than others lol, but we're never having fun and not also working
There's definitely a symbiotic relationship with companies and reviewers that the audience need to understand. For me, as someone who consumes these review videos, UA-camrs need to be honest about the products they are reviewing/previewing. I think theres'a a way to do that that and still be respectful to the companies. At the end of the day, all UA-camrs started out small that gave them the freedom to to be honest, and that's how their channels grew. I don't know if I would keep watching a channel if they weren't honest about the products...I might as watch an infomercial at that point.
Agreed. I think it's going to be harder these days to find honest reviews. When there were only a few of us, manufacturers needed us even if we said something bad. These days it's super easy to find some Sony fan with 100k Subs that will say whatever Sony wants. I know a few personally. It's actually better when manufacturers stick to the same core group of reviewers when you want honest opinions because we are reasonably sure that our thoughts don't influence our ability to test
Now Canon came up with a one day event and YTers scrambled to preview two cameras. In one day. Good luck.
seriously!! It was tough, not going to lie. Had to shoot sunrise to midnight to even come close to getting enough content (some youtubers didn't so I'm not sure how they accomplished anything) but I think I pulled it off pretty well: ua-cam.com/video/pwa_W9oGSIA/v-deo.html
Some people were unhappy about this specific event for how some reviewers minimize real flaws of the new camera but in the past similar limitations were considered critical in other brands. We need people who are honest in mentioning whenever they are not going to be unbiased so the people is aware.
I'm not going to disagree with that. If you feel a reviewer wasn't honest, you shouldn't watch them! But Panasonic didn't tell them what to say so I don't think it's Panasonics fault. Every Sony event has Sony fanboy youtubers that will sing their praises no matter what. If you like them, watch their videos but know they aren't unbiased
@@learningcameras ohhhh wait a mo.....Panasonic MUST have known right from the off, that the S9 was a crap camera!
Bro just saw like the first 6 minutes and already have a bunch of issues with your cideo
Like?
If reviews are advertising, they are not serving the consumer.
I would agree with that...so don't watch a review that's advertising. And if inviting someone to an event is enough to sway them positively then is not inviting someone to an event enough to sway them negatively? I have created a few videos that contained advertisements (none of them camera reviews) but in almost every instance the advertiser had some control over the content or at least previewed it before hand. With event videos, I can say whatever I want, no manufacturer has EVER seen a video or commented on a video. I do think some people making "reviews" aren't reviewers but that's on the content creator not the camera manufacturer
1. From what I’m seeing, Gerald is more of a synthetic tester. I understand it might not reflect real usage, but the tests are designed to put the camera in extreme scenarios.
2. I also thought he was negative then I saw two UA-camrs comparing Fujifilm camera with Sony A6000… and Sony hands down won on that test. It’s a good stills camera, as in your subject must be still. If I had seen only the positive reviews, I would have not come across this issue at all, and would have considered the camera.
some good points... Maybe they didn't invite you over your GH6 video? but who knows?
he was my classmate during college days
Nobody ever invites me to these new camera releases. Nobody invites me to anything
Hahahaha
He was just crying about it because the camera was not for him
Thank you for a balanced point of view.
Geralds video was spot on and needed. Much respect to him.
The question is Gerald a videographer, cinematographer or photographer? That is the problem with him.
Tony Northrup said also the same as you said about the test trips. Look at his video.
Robin Wong made a blogspot about Gerald video. He said why this guy hangs out at an event where the manufacturer paid a lot a money is a bit slap in the face of the manufacturer.
Yeah, I see Gerald as a camera tester, but I've never seen him actually take a real photo or create a video other than his test videos. So obviously he wouldn't find anything useful about a press event where we are actually shooting with a camera. The question is why he is so negative when he didn't get invited on a trip when he obviously doesn't appreciate being there
@@learningcameras Yes, yesterday a watch on of my favorite You Tubers Robin Wong. He was former employee and Ambassador of Olympus. He said that this behavior is an insult to the company who paid for all the trip and you don’t do anything and also don’t give them feedback on the camera. So why invite you and make a this expenses with you when you occupy a place for someone who does give feedback at those trips.
As Robin Wong said in his blogspot. If you are not invited then you are not important as you think you are.
The positive of this discussion is that I found a lot of new You Tubers who covers cameras due to the algorithms who all replied to the video of Gerald. All of them disagreed with them on different points.
My point is that the whole discussion is more a way to vent his frustration. Many arguments he made and the tone were contracting each other.
Bravo! You have provided a very valid perspective.
I was going to point out that until UA-cam, about the only ways to influence camera design/features was largely through unit sales (or lack there of), manufacturer reps., and on-line camera forums. The S9 makes me wonder how it was ever green-lighted. WTH! Lumix needs to get busy placing PDAF sensors in the higher end models.
@@tedcoats4148 Before and after UA-cam you had magazines as the defunct Popular Photography, were there journalists got trips, not far like now, to review a camera.
All products in shops are pushed by manufacturers buying space or giving the shops more commission if you sell their products. Have you ever noticed when entering a consumer electronics shop brands are more exposed and get a better space where others not? Many times the sales person will show you only the products with most margin for them. Not necessary the product that fits you. Samsung does this very much in the television market.
On question. Have studied marketing, business science or product development? Most consumer electronics products are made by an interdisciplinary team of experts within a company. There is not anything like greenlichted. The team has found that there is a space in the market for this products.
It is impossible to review a product on a one week marketing trip. PERIOD
Agree, it's only an initial test but still valuable IMO. These days with all the firmware updates, any review is outdated unless updated. But a week of solid shooting makes for some great initial hands on impressions valuable for determining if it's worth pre-ordering and more tests can always follow later. But just tests without any hands on is also only a partial review. Although Panasonic gave us a week on the trip to shoot with the camera and then let us take it home for tests for another 2 weeks before launching with the S5II. That was the ideal situation. Nothing will ever be 100% but that gave us the opportunity to be as thorough as possible
Hey u should take the sticker off your hat. The sticker thing is silly.
Not a sticker lol... It's permanently attached and the company logo but I agree, love the hat but hate they put a logo there
Lol ah. I just thought u were trying to be cool with the sticker. Whenever I'm at the mall I always go up to the ppl and tell them they left their sticker on their hat and ask if they want me to take it off for them.
Seriously, just ignore "Gerald Whatever," a tool and a non-artist geek who fluffs his numbers and recites press releases with "tests" that make Captain Obvious "conclusions." Spending your life fighting for attention this way is deeply pathetic.
You go to these events, you’re corrupted. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. There is no “doing it right” except properly disclose it on every video and review of that gear.
Apparently if you don't go to these press events, you can be corrupted as well. You might get negative content from someone who didn't get invited and felt like they should have been as evidenced by Geralds video. I agree with disclosure. But press event videos aren't designed usually to produce full reviews. They are usually initial thoughts with greater depth than the manufacture press release after testing a camera for a few days. I would argue that information is still extremely valuable and way better than reading a press sheet. I watched those videos long before I was ever invited to an event personally. Plus an event might give a chance to test a feature out in the field so for example, we got to test out the A9III autofocus in a sports setting which was great because this camera was geared more towards sports photographers. I'm still not sure how to accurately review an autofocus system on a sports camera doing studio tests and not actually shooting sports events.
@@learningcameras Honestly, I would prefer companies to not give away free stuff to reviewers, including gear, trips, loaners, nothing. I’d be ok finding out later from people who actually buy and use the products. Companies can present the products on their own channels and presentation events. Wouldn’t that be enough ? In fact, the only “reviews” I take seriously are those made by nobodies with 1K subscribers that bought the hear themselves and are actively using it. Everything else to me is advertising, by definition.
@@learningcameras What happened with Chelsea and Tony after they negatively reviewed the first Nikon Z cameras ? Almost all other “reviews” were almost apologetic and preaching patience and forgiveness which is exactly why they were still invited on future events. One reviewer (forgot now exactly who” said “Some people would complain about the single card slot” and “Autofocus is manageable and does the job but not quite as fast as Sony’s” Really ? I can’t even call this sugar coating, it’s just pure bias for a company that pays your expenses. Simple as that. The autofocus was the worst on any mirrorless by a large margin, it was barely working, and the single slot was an insult to any pro photographers. These beginners cameras (not even amateur level) were released by a company who had real professional DSLR’s in the market at that time.
@@learningcameras DJi is also a company well known for black listing anybody who dare to say anything negative about their products.
@@d3xmeister again, they rarely ever give us anything except coach plane rides and dinner plus like Gerald said, press trips cost us money so it's a negative
I'm no tax expert, but I'd wonder if there is tax liability for press trips regarding indirect value provided by these companies. Especially if there is an expectation of a video being created as a result. That would be my main concern if these companies were to offer me a trip someday.
Just assuming that where the case for the sake of argument, I'd wonder if it would be enough of a tax expense where a loaned piece of gear and setting up my own photoshoot would be as viable financially. I'd think a robust loaner program by these companies would produce a larger variety of content in that case.
Like you were saying, I understand that it does provide good situations to use gear you'd normally not have access to. Press trips do often make entertaining videos and I do generally enjoy watching them. 👍
I mean they don't ask us to make videos. Press trips started way before youtube and used to bring newspaper or magazine editors to write a column. When I first started going, there were only about 5 youtubers and most were print magazines or blogs. There might be an unstated expectation of some kind of coverage but there are a few people that don't seem to make content on these trips.
Usually it just works out that they are mutually beneficial...I would cover new camera releases in my videos no matter what, even if I didn't have the camera. They just saw me covering their camera and decide to either loan me a camera to test or bring me to a location to test it so I'm still making the content for me. When Apple hosts an event for the next iPhone, tons of UA-camrs will be there to cover it because it's mutually beneficial
I see, thanks for the info. I talked with a friend that works for the government in tax related cases against people. At least his opinion was more in line with what you are saying besides the idea of "barder" or tax considerations being on the company's side (marketing deductions). 👍
In a world where children are suffering everyday from war and famine, whether or not a UA-camr gets to go on a trip to Japan to check out the latest camera is not something I could care less about. I think the world of UA-camrs need to appreciate the opportunities they have and not rely on large camera companies to wine and dine them. If you talk trash about a product I made, I probably wouldn't want to invite you to a trip where I foot the airfare and hotel costs. Gerald just sounds entitled and like a child whining they didn't get to hang out with the cool kids because they told them they sucked and now they don't want to hang out with him.
🐐 comment. Gerald became a coward when he bowed to PC culture by removing his epic intro, because the word “crazy” triggered Karens
Robin Wong said the same. Gerald sits and walk around but does do nothing but his expenses is paid. Why you will invite him again? He doesn’t give you any feedback. Waste of money.
“Could not care less,” but not only took time to watch the video, but to post this virtue-signaling nonsense. Get busy saving the world, Preston.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t even watch those stupid boondoggle videos. What do you think you are going to get from them? “Oh, hey! Sony invited me here to the beach and we just had a bunch of cocktails and this camera is great!” These types of videos provide no value to me, so I don’t watch them
Holier than the Pope.
I already known this much that if you bad mouth certain companies, they will black list you because they only want POSITIVE feedbacks. One thing I love about Sony is that they stand by their products and will take good and bad feedbacks to improve themselves. Their Alpha series is a great example of listening to their fans and using these feedbacks to improve their cameras thus why they are #1 right now in the Mirrorless tech. Sony a7ii to a7iii is a HUGE leap forward and they invited a lot of photographers because they stand by the a9, a7Riii and a7iii that much.
When a company black list you, then feel free to blast them and say whatever you want. Gerald is right in one way or another.
He wasn't actually blacklisted though...they didn't invite him because like he said, he doesn't use the cameras. I'm not sure why he's mad at them! Why would he spend a week traveling around the world to not actually shoot with the camera. And no, if when you get blacklisted you blast a company, you're biased in the negative. Sure me might not praise a company for giving him a camera but you don't want to chew them out when they don't
@@learningcameras You both are not wrong. I watch Gerald's videos for the specs and technical side of lenses and cameras. I'll watch you and other for real world test of the lenses and cameras. But it is true though that if a company stands by their camera, then they need to allow photographers and videographers say whatever they want about the cameras they've tested. So companies need to not be bias and actually allow as many people test their products so that there will be no bias.
And do not worry about fans. You can never please them and they will always complain about every little thing from rival companies. I get heated arguments with Canon fanboys all the times especially ones that have come after the a7iii era. I usually tell them to show me their work and most of the times, a bunch of them won't and will just go silent. Say what you need to say Dan and who cares what the fanboys says. They will always troll and talk BS rather than just discuss and listen.
@@harryvuemedia5106 well said!
Press trips are all about promoting a product. It's about creating a buzz. It's a form of advertising. Why spend money on someone who isn't going to puff the goods?
I'm sure any manufacturer loves rave reviews but in every industry, unbiased press is essential and most manufactures understand that across industries and will invite product reviewers or press no matter what they say...as long as it's fair. What we have seen in the past 5 years is a new group of youtubers who are not press, they are not unbiased, they are users of a brand and are also getting invited on these trips. Press trips used to be small...about 10-12 press outlets most of which were print/web based and a few youtubers when I started doing this. You might have 1-2 ambassadors but everyone else was unaffiliated with the brand. These days you will find far less of that original 10 and way more youtubers/ig influencers. Personally I know several that make great content but should never call one of their videos a "review" because it's far from it and they honestly don't even want to make reviews.
In my opinion, what changed is that youtubers started seeing camera reviews getting views 5+ years ago and so EVERYONE started creating camera reviews...no matter how biased they were, no matter what brand they were affiliated with, and no matter how much they actually hated making "reviews" lol. This saturated the market with lots of reviews that are not actually reviews. I don't blame the manufactures for this though...this is on individual creators. I just don't see anyone crying foul when Apple invites hundreds of people to it's campus, half of which have the letter "i" in their IG handles so obviously are not unbiased. I
Gerald Irrelevant. Never thought much of him as a reviewer because he doesn't actually take photos, he just does synthetic tests.
And yet he knows more about the camera you would…I wouldn’t say he’s a reviewer but my god down playing what he does for the community is absolutely crazy to me
Gerald and his review style is absolutely relevant. Nothing at all wrong with “scientific tests”. The smart consumer will take as much information in as possible before buying a camera or lens (or anything).
The point is see the thumbnails and the over-exaggerated titles to described this garbage S9 camera, like "changed me, game changer, changed the way I think" while it is a regressive camera that shouldn't exist at that price range or at all. Gerald Undone was 100% spot on.
That's on the creator though. It's up to the person covering the camera to do so honestly and if they don't, feel free to stop watching! When Apple does an event, they have 100s of youtubers that are massive fanboys who would buy it even if it sucked and no one cares. If anything, Apple events are 10x more biased in coverage. Sony invites a few fanboys too usually but if you see a review that is over exaggerated, blame the creator of that content more than the camera or manufacturers
@@learningcameras Fair points, and that's what we're doing: blaming those creators. Same and worse goes to Apple Macs when they avoid showing H.265 editing/rendering with all the effects etc. Had to go to very small channels who actually bought their macs and used them in their actual workflow. iPhonedo (Farook) is the best apple reviewer AFAIK.