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.
I'm obviously not a professional photographer. Now, some may take that to mean an enthusiast has no need for a "professional level" camera, but that is entirely untrue, even on a general level. What the GFX offers is resolution. 50.1 megapixels of it. What I offer my camera is a crippled body, unable to get the most from any camera body. I can not hike as far, climb as high or go as long as an average photographer. I also cannot drive due to the medications I need to operate from day to day. Because of that, the GFX's resolution returns to me an ability lost by my inability to drive: repeatability.
The biggest news was the purchase of a Fujifilm GFX 50S, GF 45mm ƒ/2.8 lens and TechArt autofocus EF-GFX lens adapter. It arrived just before Xmas and I was able to use it for parts of both latter shoots. I also gave it a couple of runs, one from Kerry Park that was foiled by fog, another from Rizal Bridge that wasn't. The increase in resolution is shocking. Shots taken from the bridge could be cropped down to 8mp and were still crystal clear. Also shocking: the size of the uncompressed RAW files at ~140MB each.
Known for shit weather, the Washington coastline can be a bit of a toss up when it comes to photos, but even when the weather isn't particularly good for beach going, it can still be great for photos. During the summer, weekly events draw in thousands from around the state, so there are opportunities for all types of photographers; from landscapists, astrophotographers, street photography and even instagrammers, it's all there.
Like it or not, the Fujifilm X-H1 has no real reason to exist. If the X-H2 is to happen, it needs one to justify its status as the "flagship" of the X-series range Fujifilm claims it to be. When it first came out, it was $2000 for basically just a $1500 X-T2 with a bigger grip and IBIS. Sorry, but that's not gonna cut it if they plan to release an X-H2 with X-T3 guts at the end of that product's lifecycle, especially if they plan to price it above $1500 again. It needs a real reason to exist and I have an idea.
Maybe you've heard of Fujifilm's mostly ignored software companion, X Raw Studio. It was released sometime after the X-T2 and advertised to leverage the power of their X-Processor Pro image processing engine, aka onboard CPU, to post process your photos on a desktop or laptop computer. It did this by connecting your X-Pro2, X-T2, X-H1, or X-T3 via USB 3 or USB-C's superspeed bus and would allow you to edit your RAW files on a computer but would leverage the high speed bus and X-Processor Pro's power to process the images. Since it's release, it's sat collecting dust with only minor bug fix updates since, while Fujifilm has established partnerships with brands like PhaseOne's CaptureOne and Skylum Luminar to natively support the X-Trans system. All of this seems to be the result of traditionally poor support from Adobe, the long-standing leader in the industry. But I have a vision.
Very simply: Does Wine Country Camera actually use the same glass and coatings between their filters? I wanted my filters to produce the same results between my filter sets to reduce post-processing time. Recently, I replaced my B+W and Haida ND filters with WCC because the results between the two would cause difficulties in post as I'd work to match the output if I used both during the same shoot.
What may just look like wasting money, there’s an actual reason why I’ve bought into the Wine Country Camera filter holder system and round filters to replace the kits I had before:
I’m planning to purchase a Fujifilm GFX-50S by year’s end.
Canon is trying to sell us cameras from 2016 at 2019 prices, all up and down their lineup. Their biggest advances have been made in their entry level cameras, a market mostly ignored by both first time buyers and enthusiasts. As ILC cameras have become a luxury in the age of smartphones, the impact of entry level models will continue to shrink moving forward. The future is in models that appeal to enthusiasts while Canon has dumbed down their lineup instead. They’re still banking on entry level, mass market, low cost, high volume models while the consumer has been filtered down to primarily enthusiasts. The mass market has lost their desire or need for the ILC.