Panasonic inadvertently created a controversy (actually, two). You’re probably aware of it already, but for those who aren’t, let me briefly explain it to you. Afterwards, I’ll tie it back into Fujifilm and Fuji X Weekly, and by the end it will all make sense why I’m bringing it up on this blog.
It began when Gerald Undone, a popular YouTuber, posted a video lamenting that Panasonic didn’t invite him to the launch event of the Lumix S9, nor did they send him a preproduction model prior to release. Gerald comes across as unnecessarily bothered for the exclusion; however, he goes on to make some extremely valid points that shouldn’t be dismissed. If you haven’t seen the video, I’d rather you watch it and form your own opinions than to read my commentary on it, so I’ll leave it at that.
What is important to note, though, is that—in Gerald’s view—Panasonic punished him for being critical of one of their products (or, really, using the “wrong” word), and they told him they were excluding him from the S9 launch because they were concerned he wouldn’t like the camera. In his opinion, Panasonic’s content-creator inclusion for the event was largely based on who they felt would tow the company’s line, which casts skepticism (fairly or unfairly) across the viewpoints of those who were invited. Again, you can watch the video and form your own opinions, I’m just trying to lay out the controversy for those who are unaware.
Afterwards, people noticed that the camera reviews by those who attended the launch event and/or who had received a preproduction model of the Lumix S9 were largely very positive despite the technical specs and features being surprisingly mediocre. There was an obvious disconnect between the initial reviews and the perception of those who had read the fine details. Did that prove Gerald right?
Important to the controversy is that the Lumix S9, aside from one important aspect, is probably the least interesting full-frame camera released in the last decade (this is my opinion, it’s ok to disagree). Some reviewers—I’m sure at the recommendation of Panasonic—suggested that the S9 is comparable to the Fujifilm X100VI; basically, the S9 is a full-frame interchangeable-lens X100VI alternative. However, the Fujifilm camera that the S9 is most similar to is the X-A5, and not the X100VI. The X-A5 has some advantages (mechanical shutter, hotshoe, grip, size/weight, price, lenses), and the S9 has some advantages (6K video, IBIS, larger dynamic range, better high-ISO, better autofocus); otherwise, those two models are surprisingly similar.
The “important aspect” of the Lumix S9, which is indeed noteworthy, is the ability to wirelessly transfer LUTs (think overlays or presets) from an app to the camera, and apply those to still pictures for straight-out-of-camera photography. Panasonic is trying to create a community around LUTs similar to the Recipe Community for Fujifilm. Interestingly, Panasonic’s slogan for the S9 is: “Shoot. Edit. Share.” It’s a mixed message, for whatever reason; however, Film Simulation Recipes have become so popular for Fujifilm that other brands are trying to figure out how to incorporate something similar, which should not be overlooked or under-appreciated.
Going back to the controversy, there have been a large number of people within the photography world who have commented on a perceived disconnect between what the Lumix S9 actually is and the hype that many YouTubers espoused who were flown to Japan for the launch. The solution suggested by some is to ignore the opinions of those who were given early-access to the S9, and especially to those who attended the launch. But is that fair?
I was recently loaned a preproduction Fujifilm X-T50. I wasn’t invited to the X-Summit launch event in Sydney, but I was flown to a secondary event in New York City. The X-T50 has a contentious design choice that I spoke (mostly) positively about. Do you see a parallel? Was I invited because Fujifilm thought I would hype the camera? Were my opinions influenced by Fujifilm’s generosity towards me? Can Fuji X Weekly still be trusted for unbiased opinions (or at least as unbiased as an unashamed fanboy can get)? I really had to ask myself these questions, and give this whole matter a lot of consideration.
When I arrived in New York, one of the first things I was asked by a Fujifilm representative is what I thought of the new Film Dial. I said that I was unsure about it at first, but once I figured out how to get the most out of it, I really liked it. The representative was surprised, because it was assumed that I wouldn’t like it, since it’s not necessarily designed for use with Recipes.
During the trip—and even before—it was stated several times by Fujifilm that what they wanted most was authenticity—those involved shouldn’t be concerned with what they may believe the company wants; Be true to who you are. I was also told that vulnerability is a virtue they appreciate. Looking back, my impression is that they wanted those in attendance to be at ease, and to not feel pressured to think or feel some certain way, or create some certain things. The point seemed to be more about establishing connections between creative people who happen to use Fujifilm products, and much less about the products themselves.
The question is whether or not I was influenced in some way by Fujifilm. I probably would not have picked up an X-T50 had Fujifilm not sent me one; had I not used it, I probably would not have spoken so positively towards it, because I wouldn’t have discovered how to effectively use it. That seems like an obvious one, to me. Maybe more subtly: I met some of the people behind the brand, and gained insights into some inner workings, which adjusted my perception about the company—essentially, some of my preconceived notions about Fujifilm had to be realigned to match reality. That’s a type of influence that I believe is actually positive. Did I come away thinking that if I speak negatively about the brand, I won’t be invited back? I’d be lying if I told you that it didn’t cross my mind, because it did; however, I don’t believe that is true.
This whole controversy has caused me to pause and self-reflect, and evaluate my own motives and actions. I want authenticity and vulnerability to be the gold standard of this website and myself, personally. I hope that I’m a trustworthy voice in the Fujifilm community—both now, and for years to come. I’m highly appreciative that Fujifilm reached out to me, loaned me a camera, and invited me to their event, and I look forward to any other potential opportunities to work with the brand in the future. If I have to leave my ethics at the door to do so, I’m not ok with that. Thankfully, I don’t believe Fujifilm would ask that of me, but it is important to not be complacent of the potential, and to hold onto my personal values tightly at all times.
Wonderful, insightful article. Kudos for letting those who follow you learn your thoughtful observations of your and Fuji’s character and role in our community, not simply promotions for recipies and gear.
I appreciate your kindness! 😀
While I might quibble a bit over what I think Gerald was actually saying in his video, this was a thoughtful writing and much appreciated. Thanks for sharing it!
That’s how I understood it, but I’m sure it could be interpreted a few different ways. I’m not a regular consumer of his content, but if I was, perhaps I would have understood it a bit differently. I do think it’s important for everyone to make up their own minds by watching the video for themselves. The points that he makes are worth hearing and considering—quite thought-provoking. I do appreciate your kind feedback! 😀
I am convinced that reviewers are really “influenced” to say that X-T50 is “good looking camera”.
Anyone i asked keep saying it’s p*ss ugly, worst looking body of all x mount cameras.. it’s almost as if they want you to pay extra to get X-T5 just to NOT get an ugly camera.
It is indeed a good-looking camera! The rounded corners are reminiscent of several classic film cameras on my shelf. There’s a vague resemblance to the Nikon FG, Pentax ME, any number of Yashica’s, and others. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it’s all subjective, but I think the number of people who find it to be ugly is pretty small—in fact, you’re the first I’ve heard state that, and I hear from a lot of Fujifilm photographers from across the world. I don’t know what else to say about it. Personally, I like the visual look of the X-T50 over the X-T5 (they’re both nice, though); however, it’s all subjective, and everyone has different tastes.
The corners are not only rounded, they are also chopped which i believe was totally unnecessary. There is something really off putting to that particular design aspect, and it doesnt seem to be serving any function too.
In addition to digital cameras i also have Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1 – definitely no issues with just rounded corners..
I guess just different strokes for different folks 🤷♂️
Well I think the article is a fair one. Every camera/device has plus and minuses. I rely on reviewers to point those out so I can make my own decisions. I do however feel that some reviewers/influencers “put their thumb on the scale” when reviewing a brand.
Luckily I think unless your a newbie to the world of camera, in this instance, it is pretty easy to detect unbridled positive reviews base a a bias towards a brand.
Yeah, there is no such thing as a perfect camera, and each has advantages and disadvantages. Pretty much any camera nowadays is pretty good overall, and I think it’s harder and harder to find the negative. The experience of using the camera tends to be more valuable than technical specs, in my opinion, because I think it can help pinpoint if it will be a good fit for the potential buyer. It’s probably a good idea to find several reviews for a variety of opinions. I think one issue can be, if the reviewers aren’t being fair for the reasons Gerald laid out, even the attempt at getting a variety of viewpoints can be in vain. It’s important for those writing reviews to set aside as best they can whatever bias they have (everyone has bias, and it’s impossible to fully set it aside, I think), and be authentic and vulnerable; however, that’s not an easy task, especially if you aren’t even aware of the bias in the first place. I know that I’ve had to contemplate on a lot of things since this controversy started, and be more aware of my own biases and intentions. I think there is much good that can come out of this. Thanks for the comment!
I don’t think you can equate your place in the Fuji community to that of other influencers. For starters you have added value to their products it would be silly of them to begrudge you a negative opinion of one of their products. I am not sure this applies to others that get review units. Additionally you are a self proclaimed Fuji fanboy it’s not like you would suggest that someone goes to a different brand if you didn’t like a Fuji body! Gerald (if that’s where it all started) seems petty and butthurt and in my opinion his invalidates his points in the same video that he makes them.
I also don’t think the S9 is an X100VI I competitor not sure if Panasonic is trying to market it that way or what people that got invited were told to reference but yes it’s a bad comparison. To me it’s an improvement on the FP/FP-L formula with an attempt to one up Fuji on the simulations game.
Yeah, I haven’t seen anyone mention that, but it definitely seems much more like a competitor to the Sigma FP/FP-L cameras than anything else. That’s an excellent observation. I appreciate your thoughtful comment, and your kindness towards me. 😀
I think the best practice for content creators is to take after (most) journalists and media houses: never accept gifts and/or paid trips. If you want to attend a launch, you should always pay for it yourself.
Sure. Small creators wouldn’t always be able to attend big camera launches, but would it be that bad? You could still get your hands on the camera by reaching out, but you wouldn’t be able to post a video/blog/whatever when the embargo ends. I don’t think that is a big thing.
People are still going to search for reviews several years after a camera is launched. If they see you are independent/more objective, that could count as a plus and make you stand out as someone they can trust in the future.
I think in that case every “small creator” (really, most creators, aside from the Mr. Beasts of this world) would only attend if the event was local to their city. The financial benefit of attending such an event, even when it is fully paid for, is extremely small. I don’t anticipate earning anymore than maybe $100 in affiliate revenue for example, which I may have been able to get without attending, and even without the camera. But it would have cost me thousands to fly to NY and stay in a hotel and such. It would make zero sense to go, so I wouldn’t have. If the event were in Phoenix, I’d go. Maybe LA or Vegas, but I’d be doing those at a loss (gas, lodging maybe, food). Any further than that, no thanks for certain. The true benefit for me is in the people I met, and the connections that I made with other creators, which probably wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
I don’t usually get loaned (and never outright given) any gear from Fujifilm. I don’t think they just hand them out willy nilly to everyone who asks. My best bet is probably to speak to a local camera store… Nuzira would probably be willing, perhaps not the other local stores. But even then, it could be viewed similarly, as “compensation” that supposedly introduces bias.
I don’t know what the right answer is. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Meanwhile, I’m just trying to keep a roof over my head and dinner on the table, and be helpful to other photographers in the process. I just hope it all works out in the end.