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.
