robert_in_ca wrote:
I think lens/body communication matters, and L-Mount does allow manufacturers to optimize their own lenses and bodies. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say Leica lenses have a Leica focusing algorithm that only works properly on Leica bodies. The AF system is mostly body-side, and Panasonic officially supports Leica SL lenses on the S1RII family with AF modes. So unless there’s a specific tested lens/body combo showing better hit rates on the SL3-P, I wouldn’t use that as the main justification for the Leica price difference.
My understanding is that they have two different sets of focusing algorithm's ... that's not to say "only works properly", rather optimized to function differently. Kinda that "snap" into place vs. "wobble" into place type of thing. Again, I can't speak to it, since I've not yet owned the SL APO series glass on my SL bodies. Since my AF needs are few and I like to shoot my M lenses on the SL ... I have yet to invest in the SL APO glass. Just an awareness of a "potential" difference for consideration. Pondering what other small diff's (i.e. user experience, etc.) might be in play, as well.
It wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, it’s just something I see nearly every day in every corner of the internet and largely what this thread turned into.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'm assuming that this is directed at me, as I'm the one suggesting that the money spent to give gear away results in a disingenuous analysis of the gear. Good luck on your YouTube endeavors, but know that most experienced people in the media are seeing declining income. I've been a part of the production side on the back end... editing work and filming for others, I certainly know the time it takes. For most, it is one income stream... a tiny income stream, but seeing people watch the creator's video and comment on a video offers a great ego/dopamine boost that can be borderline addictive.
There remains a few people in the YouTube photo business that have my respect... for whatever that's worth, but there are many who don't.
There are no sour grapes on my end... I am just saying, buyer beware.
Now, I will gracefully bow out of this part of the discussion and let you have the last word.
bruce
Nobody is forcing Leica on anyone. It’s just a brand. Years ago companies reached people through magazine articles, workshops, and lectures. Today a lot of that has simply shifted to YouTube. That’s the reality of the current media landscape, and it isn’t going away. IMO
Companies are going to market where people are paying attention. That’s capitalism. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives.
If someone doesn’t like influencer marketing, they don’t have to watch it or buy the product. We used to say to not patronize that business.
Surfnsun wrote:
Nobody is forcing Leica on anyone. It’s just a brand. Years ago companies reached people through magazine articles, workshops, and lectures. Today a lot of that has simply shifted to YouTube. That’s the reality of the current media landscape, and it isn’t going away. IMO
Companies are going to market where people are paying attention. That’s capitalism. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives.
If someone doesn’t like influencer marketing, they don’t have to watch it or buy the product. We used to say to not patronize that business.
I think the criticism isn't so much aimed at Leica for marketing their stuff in a particular way or via particular channels, but at the fact that it's hard to know what to think of influencers. At least old style media companies had a brand to uphold over long time frames and getting into the business required real commitment. Now, anyone can start talking about whatever they want to talk about and there's is absolutely no checkpoint between that person and the viewer, no editors, no owners.
On Leica, let's just say I think Leica should pay perpetual royalties to the estate of Henri Cartier Bresson. If he and some of his buddies hadn't used Leica at a time when magazines became a thing, they'd be just another brand with a funny-looking camera
johnvanr wrote:
I think the criticism isn't so much aimed at Leica for marketing their stuff in a particular way or via particular channels, but at the fact that it's hard to know what to think of influencers. At least old style media companies had a brand to uphold over long time frames and getting into the business required real commitment. Now, anyone can start talking about whatever they want to talk about and there's is absolutely no checkpoint between that person and the viewer, no editors, no owners.
On Leica, let's just say I think Leica should pay perpetual royalties to the estate of Henri Cartier Bresson. If he and some of his buddies hadn't used Leica at a time when magazines became a thing, they'd be just another brand with a funny-looking camera ...Show more →
johnvanr wrote:
With my first statement I’m referring to the YT moment every maker seems to encounter where they feel inspired to produce the video that says that the camera they currently own, whether that’s an MFT camera or a relatively low resolution FF camera, is more than enough to produce large prints (something we all known to be true for about 10 years now). So,mthey declare themselves happy with what they have.
And the Hasselblad comes in and - as I understand it - tells them they can sponsor a video at the regular rate or they can send over a camera and lens to keep (whereas the gear usually is just on loan). Most jump on the opportunity to get a camera they wouldn’t have bought and many keep using it, even though the camera is way more than they’ve earlier stated they ever need. So, I’m pointing out their hypocrisy.
I can understand it, but despite the fact that many of them work hard at this, it also shows a certain lack of true professionalism. And I find it strange that they don’t come clean and produce a video stating why they kept the gear and use it despite it being overkill for the end result they seek. That to me shows their thinking isn’t aimed enough at their viewers, who in the end are all that matters....Show more →
That is certainly how I understood it as well, and I don't see any contradictions there. After all, I can—even as a YouTuber—drive a VW Passat Variant and express the (honest) opinion that the car is perfectly adequate and that one doesn't need anything more. If I were then gifted an E-Class T-Model and simply kept it (not because I need such a vehicle, but because it’s a fun gift), that certainly wouldn't contradict my original statement that a VW Passat Variant is perfectly adequate.
johnvanr wrote:
I think the criticism isn't so much aimed at Leica for marketing their stuff in a particular way or via particular channels, but at the fact that it's hard to know what to think of influencers. At least old style media companies had a brand to uphold over long time frames and getting into the business required real commitment. Now, anyone can start talking about whatever they want to talk about and there's is absolutely no checkpoint between that person and the viewer, no editors, no owners.
On Leica, let's just say I think Leica should pay perpetual royalties to the estate of Henri Cartier Bresson. If he and some of his buddies hadn't used Leica at a time when magazines became a thing, they'd be just another brand with a funny-looking camera ...Show more →
Remember when that old traditional media ran ads and did specials on how smoking was good for your health especially your lungs.
The bulk of today's pharmaceutical advertising budgets today are spent on traditional media news and documentary channels. Also spending on perks for your favorite influencer your Doctor.
This is a very long term issue. Camera companies are not the biggest offenders in this regard.
1bwana1 wrote:
Remember when that old traditional media ran ads and did specials on how smoking was good for your health especially your lungs.
The bulk of today's pharmaceutical advertising budgets today are spent on traditional media news and documentary channels. Also spending on perks for your favorite influencer your Doctor.
This is a very long term issue. Camera companies are not the biggest offenders in this regard.
True. But at least in the past, the WSJ could piss off General Motors despite GM then withdrawing all their advertising only to return a while later.
In today’s world there are very few media outlets left that can somehow withstand the pressure of the game.
The other side is that nowadays people tend to not want to hear bad news about stuff they feel they have a stake in, even if they would benefit from the improvement that criticism could trigger. The WWW is generally skewed toward either BS or positive slants. Pure criticism is largely absent. Local homeowners resist negative coverage about the local school district, because they think it will hurt home values (even though the coverage could improve their kids’ education).
I’ve had my share of run ins with power over time, but the only time I was legally threatened was when I wrote about a private school that clearly needed an overhaul. Not a word I wrote was untrue, but lots of people - including parents of the kids at the school - got upset. These were the very people who would benefit from the school tackling the issues. The legal threat went nowhere, of course.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
That is certainly how I understood it as well, and I don't see any contradictions there. After all, I can—even as a YouTuber—drive a VW Passat Variant and express the (honest) opinion that the car is perfectly adequate and that one doesn't need anything more. If I were then gifted an E-Class T-Model and simply kept it (not because I need such a vehicle, but because it’s a fun gift), that certainly wouldn't contradict my original statement that a VW Passat Variant is perfectly adequate.
Sure, but I think some of those YouTubers lost part of their audience or at least the respect of that audience by doing that.
I love cars, but I don’t watch any videos about cars I can afford. I watch videos about cool cars I can’t afford or would never be able to justify owning. That works in automotive journalism and continues a long tradition of car magazines.
That tradition just doesn’t exist in photographic gear coverage. Thomas Heaton being happy with his Canon or Nikon, but largely switching to Hasselblad after he got a freebie doesn’t do zilch for the appeal of his channel.
And if he’s a true pro (not as a photographer, which he isn’t) but as a content creator (which is his actual profession), he realizes that shooting with a Hasselblad makes it harder for some of his audience to feel a connection with what he does.
johnvanr wrote:
Sure, but I think some of those YouTubers lost part of their audience or at least the respect of that audience by doing that.
I love cars, but I don’t watch any videos about cars I can afford. I watch videos about cool cars I can’t afford or would never be able to justify owning. That works in automotive journalism and continues a long tradition of car magazines.
That tradition just doesn’t exist in photographic gear coverage. Thomas Heaton being happy with his Canon or Nikon, but largely switching to Hasselblad after he got a freebie doesn’t do zilch for the appeal of his channel.
And if he’s a true pro (not as a photographer, which he isn’t) but as a content creator (which is his actual profession), he realizes that shooting with a Hasselblad makes it harder for some of his audience to feel a connection with what he does....Show more →
You are making a lot of judgements and suppositions regarding Thomas Heations business. If what you are saying is true it would result in lower subscriptions, lower views, and therefore lower income for him when he uses the Hasselblad. I think he would notice this and react to it. I guess we could audit his subscription and views to see if your suppositions on this are true.
1bwana1 wrote:
You are making a lot of judgements and suppositions regarding Thomas Heations business. If what you are saying is true it would result in lower subscriptions, lower views, and therefore lower income for him when he uses the Hasselblad. I think he would notice this and react to it. I guess we could audit his subscription and views to see if your suppositions on this are true.
I’m merely basing it on comments by his own users to his own videos. The same type of comments also regularly show up on other channels I follow by guys who used to be largely gear agnostic, often proudly so. E.g. Roman Fox and James Popsys.
Business wise, the biggest fear a lot of these guys must have is when/if SquareSpace and/or MPB decide to stop sponsoring all these creators.
johnvanr wrote:
A reviewer will not pan a product by a company he wants future business with. That is a potential problem.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when the Chinese really start hurting the Japanese companies. Then the game will become more difficult for everyone involved.
You do not need to pan a company when explaining things that should be done better.
A reviewer who appears to be a paid shill will lose their audience and, therefore, their income. We cannot expect all YT content to be of acceptable quality.
What we often see is that people dislike a positive review and therefore assume the reviewer is corrupt.
I do not understand the context of the comment about Chinese vs Japanese companies.
P.S.: By giving free cameras to influencers, Hasselblad allows them to shoot with a camera that they would not be able to afford otherwise. It removes the cost factor in the decisions, which should not, but often is, the main criterion.
SrMi wrote:
You do not need to pan a company when explaining things that should be done better. A reviewer who appears to be a paid shill will lose their audience and, therefore, their income. We cannot expect all YT content to be of acceptable quality.
What we often see is that people dislike a positive review and therefore assume the reviewer is corrupt.
I do not understand the context of the comment about Chinese vs Japanese companies.
P.S.: By giving free cameras to influencers, Hasselblad allows them to shoot with a camera that they would not be able to afford otherwise. It removes the cost factor in the decisions, which should not, but often is, the main criterion....Show more →
A whole bunch of glorified camera ambassadors out here thriving. This may have been true in a different era but this is not true in mine. Selling out or "getting to the bag," as we call it, is in. People mostly want to hear their sentiments echoed back to them. Integrity ain't as highly valued as it used to be. A lot of people just want into the cool kids club.
SrMi wrote:
You do not need to pan a company when explaining things that should be done better.
A reviewer who appears to be a paid shill will lose their audience and, therefore, their income. We cannot expect all YT content to be of acceptable quality.
What we often see is that people dislike a positive review and therefore assume the reviewer is corrupt.
I do not understand the context of the comment about Chinese vs Japanese companies.
P.S.: By giving free cameras to influencers, Hasselblad allows them to shoot with a camera that they would not be able to afford otherwise. It removes the cost factor in the decisions, which should not, but often is, the main criterion....Show more →
The issue is that no camera ever gets panned, unless it’s by a small manufacturer who has no sway over the influencer.
They’re not paid shills, but they can’t afford to piss off the main manufacturers either. That in itself is an issue. I don’t think anyone is corrupt. I think the business model is flawed, but they have to operate within it or give up their business. For us as users, we have to realize that.
At some point, the Chinese manufacturers are going to catch up completely with the Japanese ones and undercut them. Then it becomes harder to cater to the wishes of the large Japanese brands without screwing over the audience by ignoring that you can get the same quality for a much lower price from China.
Your Hasselblad comment makes no sense. Journalists and influencers have and have had the opportunity to try out gear forever on loan, often for extended periods of time. That was true for every brand. There was never a cost factor in the decision to review gear. Even for my tiny blog, Zeiss sent me the expensive Otus lenses which I would never have bought myself. Only cheaper stuff could be kept. Gear would be sent back. Hasselblad changed that by allowing them to keep the gear.
The latter is always framed by the influencers as being given the option to accept Hasselblad sponsoring a video at the regular rate or being gifted the gear in exchange for doing a video about it. Now surely I may have missed something, but I don’t recall seeing a video sponsored by Hasselblad where the reviewer had opted not to use Hasselblad or return the gear or by an influencer who already used Fuji GFX, people like Adam Gibbs and Andy Mumford.
You may be knowledgeable about gear and be able to draw your own conclusions and thus not care that much, but the same game is played with every product you’re curious about.
I honestly can't think of anything I care even LESS about than YouTubers, influencers, and content creators. Perhaps THAT is the reason why I can't relate to the fuss here at all. 🤷🏻♂️
RomanMF wrote:
A whole bunch of glorified camera ambassadors out here thriving. This may have been true in a different era but this is not true in mine. Selling out or "getting to the bag," as we call it, is in. People mostly want to hear their sentiments echoed back to them. Integrity ain't as highly valued as it used to be. A lot of people just want into the cool kids club.
Integrity plus the perceived need of integrity. Nowadays we have government employees making money on government actions they know are going to happen. That’s sick.
In my days as a wire service reporter, we received some government data under embargo ahead of their release. In those minutes, hundreds of millions could be earned or lost with that knowledge, but no one involved - government employees or journalists - was playing fast and loose with the data, selling it to the highest bidder or some buddy on Wall Street.
And in some reactions to my comments here, it’s clear people are absolutely fine with the knowledge that they’re being played. They just accept it and assume they can deal with it. And maybe we can in the camera gear market, but we’re being played everywhere, including in stuff that’s more important than a new lens.
