My real issue is the lack of an ultrawide zoom. 3 years on and Fujifilm continues to neglect all of the landscape photographers they try to market this system toward. There have been rumors of a 20-36mm ƒ/3.5-4.5 but nothing official has been announced. You’d think this would be a priority... instead we got a 50mm pancake, 30mm ƒ/3.5 and the 45-100mm ƒ/4. The latter filled a huge hole in their lineup but the other 2 seem to serve only the GFX 50R buyers. Landscape users are left in the lurch for yet another year, unrewarded for our patience and dedication.
I just read another article, this time from DPReview, comparing tripods and the author mentions paying attention to the load capacity so you can safely hang your bag from the hook for more stability.
CUT IT OUT!!! STOP HANGING YOUR BAGS FROM YOUR TRIPOD!!!
Read on for a better, safer way to stabilize your tripod.
While I often strayed away from repeatable testing to include a healthy amount of subjectivity, I'm now embracing my biases and forgoing all pretense of being "unbiased," and here's why: I have my skin, aka wallet, in the game. Unlike others who are receiving review units, renting, being gifted items to review or receiving some form of compensation, I'm reviewing stuff that I've actually bought. These are things I've intensely researched, bought, used, and intend to keep. Sometimes I buy purely out of objective needs, like my ND filters. Other times, I'm driven by subjective factors, like my choice to use Fujifilm bodies and lenses. Either way, my purchases are made based on a conclusion I've formed from equal parts objectivity and bias.
I am biased. My reviews are biased. I'm not justifying my purchases to anyone but I simply cannot claim to be unbiased when reviewing my own gear.
The goal of my reviews are to identify potential pitfalls to avoid the expense of experimentation. It's not my goal to tell you what to buy; my desire is to expose aspects of an item only an owner would notice. There can be things that you're blind to upon purchase, features and issues that can make or break it for you, and this jeopardy goes up exponentially as the price increases, especially if bought used.
This is my choice to be an advocate and to avoid being an "influencer."
As a Youtuber, credibility should be important to you if you're doing anything more than vlogging your daily experiences. Integrity is the only thing that can establish trust and credibility. So, here are my top 5 ways to establish, or protect, your credibility as a Youtuber.
You're familiar with how they all begin: "this video is sponsored by Squarespace." Ok, well, after that, they then feed you the next line, almost all of it verbatim, "I am not sponsored by (insert brand here). They have not paid me to do this review or told me what to say about it. This review is entirely my own and they don't know I'm making this video. I was/was not provided a sample for the purposes of this review. I am not biased in any way so you can trust what I'm about to say about this product."
What they don't mention, obviously, is if they had to return that "review unit." But if you pay close attention, you may catch them using the product in later videos, especially if they were especially laudatory in their review. At least they weren't paid, right? Wrong.
Payment is simply one form of compensation. That "review unit" usually comes along with an email that says, "you don't need to send this back to us." Simply put, the item itself is payment. Just because you didn't get to choose the item, the form of compensation or were given a special title associating you with their brand doesn't mean you weren't paid. They paid you with product and exclaiming otherwise is a flat out lie by Youtubers who persistently try to claim otherwise. Rarely are these items cameras and lenses; they're usually "soft goods" or accessories, like bags, lens filter kits, etc. that would likely get damaged during a thorough review period or whose cost of manufacture and/or retail price is so low that the cost of return, reconditioning and resale would consume all or more of the potential profit.
There's a certain couple on Youtube that talks a lot about photography and tends to harp on the value of education also pushes their "free" photography education courses online. You may even begin to believe some of their rhetoric or have heard some of their misinformation floating around.
Mind you, much of the technical information they love to claim they're proficient in and knowledgeable about is shit. They'll contradict themselves within the span of 5 minutes. One example is their belief that "professional" lenses on a smaller sensor, like APS-C, will perform worse in sharpness because said lens isn't tuned for the sensor size, yet will then claim that some lenses on 35mm are so sharp, you get the ability to crop the image in closer than other lenses. Realize that these two things are a contradiction and a sharper lens will never give a sensor of fixed resolution higher resolution, perceived or otherwise. How do I know this? Simple physics and geometry. Let me explain:
Oh, you're an "enthusiast," "professional," or talking face on YouTube? This camera wasn't designed for you. It was designed for the audience you spew your crap opinions at, like, "pros only shoot full frame and just because you don't get paid doesn't mean you're not a pro-level shooter. You need full frame if you want to be a pro." Well, now all of your viewers who have no technical reason to shoot with a 35mm camera now have a 35mm option with the price and features commensurate with an entry-level product.
GET TO THE FUCKING POINT.
Never mind the boring, droning, pedantic talking heads who avoid writing themselves a script or interject false information they were either too lazy to get right or too stubborn to be bothered with facts. The biggest problem is their ability to take 30 seconds of useful information and wrap it in 10 minutes of garbage exposition, rattling off 8 examples to make a point when 2-3 will do and 0 would be even better. Most seemingly do it because they refuse to write an outline and stick to it or they're trying to impress you with fluff trivia to distract you from their lack of charisma, creativity or actual insight. That shit works in text because a reader can easily skim over it, unlike a YouTube video.
Nikon recently released their first full frame mirrorless cameras, the Z6 and Z7, and it seems all of the professional and "professional" photographers on the internets are having a meltdown because it doesn't have, amongst other things, dual card slots. Well, news flash, Nikon didn't design these cameras for you. I know, weird, isn't it?
There are a handful of professional YouTubers like Tony & Chelsea Northup who, despite all of the facts proving otherwise, insist on claiming that smaller sensors have less bokeh, or increased field of view, compared to “full frame” sensors. Even worse are all of the morons, both pros and amateurs, who simply regurgitate their bullshit.