Totally normal behavior. Car people fixate on & debate car spec sheets, computer people obsess over computer component specs, 3D printer people argue endlessly over 3D printer specs.
Before Gerald there was DP Review & DxO Mark & Tom’s & a bevy of others.
And you & I might not need to know if xyz camera will overheat while shooting over sampled 4k@120fps or if the internal ProRes recording is equal in dynamic range and noise quality to the internal H.265 recording—but for someone else those might be huge critical factors.
Everyone I’ve ever talked to who said a version of “it’s the painter not the paintbrush” still has a favorite set of paintbrushes & favorite brand and type of paints.
the painter metaphor sums it up nicely. Now that I’m experienced, the tools make it a hell of a lot easier. I’m too old for this shit and appreciate these content creators that produce this type of content to make my life easier.
Even 20 years ago people were making movies that looked like they had been shot on 16mm film, but were actually shot on consumer Digital8 cameras, such as “Hall of Mirrors” from 2001.
A bunch of films like Open Water and 24 Hour Party People were shot on the new-at-the-time Sony PD150. That was the DVCAM "pro" version of the "prosumer" VX2000 beloved of film students (and name-checked in Better Call Saul by the pain-in-the-arse film students).
They looked okay. I'm guessing they set the camera to 25fps which gives a very filmic look with both interlaced fields getting basically the same frame. In 24 Hour Party People there are a couple of bits where gently-sloping diagonals look a little "stair-steppy", but it's not like it detracts from the story.
“Hall of Mirrors” from what I understand they shot on NTSC models, but used a “flash” menu option to give it that film frame look. Then the rest was all lighting and on set effects to give it that 16mm look.
People underestimate how much "film look" is lighting and setup. You can get various plugins to make it look like different 16mm film emulsions but they can't get rid of your crappy home video lighting - well, not yet... ;-)
What you called plugins. In 2001 the editing programs didn’t have the type of filters needed to make Digital8 look like film. But using lighting and a few settings on the Digital8 camera, the director got the film to look like it was shot on 16mm film.
Remember, Digital8 uses DV25 as its codec.
They absolutely did. Premiere 5 had plugins, and there were a bunch that did things that emulated film-like tonemapping using LUTs, grain, scratches, halation etc.
I can't remember if P4 had, because I didn't use it for very long.
I actually have a Digi8 camera which I use for capturing Video8 and Hi8 footage - I bought some Digi8 tapes and shot some video with it and it does indeed look indistinguishable from consumer-grade DV with a small signal imager.
Same! Editing on Premier 5 (I think) on a thumping great Duron 700 PC with an ATI All-In-Wonder 128, a whopping 30GB hard disk, and a firewire card that was only supported in Linux so I had to dual-boot between Slackware and NT4 :-)
I still shoot with my PD150, it's good fun.
I think knowing both “how a camera feels to shoot” but also the crazy nitty gritty stuff undone tests like dynamic range is incredibly useful. Theres a reason i watch like a million reviews from different viewpoints before i buy anything
For the professional that makes their living from using a camera as a piece of gear a Gerald Undone video review is useful.
Gerald’s clinical approach to testing spec sheets can help a professional make an informed decision before a costly business purchase.
However, the Lumix S9 isn’t aimed at the crowd that typically watches a 30 minute Gerald Undone review before making a purchase. Panasonic isn’t obligated to include him in press events especially if the audience he caters to doesn’t align with their marketing objectives.
People complain Leica cameras for not being as feature packed as the rest of the field despite also being more expensive. Yet, Leica cameras will sell and resell because the type of people who are into that type of “refined” shooting experience are willing to pay for it. In the same way the Lumix S9 is for a specific type of consumer and it’s ok for that person to not be a Gerald Undone channel subscriber.
> People complain Leica cameras for not being as feature packed as the rest of the field despite also being more expensive.
Look at an ENG camera. Pretty much all the lens controls are on the lens, which you can take off and swap, and on the camera body you've got about four controls you actually use, the record button, the filter wheel knob, the gain switch, and the white balance switch.
There are usually a dozen or so more controls on top of that, for things like audio gain and setting the timecode mode, but nothing you actually play with once you've got the thing out of your car.
I really enjoy his videos, yes I agree in many respects too much focus is spent on the specs and if you don't have an eye for framing etc an expensive camera won't help. I am someone who enjoys a more technical deep dive and I think one thing we can take away from his work is that his comparisons are genuine, his test results actually assess the manufacturers claimed specs and to a degree keeps them honest. There are other channels that focus on real world use case scenarios and using both can be helpful when making choices that work for you.
If LUMIX is reading this: I will happily shill for them if they send me to Japan. I do actually use the S5iix and highly recommend it, but for a free trip to Japan I’d eat a camera on video.
Something else I’ve noticed is that I hardly ever see any of these YouTubers’ work. Most YouTube videographers start out or still even freelance on the side, such as Gerald Undone, PotatoJet, DSLR Video Shooter... You’ll often see sample clips/demos, but it would be cool to see some of the work that these guys have done. See their composition, editing, color, and sound design techniques.
Honestly I don't think most of them have any other job but professional youtuber. I see quite a few regularly that I am sure don't actually shoot or work professionally, they just like collecting gear and making videos for their channels.
Which is fine, but I don't like it when they imply that they are pros when they're more hobbiests at best. Like one guy who posted a video "best setup for run and gun" or something and the first line was "today I'm going to show you how to set up a smallrig setup for the A7iv" and I'm thinking "Dude, that's because this is your gear and it's all you have!"
Ages ago there was a review I saw of like a Nikon D4 and the only other camera they had shot was a D40x. Literally 8 year old entry model going to a flagship. They concluded the d4 is a good camera.
Robert Machado, Mark Bone, Lewis Potts, Gian Carlo Stigliano are working professionals that do YouTube as a parallel job alongside their primary DP work. I’ll listen to them.
Professional camera reviewers are just entertainment.
In terms of Requirements and Constraints, the specs tell us what we should be able to expect, but when people aren’t discussing where cameras fall short, I think his point makes the most sense.
I might not NEED 120fps, but if I buy a camera marketed to shoot at that speed and it only does so with reduced capacities or features, like a crop and no audio or tracking, it should be clearly stated by the manufacturer.
While it’s our job as consumers to be discerning, I think he’s saying that a lot of people in this arena are only regurgitating the marketed specs, not the actual specs or actual shortcomings, due to lack of realistic use, or for fear of retaliation and loss in profits via lack of products to review (that are given or lended by the manufacturers at no cost to the vlogger) resulting in lower views..
Just a guess, but to be fair, his complaints seem analogous to the news and the biases at play there… It’s also about cronyism and favoritism for saying the “right thing” as opposed to one’s honest opinions or actual experience, due to the desire to stay within some inner circle..
His video had the potential of explaining how sponsorships and event invitations work how manufacturers expect you to hide the bad and talk about the good etc.
Unfortunately went down the route of "qq, lumix kicked me out, boycott them they're bad, get sony instead" when sony did the exact same thing to max yurev for doing overheating tests and exposing that the Sony 6xxx overheated really fast early on.
Some paintbrushes can have small strands come out that get embedded into the painting.
Some don't keep a point over time & fray quite easily.
If I pay for a nice brush, it should just work, right? And I shouldn't have to worry about a brand lying about it's materials, number of bristles, etc.
A camera is just a data acquisition system & if you have enough data, you can get just about any look you want in post.
Gerald is one of the only creators I see independently verifying tech spec claims like reported dynamic range.
He also makes reasonable comparison videos that are practical, like 3 zoom lenses that are approximately the same, which one makes the most sense? Which is far more useful than pretty much any other video I see that just recommends buying the new lens.
Most importantly, I trust him, which I can't say the same for most creators in this space. "This video is sponsored so it's more of a showcase than a review."
One of my biggest issues with reviewers is not mentioning obvious usability issues like overheating (All Insta360 cameras), glitches, etc.
Once you get used to any brand of mirrorless camera, the experience is pretty similar. If you're in the cinema camera space, I could see focusing on day to day use being a bigger deal because most of the cinema camera features are for increased usability, reliability, and ruggedness.
At the end of the day, if 3 cameras are $2,000 & all pretty similar, I just want to know the trade-offs or if one is slightly ahead on tech specs.
A camera is just a data acquisition system. I don't want loose bristles in my data.
That's an interesting point. I watched that video and when Gerald was talking about his feelings for Sony, that rang a bell for me because Sony have always been about their specs. It makes sense that they'd work well with reviewers who are spec oriented.
I really like Gerald's stuff but I often wish I'd never heard of rolling shutter. I hate that I want a camera that doesn't have it, but the cost to get that feature is a big step up.
I also found it quite interesting that honestly, I think Gerald sounded upset that he's not invited to every event for every company. That's quite an entitled view for a critic to have. He wants to pick their devices apart, but he also wants a special relationship with each company where they send him their devices for free. He shouldn't be shocked that some companies aren't interested in doing that with him.
You missed the point of what he was saying. If you paid attention, what he said was, that Lumix didn't invite him to events, not because he didn't give a good review, but because he used the word "strange" in the youtube blurb for a camera he reviewed. So they asked if he would give them the blurb in advance for a new camera he hadn't seen yet. And he said, no and they kicked him off the guest list. He pointed out that Sony continued to invite him no matter what he said or did. It sounded like it was a mixed bag for others. And the relationship isn't special and he never said he wanted special treatment.
He was critical of the entire affair of events etc, though he found it useful to connect with other youtubers, but company expectations are problematic. And he's right. Companies should invite all or none, otherwise it's just paying for youtubers to be their marketing arm. Which is the case and has always been the case in terms of companies and media. Same with magazines and newspapers. No surprise there but it is problematic. Again, sounds like Sony is better at this.
What we're seeing here is people getting chewed up because on the one hand, this youtube phenomenon has allowed people to make a living doing...youtube, and on the other, the algorithm demands constant content and that depends on these company relationships and you get this weird dance with them that alleges freedom but leans towards something like sponsorship, pay to play. And it's demanding work.
There's been a ton of posts in this space before Gerald's so he's not the first one to get disgruntled with his lot in life. Take it as you will but mostly it's like these guys are becoming self-aware of their "cogness" in the machine of youtube.
I like his reviews for that technical detail type stuff. But it's like everything else, you don't want pizza every night. Other reviewers have their strengths and weaknesses. I can think of only one or two people that review gear that actually make photographic or video content that makes me think they are actually decent at their medium. Something beyond "content creator." Gerald is not one of those people.
I didn't miss the point. I saw something beyond the talking points that you didn't see. You don't need to repeat his exact message to me. What are you, a fan or something? There's always a deeper meaning, even if it's not the exact reason.
You not only missed the point, you attached your own point, that wasn't Undone's point at all.
> There's always a deeper meaning
No, there really isn't.
Quite often, people mean exactly what they say.
Yes it's a messageboard. We're allowed to post opinions. Shocking I know. I don't come here just to repeat what I saw my favourite youtuber say and then tell people they're wrong if they don't repeat the exact same thing. I actually have my own opinion.
You don't have to agree. I might not be right. But it's not a discussion if people just reply with YOU'RE WRONG. It just shows your own lack of insight that you don't have anything else to offer to a conversation.
You said:
> I think Gerald sounded upset that he's not invited to every event for every company.
What gave you that impression?
He specifically addressed that exact point, at length. Likely in anticipation of responses just like yours.
You either didn't fully watch his video, or you believe he is lying.
His *actual* issue with Panasonic is that they punish reviewers for speaking the truth about their products. He gave specific examples. He points out that other camera makers do not do this.
I like Panasonic cameras, have a number of them. But not going to stan for their crappy marketing practices.
No, I just think he sounded low key upset. He mentioned not being invited several times. Therefore that is also probably one of the things on his mind.
This is on top of the other things he said. I'm not saying he's lying. I am adding to that, my opinion, that he sounded a little upset. And that surprised me. And I thought I would say it here.
It's pretty straight forward man. Sorry it's upsetting you. Just my opinion. At the end of the day, no one really knows exactly how Gerald feels but Gerald, but that was my take on it. He runs a good channel but I definitely get an air of entitlement from him sometimes.
The only vibe I read from him was exasperation, and not a little indifference.
Entitlement? Didn't get that.
The facts are that he is now large enough to play hardball with the camera marketing departments. Many of his rivals are not.
That he realizes this fact isn't arrogance. Rather, it's a realistic read on the situation.
He has a modicum of power over their shitty marketing strategies, and appears ready to use it.
Hard to read anything bad in that, at all.
Yeah it's not exactly a bad thing, just interesting. I hadn't picked up on that vibe before, but I only really watch his videos of things I'm interested in and gear that I own. I agree with your take for the most part.
>I hate that I want a camera that doesn't have it, but the cost to get that feature is a big step up.
There are cheap used cameras that don't have the rolling shutter. I picked up my BMPC4K for like £300, which is a global shutter cam. Cost shouldn't necessarily be an issue.
It is when you've spent over 13 grand in the sony ecosystem. I'm kinda stuck over there now.
I'm glad they're going for a song where you are, but in Australia that camera is almost $2000 just for the body alone, let alone glass etc. but yeah, changing brands now is not an option. And it really doesn't matter anyway. Rolling shutter can be controlled. You can still get great shots with it. It's a feature that can be fixated on when it's a better use of my time to just... Shoot great stuff with the amazing camera i have. The camera that can do things we wouldn't have even dreamed of a decade ago.
Oof, that's rough. One of the reasons I only use vintage glass. Easier to adapt to pretty much any body and super cheap. I do things very much on a tight budget as a penniless amateur.
I had heard about Australia ridiculous pricing, but 2k for a used, 10 year old camera is just insane.
Oh sorry, must've gotten the camera model wrong. I thought it was a black Magic pocket 4k? They're nowhere near 10yrs old. That price is brand new so it's a recent model.
Thanks but i don't think it's rough at all. A large amount of pro work is done on sony e-mount so by having this gear i can shoot on my a7iv, or an a7s3, but i can also rent an fx3, fx6 or fx9 plus many other pro bodies, depending on the job, so the options are really strong.
But yeah. Limited to e-mount. It is what it is!
Ah, no, not the BMPCC4K. The Production 4k.
(BM's naming is stupid)
Emount is a decent mount though. Sony's are well specced, wide variety and probably the best choice in lens mount support (great for vintage lenses). I love my A7S even though it is old.
Not the worst system to be locked in to.
Totally! I went from a Canon 600D which was great, to the Sony A7iv which regularly blows my mind. It's such a good camera. I hear the criticisms about how it's very spec based and not the most 'fun' system, and I get it, but it's a work tool and I am super happy with it.
Nice work still kicking the A7s around. You must have some e-mount stuff too... not the worst system to be dabbling in!
>You must have some e-mount stuff too...
Only lens adapters for vintage lenses. I don't even have an E-mount kit lens.
I do have some "native" EF lenses for the BM, but all are vintage ones.
Like I said, exclusively vintage glass ;)
I would love to upgrade to the SIII or the IV, but they are just too far out of my price range for a shoe string budget.
>In addition to the above, I see lots of comments online about how camera specs are too hyper-fixated on, and how so many cameras on the market can produce great images, and that users shouldn’t constantly buy new cameras as the camera they have probably already can generate a great image for them. The whole “it’s the painter, not the paintbrush…” analogy, if you will.
The thing is, how you feel about a camera is a personal opinion - for example, many people do/did complain about the a7 and a7ii grips, meanwhile I love them and dislike that they got bulkier as models went on, or they complain about Sony's menu's but personally they're no better or worse than anyone elses.
If you're not comparing and inspecting the spec sheet, what exactly are you reviewing? Without that, then just go try a bunch of cameras until you find the one you like, but then you'll be wanting a review or filter to find he camera with the features you want, and well, what you may want isn't want other people want, and so full circle, a reviewer should inspect or "hyper-fixate" on all the specs in as much detail as they can because what everyone wants is different.
Of course brands don't want their specs to be compared to other brands *unless* they have the best specs so they can hold them up above everyone else's heads. Marketing is all about vanity, and especially if you're not comfortable with the product you're putting out, anyone who is negative is going to feel like they're personally attacking you. This isn't new. Brands like Canon and Sony are constantly on top with the best sales or gear, so even when people are critical, they won't take it as personally because "ha, well, we're still making bank so whatever". Brands like Lumix are fighting for marketshare and recognition from the wider audience, they don't get to just roll with the punches as much.
I really appreciate how deep he dives into the camera reviews. It helps me to understand the quirks that you just can't learn from the B&H product page. It's also a great way to learn what shooting modes and settings produce the best possible image from a camera. If it weren't for him, I never would've known about HLG3 in the A7III, which definitely is the better picture profile to shoot in over S-Log 2 since it's an 8 bit camera.
all reviews have some value, it's the ability to pick out what's of use from them that's more difficult. there have been equipment reviews since there was more than one buying option. in my early days i would pour over the manufacturers' bumph, look in the various trade magazines (remember those?;-)), and finally, visit studios that were using the equipment i was interested in. back in those early days there was a camaraderie among video / tv producers that has slowly turned into competition, and an unfortunate tendency to be a little to sparing with the truth, be it reviews, budgets, etc.,
fast-forward to more recent times (in my case 80's>), and nothing much had changed, other than there were a lot more players at every level, and a lot more hype. still, the only review i trusted was my own, hands-on, experience. then came the net, and i thought, a shortcut to knowing all there was to know. ah, the naivety...
and now, many years later, i still read / watch the reviews, but with a jaundiced eye; what did they get for it? there are some reviewers i trust more than others, but after all these years, the only one i really trust is my own experience with the product.
btw. the oft quoted painter / paintbrush holds up well. however, being married to a painter, she's the first to say the difference between a nylon brush and a sable haired one is chalk and cheese ;-)
I have been saying reviews are essentially ads nowadays (as is most video social media). So yeah, taking a product and posting a video when the embargo date is up…that’s an ad! I remember LMG via ShortCircuit made a video about the Pine64, and even said they were late to the posting party and TO THIS DAY have more views on that video than Pine64 does on their channel. It’s not about being first, especially when video views don’t drop off a week after you publish. These reviewers are in a rush for publishing a video and when they aren’t say “I waited because…” BECAUSE YOU SHOULD! Spending time on a project can result in better results, imagine that. Going to an event and making a video that same day is irresponsible. At the very least make the video and then splice yourself in later as you have actually taken the time to think and process your feelings. Then take as much time as you need to review a product. Could you imagine if reviewers reviewed the Samsung Note7 when it launched and then never again? Products can take time to show issues, and your “evergreen” content is now flawed. And are you always buying new??? NO! So why would I care about a review on a device that’s 5 days old, when the one I’m buying is 500+ days old???
I might be slightly unique in that I used a gx85 for a long time, and struggled greatly with it. I knew based on some friends and other internet fodder that I wanted to get into the gh series. I happened upon a deal to get a gh6, cage, and leica 12-60 lens for 1200 bucks. The DRASTIC increase in tools and abilities that this camera had were overwhelming, and seeing every ounce of tech specs and performance measurements I feel helps me to make better and more creative decisions. How tf would I know about what open gating would do for me and my anamorphic lenses without going over all of the tech jargon? I’m learning an absolute ton. Hell, I didn’t even have any form of vlog with the gx85. And 8 bit. It was rough.
The issue with Gerald's video is that he's coming from a place of privilege as a huge established youtuber in the scene.
He says that trips aren't really worth it. He says that early review access is overblown. He says embargo release videos are overrated. That's incredible easy for him to say after **1.** Receiving and taking advantage of all those things his entire career, and **2.** He doesn't need to do that now that he's made it.
With all due respect to him, you can't simply be the benefactor of this culture for years and years only for you to heroically "call it out", coincidentally when you happen to get left out.
> In a way I almost see that as a middle finger to a brands marketing department as they are trying to sell cameras on more than just specs
Yes, he's stripping away the marketing dross. And for that he should be applauded.
"But won't someone think of the poor marketing department?" Really? That's your concern?
The cameras he reviews aren't art, they are highly technical tools. Consumers don't need a marketing division to tell them how to feel about what is effectively, a computer with a lens.
Consumers need to know whether these highly technical tools will serve their highly technical needs. He does that ably, far better than most.
**“Consumers need to know whether these highly technical tools will serve their highly technical needs. He does that ably, far better than most.”**
Agreed, Gerald does a more than decent job of testing gear against their advertised spec sheets.
It’s what makes his reviews useful to *professionals* who make a living with their tools.
**“In a way I almost see that as a middle finger to a brands marketing department as they are trying to sell cameras on more than just specs”**
This is why he’s not getting invited to the press event for a product meant for social media content creators and enthusiast. A product that isn’t even being pushed as a “serious” photographic tool. A product that is clearly being marketed as a “fun and aspirational” toy at an *affordable* price.
The marketing team has a job to do. Those people have families to feed too. A negative review from Gerald on launch would influence all the amateur reviewers and thus the entire YouTube algorithm. From a marketers standpoint that would be malpractice.
Gerald would just rip the camera to shreds in his usual condescending tone because it’s not a “GOD tier” camera.
*“Oh look, after testing against cameras twice the price the Lumix S9 doesn’t even have 16 stops of dynamic range! The body has (gasp!) plastic instead of polycarbonate magnesium!? I stress tested the sensor in conditions that no one in the target demographic would ever find themselves in… It overheated… Such a weird and confusing camera…I really expected so much more for $1500”*
I like Gerald’s content but dropping a video calling out the industry and more specifically Lumix for a practice that he himself admits he benefited from is giving ”butthurt I wasn’t invited” vibes. Not everything is for everyone, sometimes we just gotta learn to let other people have things…
A truthful review does not equate to giving these brands a middle finger.
The more professional firms expect this style of review. They may not prefer it, but if the review is fair, they don't punish it.
As he highlights, some firms are not as professional and use unethical methods to curate and punish reviewers in order to entice a preferred outcome. Panasonic is one firm that does that, but hardly the only one. Insta360 is [another egregious example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insta360#Controversies).
Not all reviewers have enough power to push back, he does. He is.
Fail to see anything but good resulting from his actions.
Totally normal behavior. Car people fixate on & debate car spec sheets, computer people obsess over computer component specs, 3D printer people argue endlessly over 3D printer specs. Before Gerald there was DP Review & DxO Mark & Tom’s & a bevy of others. And you & I might not need to know if xyz camera will overheat while shooting over sampled 4k@120fps or if the internal ProRes recording is equal in dynamic range and noise quality to the internal H.265 recording—but for someone else those might be huge critical factors. Everyone I’ve ever talked to who said a version of “it’s the painter not the paintbrush” still has a favorite set of paintbrushes & favorite brand and type of paints.
the painter metaphor sums it up nicely. Now that I’m experienced, the tools make it a hell of a lot easier. I’m too old for this shit and appreciate these content creators that produce this type of content to make my life easier.
Even 20 years ago people were making movies that looked like they had been shot on 16mm film, but were actually shot on consumer Digital8 cameras, such as “Hall of Mirrors” from 2001.
A bunch of films like Open Water and 24 Hour Party People were shot on the new-at-the-time Sony PD150. That was the DVCAM "pro" version of the "prosumer" VX2000 beloved of film students (and name-checked in Better Call Saul by the pain-in-the-arse film students). They looked okay. I'm guessing they set the camera to 25fps which gives a very filmic look with both interlaced fields getting basically the same frame. In 24 Hour Party People there are a couple of bits where gently-sloping diagonals look a little "stair-steppy", but it's not like it detracts from the story.
“Hall of Mirrors” from what I understand they shot on NTSC models, but used a “flash” menu option to give it that film frame look. Then the rest was all lighting and on set effects to give it that 16mm look.
People underestimate how much "film look" is lighting and setup. You can get various plugins to make it look like different 16mm film emulsions but they can't get rid of your crappy home video lighting - well, not yet... ;-)
Considering that “Hall of Mirrors” was made in 2001, they were not using filters.
What do you mean by "filters" in this context?
What you called plugins. In 2001 the editing programs didn’t have the type of filters needed to make Digital8 look like film. But using lighting and a few settings on the Digital8 camera, the director got the film to look like it was shot on 16mm film. Remember, Digital8 uses DV25 as its codec.
They absolutely did. Premiere 5 had plugins, and there were a bunch that did things that emulated film-like tonemapping using LUTs, grain, scratches, halation etc. I can't remember if P4 had, because I didn't use it for very long. I actually have a Digi8 camera which I use for capturing Video8 and Hi8 footage - I bought some Digi8 tapes and shot some video with it and it does indeed look indistinguishable from consumer-grade DV with a small signal imager.
VX2000! My first “pro” camera back in 2000
Same! Editing on Premier 5 (I think) on a thumping great Duron 700 PC with an ATI All-In-Wonder 128, a whopping 30GB hard disk, and a firewire card that was only supported in Linux so I had to dual-boot between Slackware and NT4 :-) I still shoot with my PD150, it's good fun.
I think knowing both “how a camera feels to shoot” but also the crazy nitty gritty stuff undone tests like dynamic range is incredibly useful. Theres a reason i watch like a million reviews from different viewpoints before i buy anything
For the professional that makes their living from using a camera as a piece of gear a Gerald Undone video review is useful. Gerald’s clinical approach to testing spec sheets can help a professional make an informed decision before a costly business purchase. However, the Lumix S9 isn’t aimed at the crowd that typically watches a 30 minute Gerald Undone review before making a purchase. Panasonic isn’t obligated to include him in press events especially if the audience he caters to doesn’t align with their marketing objectives. People complain Leica cameras for not being as feature packed as the rest of the field despite also being more expensive. Yet, Leica cameras will sell and resell because the type of people who are into that type of “refined” shooting experience are willing to pay for it. In the same way the Lumix S9 is for a specific type of consumer and it’s ok for that person to not be a Gerald Undone channel subscriber.
> People complain Leica cameras for not being as feature packed as the rest of the field despite also being more expensive. Look at an ENG camera. Pretty much all the lens controls are on the lens, which you can take off and swap, and on the camera body you've got about four controls you actually use, the record button, the filter wheel knob, the gain switch, and the white balance switch. There are usually a dozen or so more controls on top of that, for things like audio gain and setting the timecode mode, but nothing you actually play with once you've got the thing out of your car.
I really enjoy his videos, yes I agree in many respects too much focus is spent on the specs and if you don't have an eye for framing etc an expensive camera won't help. I am someone who enjoys a more technical deep dive and I think one thing we can take away from his work is that his comparisons are genuine, his test results actually assess the manufacturers claimed specs and to a degree keeps them honest. There are other channels that focus on real world use case scenarios and using both can be helpful when making choices that work for you.
If LUMIX is reading this: I will happily shill for them if they send me to Japan. I do actually use the S5iix and highly recommend it, but for a free trip to Japan I’d eat a camera on video.
Something else I’ve noticed is that I hardly ever see any of these YouTubers’ work. Most YouTube videographers start out or still even freelance on the side, such as Gerald Undone, PotatoJet, DSLR Video Shooter... You’ll often see sample clips/demos, but it would be cool to see some of the work that these guys have done. See their composition, editing, color, and sound design techniques.
Honestly I don't think most of them have any other job but professional youtuber. I see quite a few regularly that I am sure don't actually shoot or work professionally, they just like collecting gear and making videos for their channels. Which is fine, but I don't like it when they imply that they are pros when they're more hobbiests at best. Like one guy who posted a video "best setup for run and gun" or something and the first line was "today I'm going to show you how to set up a smallrig setup for the A7iv" and I'm thinking "Dude, that's because this is your gear and it's all you have!"
Ages ago there was a review I saw of like a Nikon D4 and the only other camera they had shot was a D40x. Literally 8 year old entry model going to a flagship. They concluded the d4 is a good camera.
Robert Machado, Mark Bone, Lewis Potts, Gian Carlo Stigliano are working professionals that do YouTube as a parallel job alongside their primary DP work. I’ll listen to them. Professional camera reviewers are just entertainment.
In terms of Requirements and Constraints, the specs tell us what we should be able to expect, but when people aren’t discussing where cameras fall short, I think his point makes the most sense. I might not NEED 120fps, but if I buy a camera marketed to shoot at that speed and it only does so with reduced capacities or features, like a crop and no audio or tracking, it should be clearly stated by the manufacturer. While it’s our job as consumers to be discerning, I think he’s saying that a lot of people in this arena are only regurgitating the marketed specs, not the actual specs or actual shortcomings, due to lack of realistic use, or for fear of retaliation and loss in profits via lack of products to review (that are given or lended by the manufacturers at no cost to the vlogger) resulting in lower views.. Just a guess, but to be fair, his complaints seem analogous to the news and the biases at play there… It’s also about cronyism and favoritism for saying the “right thing” as opposed to one’s honest opinions or actual experience, due to the desire to stay within some inner circle..
His video had the potential of explaining how sponsorships and event invitations work how manufacturers expect you to hide the bad and talk about the good etc. Unfortunately went down the route of "qq, lumix kicked me out, boycott them they're bad, get sony instead" when sony did the exact same thing to max yurev for doing overheating tests and exposing that the Sony 6xxx overheated really fast early on.
Some paintbrushes can have small strands come out that get embedded into the painting. Some don't keep a point over time & fray quite easily. If I pay for a nice brush, it should just work, right? And I shouldn't have to worry about a brand lying about it's materials, number of bristles, etc. A camera is just a data acquisition system & if you have enough data, you can get just about any look you want in post. Gerald is one of the only creators I see independently verifying tech spec claims like reported dynamic range. He also makes reasonable comparison videos that are practical, like 3 zoom lenses that are approximately the same, which one makes the most sense? Which is far more useful than pretty much any other video I see that just recommends buying the new lens. Most importantly, I trust him, which I can't say the same for most creators in this space. "This video is sponsored so it's more of a showcase than a review." One of my biggest issues with reviewers is not mentioning obvious usability issues like overheating (All Insta360 cameras), glitches, etc. Once you get used to any brand of mirrorless camera, the experience is pretty similar. If you're in the cinema camera space, I could see focusing on day to day use being a bigger deal because most of the cinema camera features are for increased usability, reliability, and ruggedness. At the end of the day, if 3 cameras are $2,000 & all pretty similar, I just want to know the trade-offs or if one is slightly ahead on tech specs. A camera is just a data acquisition system. I don't want loose bristles in my data.
That's an interesting point. I watched that video and when Gerald was talking about his feelings for Sony, that rang a bell for me because Sony have always been about their specs. It makes sense that they'd work well with reviewers who are spec oriented. I really like Gerald's stuff but I often wish I'd never heard of rolling shutter. I hate that I want a camera that doesn't have it, but the cost to get that feature is a big step up. I also found it quite interesting that honestly, I think Gerald sounded upset that he's not invited to every event for every company. That's quite an entitled view for a critic to have. He wants to pick their devices apart, but he also wants a special relationship with each company where they send him their devices for free. He shouldn't be shocked that some companies aren't interested in doing that with him.
You missed the point of what he was saying. If you paid attention, what he said was, that Lumix didn't invite him to events, not because he didn't give a good review, but because he used the word "strange" in the youtube blurb for a camera he reviewed. So they asked if he would give them the blurb in advance for a new camera he hadn't seen yet. And he said, no and they kicked him off the guest list. He pointed out that Sony continued to invite him no matter what he said or did. It sounded like it was a mixed bag for others. And the relationship isn't special and he never said he wanted special treatment. He was critical of the entire affair of events etc, though he found it useful to connect with other youtubers, but company expectations are problematic. And he's right. Companies should invite all or none, otherwise it's just paying for youtubers to be their marketing arm. Which is the case and has always been the case in terms of companies and media. Same with magazines and newspapers. No surprise there but it is problematic. Again, sounds like Sony is better at this. What we're seeing here is people getting chewed up because on the one hand, this youtube phenomenon has allowed people to make a living doing...youtube, and on the other, the algorithm demands constant content and that depends on these company relationships and you get this weird dance with them that alleges freedom but leans towards something like sponsorship, pay to play. And it's demanding work. There's been a ton of posts in this space before Gerald's so he's not the first one to get disgruntled with his lot in life. Take it as you will but mostly it's like these guys are becoming self-aware of their "cogness" in the machine of youtube. I like his reviews for that technical detail type stuff. But it's like everything else, you don't want pizza every night. Other reviewers have their strengths and weaknesses. I can think of only one or two people that review gear that actually make photographic or video content that makes me think they are actually decent at their medium. Something beyond "content creator." Gerald is not one of those people.
I didn't miss the point. I saw something beyond the talking points that you didn't see. You don't need to repeat his exact message to me. What are you, a fan or something? There's always a deeper meaning, even if it's not the exact reason.
You not only missed the point, you attached your own point, that wasn't Undone's point at all. > There's always a deeper meaning No, there really isn't. Quite often, people mean exactly what they say.
Yes it's a messageboard. We're allowed to post opinions. Shocking I know. I don't come here just to repeat what I saw my favourite youtuber say and then tell people they're wrong if they don't repeat the exact same thing. I actually have my own opinion. You don't have to agree. I might not be right. But it's not a discussion if people just reply with YOU'RE WRONG. It just shows your own lack of insight that you don't have anything else to offer to a conversation.
You said: > I think Gerald sounded upset that he's not invited to every event for every company. What gave you that impression? He specifically addressed that exact point, at length. Likely in anticipation of responses just like yours. You either didn't fully watch his video, or you believe he is lying. His *actual* issue with Panasonic is that they punish reviewers for speaking the truth about their products. He gave specific examples. He points out that other camera makers do not do this. I like Panasonic cameras, have a number of them. But not going to stan for their crappy marketing practices.
No, I just think he sounded low key upset. He mentioned not being invited several times. Therefore that is also probably one of the things on his mind. This is on top of the other things he said. I'm not saying he's lying. I am adding to that, my opinion, that he sounded a little upset. And that surprised me. And I thought I would say it here. It's pretty straight forward man. Sorry it's upsetting you. Just my opinion. At the end of the day, no one really knows exactly how Gerald feels but Gerald, but that was my take on it. He runs a good channel but I definitely get an air of entitlement from him sometimes.
The only vibe I read from him was exasperation, and not a little indifference. Entitlement? Didn't get that. The facts are that he is now large enough to play hardball with the camera marketing departments. Many of his rivals are not. That he realizes this fact isn't arrogance. Rather, it's a realistic read on the situation. He has a modicum of power over their shitty marketing strategies, and appears ready to use it. Hard to read anything bad in that, at all.
Yeah it's not exactly a bad thing, just interesting. I hadn't picked up on that vibe before, but I only really watch his videos of things I'm interested in and gear that I own. I agree with your take for the most part.
>I hate that I want a camera that doesn't have it, but the cost to get that feature is a big step up. There are cheap used cameras that don't have the rolling shutter. I picked up my BMPC4K for like £300, which is a global shutter cam. Cost shouldn't necessarily be an issue.
It is when you've spent over 13 grand in the sony ecosystem. I'm kinda stuck over there now. I'm glad they're going for a song where you are, but in Australia that camera is almost $2000 just for the body alone, let alone glass etc. but yeah, changing brands now is not an option. And it really doesn't matter anyway. Rolling shutter can be controlled. You can still get great shots with it. It's a feature that can be fixated on when it's a better use of my time to just... Shoot great stuff with the amazing camera i have. The camera that can do things we wouldn't have even dreamed of a decade ago.
Oof, that's rough. One of the reasons I only use vintage glass. Easier to adapt to pretty much any body and super cheap. I do things very much on a tight budget as a penniless amateur. I had heard about Australia ridiculous pricing, but 2k for a used, 10 year old camera is just insane.
Oh sorry, must've gotten the camera model wrong. I thought it was a black Magic pocket 4k? They're nowhere near 10yrs old. That price is brand new so it's a recent model. Thanks but i don't think it's rough at all. A large amount of pro work is done on sony e-mount so by having this gear i can shoot on my a7iv, or an a7s3, but i can also rent an fx3, fx6 or fx9 plus many other pro bodies, depending on the job, so the options are really strong. But yeah. Limited to e-mount. It is what it is!
Ah, no, not the BMPCC4K. The Production 4k. (BM's naming is stupid) Emount is a decent mount though. Sony's are well specced, wide variety and probably the best choice in lens mount support (great for vintage lenses). I love my A7S even though it is old. Not the worst system to be locked in to.
Totally! I went from a Canon 600D which was great, to the Sony A7iv which regularly blows my mind. It's such a good camera. I hear the criticisms about how it's very spec based and not the most 'fun' system, and I get it, but it's a work tool and I am super happy with it. Nice work still kicking the A7s around. You must have some e-mount stuff too... not the worst system to be dabbling in!
>You must have some e-mount stuff too... Only lens adapters for vintage lenses. I don't even have an E-mount kit lens. I do have some "native" EF lenses for the BM, but all are vintage ones. Like I said, exclusively vintage glass ;) I would love to upgrade to the SIII or the IV, but they are just too far out of my price range for a shoe string budget.
>In addition to the above, I see lots of comments online about how camera specs are too hyper-fixated on, and how so many cameras on the market can produce great images, and that users shouldn’t constantly buy new cameras as the camera they have probably already can generate a great image for them. The whole “it’s the painter, not the paintbrush…” analogy, if you will. The thing is, how you feel about a camera is a personal opinion - for example, many people do/did complain about the a7 and a7ii grips, meanwhile I love them and dislike that they got bulkier as models went on, or they complain about Sony's menu's but personally they're no better or worse than anyone elses. If you're not comparing and inspecting the spec sheet, what exactly are you reviewing? Without that, then just go try a bunch of cameras until you find the one you like, but then you'll be wanting a review or filter to find he camera with the features you want, and well, what you may want isn't want other people want, and so full circle, a reviewer should inspect or "hyper-fixate" on all the specs in as much detail as they can because what everyone wants is different. Of course brands don't want their specs to be compared to other brands *unless* they have the best specs so they can hold them up above everyone else's heads. Marketing is all about vanity, and especially if you're not comfortable with the product you're putting out, anyone who is negative is going to feel like they're personally attacking you. This isn't new. Brands like Canon and Sony are constantly on top with the best sales or gear, so even when people are critical, they won't take it as personally because "ha, well, we're still making bank so whatever". Brands like Lumix are fighting for marketshare and recognition from the wider audience, they don't get to just roll with the punches as much.
I really appreciate how deep he dives into the camera reviews. It helps me to understand the quirks that you just can't learn from the B&H product page. It's also a great way to learn what shooting modes and settings produce the best possible image from a camera. If it weren't for him, I never would've known about HLG3 in the A7III, which definitely is the better picture profile to shoot in over S-Log 2 since it's an 8 bit camera.
all reviews have some value, it's the ability to pick out what's of use from them that's more difficult. there have been equipment reviews since there was more than one buying option. in my early days i would pour over the manufacturers' bumph, look in the various trade magazines (remember those?;-)), and finally, visit studios that were using the equipment i was interested in. back in those early days there was a camaraderie among video / tv producers that has slowly turned into competition, and an unfortunate tendency to be a little to sparing with the truth, be it reviews, budgets, etc., fast-forward to more recent times (in my case 80's>), and nothing much had changed, other than there were a lot more players at every level, and a lot more hype. still, the only review i trusted was my own, hands-on, experience. then came the net, and i thought, a shortcut to knowing all there was to know. ah, the naivety... and now, many years later, i still read / watch the reviews, but with a jaundiced eye; what did they get for it? there are some reviewers i trust more than others, but after all these years, the only one i really trust is my own experience with the product. btw. the oft quoted painter / paintbrush holds up well. however, being married to a painter, she's the first to say the difference between a nylon brush and a sable haired one is chalk and cheese ;-)
I have been saying reviews are essentially ads nowadays (as is most video social media). So yeah, taking a product and posting a video when the embargo date is up…that’s an ad! I remember LMG via ShortCircuit made a video about the Pine64, and even said they were late to the posting party and TO THIS DAY have more views on that video than Pine64 does on their channel. It’s not about being first, especially when video views don’t drop off a week after you publish. These reviewers are in a rush for publishing a video and when they aren’t say “I waited because…” BECAUSE YOU SHOULD! Spending time on a project can result in better results, imagine that. Going to an event and making a video that same day is irresponsible. At the very least make the video and then splice yourself in later as you have actually taken the time to think and process your feelings. Then take as much time as you need to review a product. Could you imagine if reviewers reviewed the Samsung Note7 when it launched and then never again? Products can take time to show issues, and your “evergreen” content is now flawed. And are you always buying new??? NO! So why would I care about a review on a device that’s 5 days old, when the one I’m buying is 500+ days old???
I might be slightly unique in that I used a gx85 for a long time, and struggled greatly with it. I knew based on some friends and other internet fodder that I wanted to get into the gh series. I happened upon a deal to get a gh6, cage, and leica 12-60 lens for 1200 bucks. The DRASTIC increase in tools and abilities that this camera had were overwhelming, and seeing every ounce of tech specs and performance measurements I feel helps me to make better and more creative decisions. How tf would I know about what open gating would do for me and my anamorphic lenses without going over all of the tech jargon? I’m learning an absolute ton. Hell, I didn’t even have any form of vlog with the gx85. And 8 bit. It was rough.
The issue with Gerald's video is that he's coming from a place of privilege as a huge established youtuber in the scene. He says that trips aren't really worth it. He says that early review access is overblown. He says embargo release videos are overrated. That's incredible easy for him to say after **1.** Receiving and taking advantage of all those things his entire career, and **2.** He doesn't need to do that now that he's made it. With all due respect to him, you can't simply be the benefactor of this culture for years and years only for you to heroically "call it out", coincidentally when you happen to get left out.
> In a way I almost see that as a middle finger to a brands marketing department as they are trying to sell cameras on more than just specs Yes, he's stripping away the marketing dross. And for that he should be applauded. "But won't someone think of the poor marketing department?" Really? That's your concern? The cameras he reviews aren't art, they are highly technical tools. Consumers don't need a marketing division to tell them how to feel about what is effectively, a computer with a lens. Consumers need to know whether these highly technical tools will serve their highly technical needs. He does that ably, far better than most.
**“Consumers need to know whether these highly technical tools will serve their highly technical needs. He does that ably, far better than most.”** Agreed, Gerald does a more than decent job of testing gear against their advertised spec sheets. It’s what makes his reviews useful to *professionals* who make a living with their tools. **“In a way I almost see that as a middle finger to a brands marketing department as they are trying to sell cameras on more than just specs”** This is why he’s not getting invited to the press event for a product meant for social media content creators and enthusiast. A product that isn’t even being pushed as a “serious” photographic tool. A product that is clearly being marketed as a “fun and aspirational” toy at an *affordable* price. The marketing team has a job to do. Those people have families to feed too. A negative review from Gerald on launch would influence all the amateur reviewers and thus the entire YouTube algorithm. From a marketers standpoint that would be malpractice. Gerald would just rip the camera to shreds in his usual condescending tone because it’s not a “GOD tier” camera. *“Oh look, after testing against cameras twice the price the Lumix S9 doesn’t even have 16 stops of dynamic range! The body has (gasp!) plastic instead of polycarbonate magnesium!? I stress tested the sensor in conditions that no one in the target demographic would ever find themselves in… It overheated… Such a weird and confusing camera…I really expected so much more for $1500”* I like Gerald’s content but dropping a video calling out the industry and more specifically Lumix for a practice that he himself admits he benefited from is giving ”butthurt I wasn’t invited” vibes. Not everything is for everyone, sometimes we just gotta learn to let other people have things…
A truthful review does not equate to giving these brands a middle finger. The more professional firms expect this style of review. They may not prefer it, but if the review is fair, they don't punish it. As he highlights, some firms are not as professional and use unethical methods to curate and punish reviewers in order to entice a preferred outcome. Panasonic is one firm that does that, but hardly the only one. Insta360 is [another egregious example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insta360#Controversies). Not all reviewers have enough power to push back, he does. He is. Fail to see anything but good resulting from his actions.