p.4 #1 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
flash wrote:
If they’re still using the gear 6 months later then I have some interest in what they might have to say. those that use it for only the sponsored videos tend to fall by the wayside.Thomas Heaton still uses his X2D2 and other Hasselblads. He’s a fan who’s taken advantage of his prescience to get some gear he’d likely want to have anyways. I have no issues with that at all.
It’s not that hard to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to *influencers*.
Gordon
I have no issue with Heaton, esp as the Hasselblad is exactly the camera that he should use for his kind of work. I do have an issue with Roman Fox, who was always going on about simple gear setups for travel and then makes a video about using the Hasselblad for street, which was clearly meant more for Hasselblad than for his audience.
p.4 #2 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
RoamingScott wrote:
Most YouTubers are idiots. You have people like Manny Ortiz comparing X2D and Sony files in Lightroom using the same Adobe profile...which doesn't show the "color science" of either camera, and in fact is designed to make files from different systems look similar. Crazy how easily they can be color matched when you do that!
I don't think I've seen a single influencer-level review of an X2D or X2Dii where the reviewer opened desktop Phocus, which is the ONLY way to actually see HNCS as intended.
Having compared the GFX and X2DII specifically for this reason I have to say while HCNS is real most of the review crowd (never mind influencers) probably have no idea how to even begin to talk about color science. I definitely don't know how to talk about it. I do know that I can say that HCNS gives me a better starting point for pleasing color (I have no idea if it's scientifically accurate) straight out of camera than any digital camera I've used in the last decade across every major brand.
p.4 #3 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
johnvanr wrote:
I have no issue with Heaton, esp as the Hasselblad is exactly the camera that he should use for his kind of work. I do have an issue with Roman Fox, who was always going on about simple gear setups for travel and then makes a video about using the Hasselblad for street, which was clearly meant more for Hasselblad than for his audience.
Roman Fox has recently said that he has had his fill of doing gear-related videos because he never enjoyed that.
p.4 #4 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
RoamingScott wrote:
---refused to review the X2D II because Hasselblad told him he had some leeway to be "a little negative to make it seem more authentic"
I don't follow why this is a problem? Hasselblad didn't want a bunch of "10 out of 10" effusive gushes about their gear. They wanted critical thinking from real users - which makes for a better more "authentic" review. imo Ever since photography started (film or digital) the manufacturers have sought to connect with the end users by showing professionals using it, and getting some quote of what they thought. Is it because it was arranged, that some guidelines were established; is that the problem? Many years ago when reviews were published in Peterson's and other photo magazines - the gear was on loan - and people questioned whether it was somehow better than a production run version. Like the item was hand picked or hand tuned - so I get the cynicism of the public, However, Hasselblad seems smart to do some preparatory work before handing out the samples - imo. Otherwise, trying to inform the public of your widget (advertising and marketing) is a waste of time if no one believes it.
p.4 #7 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
I trust the opinion of an FM member about gear far more than that of any influencer. At least we know they actually bought the gear, used it, and took the time to freely share their honest thoughts.
p.4 #8 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
Fred Miranda wrote:
I trust the opinion of an FM member about gear far more than that of any influencer. At least we know they actually bought the gear, used it, and took the time to freely share their honest thoughts.
From his "about" I'm a technology journalist living in Brooklyn. I write, research and produce for the MKBHD YouTube channel and co-host the Waveform podcast.
I guess coming from a marketing background I am blind to how Hassy's request poisoned the well for doing a review. These things are always arranged ahead of time. It doesn't mean anything underhanded is occurring. That's my .o2
p.4 #9 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
James Markus wrote:
From his "about" I'm a technology journalist living in Brooklyn. I write, research and produce for the MKBHD YouTube channel and co-host the Waveform podcast.
I guess coming from a marketing background I am blind to how Hassy's request poisoned the well for doing a review. These things are always arranged ahead of time. It doesn't mean anything underhanded is occurring. That's my .o2
Looking at history, perfection doesn't exist. We are all fallible, and recognizing our flaws isn't cynicism, just being realistic.
Camera brands are businesses trying to sell products, and we each get to choose how to navigate that relationship.
When brands ask me to say specific things or gloss over drawbacks, my policy is simple: provide fair, balanced reviews grounded in objective tests and sample images rather than just my personal opinion, completely free of outside influence. In other words,, I present the evidence (tests and sample images) so you guys can draw your own conclusions. Some agree with me while others don't and that's the way it should be.
A few companies don't like this approach since they lose control of the output, but it feels like the right path for me.
p.4 #10 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
Fred Miranda wrote:
I trust the opinion of an FM member about gear far more than that of any influencer. At least we know they actually bought the gear, used it, and took the time to freely share their honest thoughts.
Quite a few of us here are sent gear to review, including yourself, if I'm not mistaken. Not every review posted on FM by those folks is from something they paid their own money for. The difference is, we have a pretty comprehensive track record over many years and people can and should judge for themselves whether or not our thoughts and opinions are worth their consideration.
James Markus wrote:
These things are always arranged ahead of time.
I've worked with quite a few companies now. The only reviews I've been willing to do are ones where the company sends me the thing for review and I'm allowed to use it and speak my complete truth on it without any input or narrative guidance.
I've turned down other companies that wanted more input or wanted me to act as an extension of their marketing department. Some companies are willing to let their gear speak for itself and some aren't.
p.4 #11 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
Fred Miranda wrote:
Looking at history, perfection doesn't exist. We are all fallible, and recognizing our flaws isn't cynicism, just being realistic.
Camera brands are businesses trying to sell products, and we each get to choose how to navigate that relationship.
When brands ask me to say specific things or gloss over drawbacks, my policy is simple: provide fair, balanced reviews grounded in objective tests and sample images rather than just my personal opinion, completely free of outside influence. In other words,, I present the evidence so you guys can draw your own conclusions. Some agree with me while others don't and that's the way it should be.
A few companies don't like this approach since they lose control of the output, but it feels like the right path for me....Show more →
If I may say - that sounds very much like the journalism code of ethnics. Truth, verify, then publish. By hiring a journalist they were going to get an opinion. They may not have liked that opinion, but they knew they couldn't control it. I assume the company choose David, because they thought his opinion was respected - not like an "influencer", and that he seemed to have a good command of technology. If they wanted fluff there are many copy writers that would be happy to oblige. The reason he "refused" doesn't make sense to me. If he thought they were trying to buy a "good" review and the camera was a bribe to that effect - all he had to do is say it is against his ethics to accept gifts from those companies that are requesting (I would think they approached him with this thing) a review. If you mix in companies that advertise with you, it is natural for them to try and leverage that connection. Even more drama.
I reviewed proto-type digital cameras for Nikon, Kodak, and the Associated Press (software) for over 2 years. I complained incessantly about every new proto-type, and it just seemed to encourage them to ask even more. I still do not know exactly how I ended up in that position. I wrote a report in 1989 after seeing a Canon video camera that shot tiny still frames, using film EF? camera lenses, and what that would mean for the future. It isn't rocket science to figure it out. That is my best quess. Nobody ever offered a freebie, but the last camera I just didn't give back until the two guys that brought it to me left town. It was the closest thing to what I wanted. The press got a discount on the price because of my reports.
The reason I bring this up is because all these manufacturers have great engineering, advertising etc - but they are desperate to know what the folks that actually use these electronic/mechanical marvels think. And, they don't want to be embarrassed. I've known many journalist, and it sounds like you are on a similar ethical approach.
p.4 #12 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
RoamingScott wrote:
Quite a few of us here are sent gear to review, including yourself, if I'm not mistaken. Not every review posted on FM by those folks is from something they paid their own money for. The difference is, we have a pretty comprehensive track record over many years and people can and should judge for themselves whether or not our thoughts and opinions are worth their consideration.
I've worked with quite a few companies now. The only reviews I've been willing to do are ones where the company sends me the thing for review and I'm allowed to use it and speak my complete truth on it without any input or narrative guidance.
I've turned down other companies that wanted more input or wanted me to act as an extension of their marketing department. Some companies are willing to let their gear speak for itself and some aren't....Show more →
Just a couple questions: Are you saying they just sent a camera to you without even calling or writing first to see if you were willing to review it?
"without any input or narrative guidance" - the guidance they asked for was a critique (with a "little" modifier) - that is why I don't understand his refusal. Maybe something else happened that he is not saying
p.4 #13 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
James Markus wrote:
I don't follow why this is a problem? Hasselblad didn't want a bunch of "10 out of 10" effusive gushes about their gear. They wanted critical thinking from real users - which makes for a better more "authentic" review. imo Ever since photography started (film or digital) the manufacturers have sought to connect with the end users by showing professionals using it, and getting some quote of what they thought. Is it because it was arranged, that some guidelines were established; is that the problem? Many years ago when reviews were published in Peterson's and other photo magazines - the gear was on loan - and people questioned whether it was somehow better than a production run version. Like the item was hand picked or hand tuned - so I get the cynicism of the public, However, Hasselblad seems smart to do some preparatory work before handing out the samples - imo. Otherwise, trying to inform the public of your widget (advertising and marketing) is a waste of time if no one believes it.
In my experience the company providing review samples giving "some leeway" implies that the gear is contingent on an overall good review which does influence things. If the company is smart, they will allow just enough criticism in the right areas to feel authentic but still be highly shaped by their marketing team. With Hasselblad this usually was around price because even though it was higher than the cameras a lot of these reviewers typically looked at, they could still frame it as a win by pointing out that the price went down with the X2D II compared to the previous X2D. You take the major negative for most people and soften it immediately with a positive making it look like a deal.
I think a lot of people are somewhat aware of the way YouTube and social media sponsorships work and see it as a necessary way for their favorite influencers/reviewers to continue to make content. When Hasselblad flooded the review space with a high end product out of reach of a lot of these influencer's audiences it potentially crossed some sort of line with what people thought was acceptable in terms of a sponsorship and caused the audience to question the reviewer's integrity. You're seeing this a lot with high end tech products as more and more people are priced out and dealing with economic conditions. If you check the comments on any tech in the PC or storage space right now you'll see the overall negative sentiment.
p.4 #14 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
It is simply impossible for any reviewer to give a complete, flawless and unbiased review of a product in photography. There’s just too many variables to test so that every reader gets the truth.
Ambassadors, generally, have bugger all experience with other brands. I know Leica ambassadors get in trouble if they use other gear that’s not approved. So how do you get a completely honest comparison from them? Nick Rains is an exception. He’s a Leica tester. So is Jono Slack. Their job is to give feedback to Leica and we get an early preview, not a review. They have more flexibility to use other gear. But a regular ambassador isn’t also using a Canon. Mark Galler shouldn’t be allowed to label his Sony ads as reviews, but he does.
Most channels get gear for a few days and in some cases hours. Ummm, no. These are introductions, nothing more. I take months to really get the feel for a lens. I have no idea how a review can be done in a day with a new lens. Then there’s specialty bias. How many A1ii reviews talk about AF on people? None, because Sony loans that camera to wildlife and sports shooters. And if it has a semi stacked sensor almost every review sees how far they can push it. Those aren’t reviews because they’re not complete. They spend most of their time talking about a 5% sensor change like it’s life changing and IQ without telling you which lens they have on the camera.
Then there’s the owners. They buy the gear. Likely if you spend 10K on a camera or lens you’re going to be biased towards it. We’re naturally biased to the things we pay for. Or we do the opposite. If it has a single fault that doesn’t suit us we label it garbage and trash it completely.
I know for sure I’m biased. Mostly I think all modern cameras are good enough and to me, UI, menus and handling are super important. But my hands are different to your hands. I don’t shoot what you shoot. I don’t usually wear gloves. I’m happy to schlep more or less gear that’s you are. I don’t, yet, wear glasses. Sure I have a lot of gear and I keep it forever, mostly. But unless I look like you, shoot like you and live where you live, I can’t be entirely credible.
None of these sources is implicitly lying, usually. But mostly their criticisms are because they’re haven’t used a camera/lens long enough to know it completely or they’re shoehorning a landscape camera into a sports hole. But mostly because they’re getting paid their job is really selling you cameras. They need to keep a good relationship with their brand contacts in marketing. They’re not really photographers, even if they were once upon a time. They’re advertising and entertainment and need to be treated as such.
There are precious few review channels who don’t have to toe the line, just a little bit. Geral Undone, MKHB, DC rainmaker. Maybe Peta Pixel. But even these guys have some bias. It’s part of the human condition. Same with David Imel. A diehard film shooter with a strong bias to manual focus cameras. Watching him describe how a RF works is really well done. It’ll make you want one……
It gets easier when you start following those with a similar bias to you. I like Thomas Heaton. He points his Hasselblad at similar thing to what I point my Hasselblad at, mostly (I do more unban scapes than he does). I’ve been known to schlep a pack up a hill before dawn and wait for the light. I have a van I use as a mobile processing station. I like Steve Perry. He sets up his Sony’s like I do for wildlife and he shoots in Africa, which I really love doing. He’s comparing the lenses I’m comparing, shooting the subjects I like shooting. When he says something is better for him it’ll likely be better for me. I don’t use Jan Werner’s setups for me. I’m not a twitcher. But K definitely is and she shoots Canon, like he does. So I set up her camera a bit like he does. I listen to his opinions on new lenses because K shoots birds and his finding have relevance. Peter McKinnon seems like a nice guy but I completely ignore anything he says because it’s irrelevant to the way I want to shoot. I don’t like his style and he’s a Canon ambassador and he shoots stuff I have little interest in. Same with Visual Education and Peter Coulson for Hasselblad. I don’t shoot tethered in studio any more except for cursory testing a new body. But I’m pretty sure they’re very useful to many.
It’s all biased. Once you get over that simple reality it’s much easier. YouTube is entertainment. If you really want to know if a piece of photography gear works for you then you need to test it for yourself.
p.4 #15 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
Sometimes companies reach out to me. More often than not, those are the worse companies to work with, because they have a very specific push they are making and want positive chatter online in a specific timeline so they can flood SEO.
Sometimes I reach out asking to review a specific thing and explain the use cases I specialize in. Those tend to be the companies that give me total freedom and are more interested in actual feedback.
James Markus wrote:
Just a couple questions: Are you saying they just sent a camera to you without even calling or writing first to see if you were willing to review it?
"without any input or narrative guidance" - the guidance they asked for was a critique (with a "little" modifier) - that is why I don't understand his refusal. Maybe something else happened that he is not saying
p.4 #16 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
endergemini wrote:
In my experience the company providing review samples giving "some leeway" implies that the gear is contingent on an overall good review which does influence things. If the company is smart, they will allow just enough criticism in the right areas to feel authentic but still be highly shaped by their marketing team. With Hasselblad this usually was around price because even though it was higher than the cameras a lot of these reviewers typically looked at, they could still frame it as a win by pointing out that the price went down with the X2D II compared to the previous X2D. You take the major negative for most people and soften it immediately with a positive making it look like a deal.
I think a lot of people are somewhat aware of the way YouTube and social media sponsorships work and see it as a necessary way for their favorite influencers/reviewers to continue to make content. When Hasselblad flooded the review space with a high end product out of reach of a lot of these influencer's audiences it potentially crossed some sort of line with what people thought was acceptable in terms of a sponsorship and caused the audience to question the reviewer's integrity. You're seeing this a lot with high end tech products as more and more people are priced out and dealing with economic conditions. If you check the comments on any tech in the PC or storage space right now you'll see the overall negative sentiment.
You have a point about how niche these high end thing-a-bobs are, but they will never become common. If "some leeway" = "that the gear is contingent on an overall good review" - no respectable individual would do the review. I assume Hasselblad is smart enough to know that. I do appreciate their fear. You have design engineers, manufacturing, marketing, and a lot of time invested in this new baby - you're not going to hand it off to a nitwit with an opinion. In short, they are smarter than that, because it would only weed out those with integrity.
p.4 #17 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
flash wrote:
It is simply impossible for any reviewer to give a complete, flawless and unbiased review of a product in photography. There’s just too many variables to test so that every reader gets the truth.
Gordon
I would only add that it takes too much time to do a proper review. About the only person I have ever come across with an encyclopedic understand of film cameras is Chris Sherlock - over your side of the planet. Doesn't mean there aren't more, but they are extremely rare.
p.4 #19 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
I’m not sure why Hasselblad or DJI feel the need to do this to the X2D2 to this extend. The X2D2 is a very like-able camera.
After having two Z9(one for birding, and one for my other shooting) for awhile, I felt the weight of the Z9 and the S lenses. The Z9 and f1.2S glasses are pretty hefty especially the 85f1.2S.
I went to my LFS and played around with several MF including phase one IQ4(lol) and the moment I handled the X2D2 and 55V, I was like wow. All this camera in this size and form factor. I came home and kept thinking about cropped MF.
The next week, I traded one of the Z9 for X2D2 and 55V. I’ve since bought 90V and 38V. Every time I use it, I can’t believe the size and user experience with no downside of IQ to what I’m used to.
p.4 #20 · David Imel says the quiet part out loud about Hasselblad
this is me wrote:
The Z9 and f1.2S glasses are pretty hefty (...)
and the moment I handled the X2D2 and 55V, I was like wow. All this camera in this size and form factor. I came home and kept thinking about cropped MF.
However, comparing, say, a 1.2/50 lens for 24x36 with a 2.5/55 for 33x44 is a flawed comparison. A more appropriate match would be something like the Viltrox Air 2.0/50 for 24x36, which weighs 200g.😉
And as for rendering, the 2.5/55 definitely cannot hold a candle to the 1.2/50.🍻
