22:36 "...because we kind of assume now that people know.....we try to disclose it" - like... no. You can't assume people know that Panasonic paid for your tickets, hotel stays, money and gave you the camera for free. The FTC has ruled on this and state that legally it's not common knowledge like what you're saying. You legally and ethically have to disclose these things. There's no disclosure in your S9 video or in the description! You even write in your Petapixel article, "This past month I found myself traveling to Japan to see the new Panasonic S9," - so did you and Jordan pay for your own travels to Japan and just so happen to pop into the Panasonic event because you were there? It's confusing. I find it bizarre you have this stance because I get individual KZfaqrs not disclosing because of ignorance, but you guys are part of a blog/company that's been around for over 10 years. Why isn't your company/you guys ethically and legally disclosing this information? From the FTC page "FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking" "I’m a blogger and a company wants me to attend the launch of its new product. They will fly me to the launch and put me up in a hotel for a couple of nights. They aren’t paying me or giving me anything else. If I write a blog sharing my thoughts about the product, should I disclose anything? Yes. You should disclose that you received free travel and accommodations because it could affect how much weight your readers give to your thoughts about the product."

I feel like creators should disclose that the companies finance these trips. It's more transparent, ethical and just honest.

I watched 13 KZfaq videos by influencers/reviewers who went to the S9 press event and only two of them disclosed their trip to Japan was paid for by Panasonic. This is a clear violation of the FTC's disclosure rules, which state: "Disclose when you have any financial, employment, personal, or family relationship with a brand. Financial relationships aren’t limited to money. Disclose the relationship if you got anything of value to mention a product. If a brand gives you free or discounted products or other perks and then you mention one of its products, make a disclosure even if you weren’t asked to mention that product."

"KZfaqrs" are missing the point. The trip wasn't the problem. Panasonic wasn't the problem. The viewers feel they are being sold to in an non authentic way and when they gave that criticism it was ill received. You had those same KZfaqrs responding with insults, going live and getting hyper defensive amongst other things which took things from bad to worse. Their terrible personalities really were highlighted with the way some chose to respond.

28:03 “We call these impressions, we don’t call them reviews-absolutely not.” You literally called the S9 article that YOU wrote an “Initial REVIEW”…

I am a little perplexed by the debate here - these trips are a form of sponsorship, and that should be disclosed in the associated video.

You are always biased by the events. Everyone is, it is human. This is why it is important to disclose it, always. I do not work in a position that allows me to make decisions that are making significant impact to other people but even I have to disclose every coffee I get (actually, we should decline that but everyone understands that this is not always possible in normal human interaction) because it may impact my decision implicitly. What is interesting is that it now gets pushed with the S9 launch even though this is happening since forever…

100% of this could be translated over to the motorcycle industry. Fortnine did a great video about this a while ago. How can you be objective when you get flown out to a 5 star hotel in Spain, handed a press kit, a nice motorcycle and follow a guide who knows the best roads in the area. But at the same time you have to trust the journalist that he / she is able to separate the "bribery" from the facts.

First, I want to say that I love Chris, Jordan, and Jaron. I believe that they believe that they approach these trips in an unbiased manner, and the benefits of access don't alter their initial reviews (their title). All that said, the fact that Chris and Jordan openly refer to previously being in "camera jail" with manufacturers speaks volumes to the inherent presssure to not offend the manufacturer, and, IMO, proves Gerald's point. I get that companies have the right to choose who to work with and bring along to these events; they all have marketing goals to show their equipment in the best light to the widest audience. Where this crosses the line for me is when the company stops working with a reviewer, based on their prior reviews (NOT previews, or whatever clear distinction we want to call these glorified marketing events) of their product. I don't believe anyone on PP touched on Gerald Undone's allegation of Lumix's offer to try to get him access if they could screen his review title; shouldn't there be outrage, or at least concern about this? Or was this such standard affair for everyone that it didn't register as deeply unethical?

"We *try* to disclose it." What does that mean exactly? Are you trying to imply that sometimes you *try* to disclose, but can't manage to do it? As a certain Jedi master said, "Do . . . or do not. There is no try."

A press trip (as the title of this podcast suggests) or a press conference/announcement is when a company gathers members of news organizations to communicate their message to the public in hopes that the press, in turn, will help distribute that message for free. When a company flies someone out, and then puts them under a NDA, they are no longer acting as press, they are literally spokesman for that company. If however, everyone learns about the announcement when the company actually announces it, think Apple announcements, then it's a press conference/trip, or whatever. Gerald Undone was spot on with his analysis. I think y'all shouldn't go to announcements/events either unless you're allowed to "report" on it the moment you hear about it. If not, you're basically working for the camera company.

Long story short, if you are reviewing a product you were compensated for in any way, you need to say that up front. You guys do a good job of that. Many do not.

Ethically, just because money doesn't exchange hands doesn't wash away the exchange of power. If you get access to something before someone else does, thats a power imbalance and you are no longer reviewing anything: You are marketing it. Which is why the FTC has disclosure rules about this stuff. As a cinematographer that does reviews on the side and pays for every equipment rental, every short film, every photoshoot, to actually use the equipment, I have never understood how half of these creators can even say that they reviewed a piece of equipment when all they do is sit behind a desk, or pop out to their backyard or favorite drainage ditch. Creators need to put their money where their mouth is and start making reviews or projects that actually use the equipment, and start paying their own way instead of letting access from multi-billion dollar companies go to their heads.

After spending 6 hours editing pictures from a photoshoot i did at a private jet convention show in Geneva, this podcast helps me come back to real life... Thanks guys!

I work in engineering and we're not even allowed to accepts gifts worth over $100 from a client without raising ethical concerns. These mfs getting flown out to fancy hotels etc and expect us not to acknowledge the ethical concerns.

Gerald isn't rude. He is honest, thorough, and detailed. Those cornerstones are more valuable and useful than hype opinions and playing politics with a company. If they can't take honesty about their product, then perhaps there is a good chance they are dishonest and hiding something, and hand picking those who they feel they can manipulate into a more positive video, whether they can or not. I think that is the true take from Gerald. His video was needed and spot on.

Reguardless if you agree with what Gerald said or not it's a great place for discussion. I think there is a lot of value in what he is stating. Hopefully the discussion leads to a more productive environment for both manufacturers and creators.

pre production camera should never be called review

This must hurt since a lot of KZfaqrs are talking about this…

I follow Chris and Jordan all the way back from Camera Store TV and I’ve never doubted their integrity. Not properly disclosing that the trip to the Panasonic event was a rare misstep, but it doesn’t tarnish all of the reputation they’ve built over the years. Being a journalist is about providing information, and part of that is building relationships with people that can give you access. That means you don’t be a dick to the people who give you access to demonstrate to people how impartial they are. It’s called diplomacy; remember the last time someone hung you out to dry and think of how helpful you wanted to them the next time they asked something from you.

I just checked Google Maps. Bay Photo Lab is still located in Santa Cruz, catty-corners across the street from The Buttery. Get over there, guys!

I think I am on Gerald's side here. You guys said that you had fun shooting with the camera and meeting new people, and I think that was Gerald's point. You already are established personalities in the camera world, and keep your honesty by calling things you might think are not great from the products. But what about the new people? They will have fun, and that translates to the initial reception of the product. How many times have you heard at the end of a camera review "despite its shortcomings, I had so much fun shooting with this camera!"? Based on what Gerald shared, seems to be exactly what Panasonic is aiming for by "soft-banning" creators who will not share the expected "vibes". By the time initial buyers realize that the camera is not for them, it's past late. I think this is also Fujifilm's tactic particularly with the X-T50, so much hype and "good vibes" from all these influencers, yet that camera is just some hundred dollars behind the superior X-T5. As others have said, you should not rely on assumptions from the viewers to say "ah yes, of course they would not pay to travel there for this camera".

It's funny...PetaPixel mentioned about "rudeness" and companies not wanting to deal with that. After years of talking to MANY people at NAB, I can say that one of the big KZfaqrs in question seems to have a bad reputation of being VERY rude and arrogant. Dozens of different well-known sources over the years seem to confirm this....

Disclosure. You guys didn't make any disclosure on your S9 video. "Try to" "Assume everyone knows" is not good enough. I watched quite a few videos and many KZfaqrs didn't make a disclosure. I can tell you immediate my trust and empathy towards a KZfaqr that disclosed his brand relationship was way higher. Shout out to Hugh Brownstone and Geeky Nerdy Tech (he even marked his content sponsored) and Julia Trotti. You guys are way experienced and should know better. KZfaqrs can't have it both ways i.e. expect to be treated like they are providing completely independent editorial and act like influencers accepting brand deals. This is about trust and authenticity. If you are accepting brand deals, be open and honest about it. There is place for it just as there is place for KZfaqrs that don't do brand deals and do reviews. I was only a little annoyed by the S9 launch but when the KZfaqrs started gaslighting their viewers it set me off!

These are my thoughts as a long-time huge fan of Chris and Jordan, you guys are still my favorite youtubers for camera gear. It's difficult for me to even criticize this whole thing because I'm biased in that I want you to continue doing what you do and how you do it. I think you guys do a pretty great job making balanced and fair reviews compared to many others. This recent criticism of creators probably doesn't apply to you quite as much as some others, like ones who don't disclose that their trip was paid for, clearly understate the flaws of a camera, etc. However, in watching this podcast I felt like this was the first time I've ever seen Chris and Jordan uncomfortable discussing a topic, especially the first few minutes. I guess it's just the nature of the situation but it felt like you guys were on the defense, downplaying most of the benefits of early access to gear, paid trips, things that would absolutely influence any person's opinion on gear regardless of how much you try to disconnect those feelings and stay unbiased. I'm sure you guys are experienced enough to stay less biased than most, but I can't say the same for many others. I say all of this with all due respect as you guys are my favorite youtubers but the responses felt a bit out of touch and "missing the point". And I'm conflicted on this because I want you to continue making these on-location videos, first looks, etc. but I think this discussion is needed for the industry and Camera KZfaq as a whole. Chris's first "argument" was about how Panasonic still invited them even though they said it's not the camera for you guys. I'm glad Jaron quickly pointed out that that's the same reason others weren't invited to the event. So it does seem like Panasonic may choose creators who they think will sugarcoat or be less harsh on the camera, especially something like the S9 that I'm sure they know will be received poorly. IMO it's just a bad product. Overpriced and underwhelming. Another point made was that "other industries do this too" but that doesn't make it any more ethical or less misleading (in terms of camera "reviews"). I know you were just trying to say how "normal" it is but that doesn't make it any more ethical or less misleading (in terms of camera "reviews"). What I would love to have heard is more of a discussion on the industry as a whole, thoughts on what could be done differently by both creators and companies, etc. This podcast felt far too focused on just how you guys do things but I understand you wanted to "clear the air" and clarify those points. I don't think it's you guys or any one youtuber in particular that Gerald or commentors take issue with, but the facade of "unbiased reviews", free products, influencers downplaying or not fully disclosing details of their early access, paid trips, etc.

You guys dropped the ball on this. It didn’t come over well at all. “We don’t sleep, we get up early….” With free flights to a beautiful country, free accommodation, free meals. Oh the calamity!

Why is everyone so defensive and negative?! I found the whole discussion about press trips very defensive and weird guys. I think things should be clearly disclosed, but at the same time I think the whole ecosystem of camera manufacturing and reviews is a symbiotic and largely healthy relationship. I love the tech, I like the reviewers, I want the companies to sell products and develop new ones. Why is everyone so defensive and negative?! That's my biggest complaint about this whole conversation... Let's look at the big picture. If the ecosystem wasn't healthy bad cameras could come out and sell a lot and no one would say anything. That's impossible! The youtube camera space has too much healthy competition and sharing of information. Compare this industry to almost any other.

"This camera isn't for you." is just a spin on "You will point out the poor tradeoffs we have chosen in this camera." There is plenty of gear that people said nice things about that the people wouldn't use themselves. For example, the recent heavy-ass Sigma 14/15mm full frame lenses that would mostly appeal to astrophotographers. They were $$$ and would appeal to a niche audience, but they were still a product that *made sense* for that audience. The problem people have w/ the S9 is that it doesn't *make sense*. For what it was - a cut down S5ii - it needed a price cut, and it needed a bigger weight difference than 200g.

I think Fujifilm has to be praised for bringing a medium format 500 F5.6 lens that isn't much bigger, heavier or even more expensive than Sigma's new 500 5.6. That in itself is incredible considering we always talk about medium format being to big, to heavy and to expensive.

Five minutes in and already hyped for today's subject matter, makes the work day better to hear you guys talk and to learn more about the industry!

I think you guys misunderstood the spirit of Gerald‘s criticism. There’s no need for you to be defensive, we all know you do great work at these press trips and Gerald‘s point wasn’t D that it’s not any one person who is the problem, but it’s clear from this video that you guys don’t understand or can’t look at this from the viewpoint of the consumer who’s taking in these videos, and making purchasing decisions based on these videos. I can tell you for sure as a consumer there is definitely a fatigue with this process of 100 glowing videos coming out on embargo day, pre-orders happening, and then a new set of videos that have discovered a bunch of new problems or quirks or irregularities down the line. And while you guys may be able to remove yourself from the positive flux surrounding these press trips because you’ve been doing it so long… The majority of the videos coming out on embargo day are not doing that in a meaningful way.

lol Comparing your free trip to another industry's free trip in order to downplay the exchange of value isn't a good look.

It’s ok to be biased… There’s nothing wrong with that and almost all of us are. But when I hear people saying “I’m not biased” I can smell something wrong here. You guys are used to the good life so much that you forget to mention legitimate things like my few thousand dollar trip was paid for.

A slightly arrogant and patronising response to Gerald's video. I'm sure he has tried to speak to Lumix but probably can't be bothered now. These "first impressions " videos do look reviews. More transparency is necessary

On the compressed RAW question, Chris: "As far as photo goes, lossless compressed is the way to go. You'll save a lot of space, the image quality loss is negligible." Slight correctly: The image quality loss is so negligible that it is exactly zero.

Whenever I see a new lens or body embargo drop with a ton of youtubers clearly at the same press event, I assign the credibility of everyone participating to zero. I know I’m not the only one.

Yes, I would love to see the review of D-lux 8. I think the new interface is interesting, unlike the D-lux 7 that is basically a rebrand of LX100ii, it seems they went further to make it their own this time. Even if the sensor and most of the hardware remains the same, it would be cool to see if there's any improvement.

I dare you guys to say that this episode is sponsored by Lumix 😂

So on reviewing things, cameras or not, I think you have the wrong perspective here. That its normal for reviewers and journalists to be wined and dined does not make it ethical, and there are real consequences for journalism in general. It is perfectly normal for people who develop friendships with people in the industry to have a harder time of being critical, its why writers like George Orwell made it an explicit policy to not meet people they have to be critical of. That gratitude that Chris talks about, that's the reason to not accept any of it because it will make him feel bad to be harsh. These are companies and they are only paying because they think they will make money out of it, not to be nice, you don't owe any gratitude even though its normal. As a result of the wide range of things that can make it difficult for journalists to be critical, we now have a world where a lot of reviews are warped to such an extent that people just turn off. None of my friends value movie reviews that come out when the movie comes out because they are going to be generally inflated, its why its now normal for Rotten Tomatoes scores to fall by 20% over the course of months. I think what's going on here is an extension of the democratization of journalism. In the past when media publishing was very limited, like the NY Times or Consumer Reports, they were able to implement rules that commercial enterprises had to accept because there weren't many alternatives, like an outright ban of accepting perks if you intend to review something. Now, because there are so many media sources if one refuses to play ball with a commercial enterprise then the enterprise can just withdraw access and that will put any individual creator at a disadvantage, its why White House press aren't able to ask interesting questions. What's the solution I'm not sure but that there is a problem I think is apparent. P.S. It would also be nice if reviewers instead of giving a short disclaimer actually went through what it is like to be invited, what is paid for, what are the pressures, what's the vibe, because until Gerald Undone said anything I did not know that the companies covered not only travel and lodging but also food and recreational activities. The degree to which reviewers seem to avoid making a video on this I think is telling on whether there is something to be ashamed about here.

It appears that you guys are quite indoctrinated. If you really want to understand the point Gerald was making I would recommend reading "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman and Chomsky

With regards to Gerald Undone video, I think you are missing the point totally. It’s not about the free trip up, it’s about the selection of people who goes up and the dissonance of the quality of product they are releasing. No doubt it’s their PR prerogative to choose people who will be favourable to their released camera, but the dissonance comes when it’s not a good camera but so many embargo video says neutral to good things about it. I love your review, Chris and Jordan have been and will always be impartial to the reviews even on the S9 case. But you see, it’s their PR strategy, they know they cannot get away with everyone saying positive stuffs about the subpar s9, so they cherry picked a few good reviewers to go on about it who will point out the flaws of the camera. At the end of the day, the backlash from Gerald undone wasn’t because of Gerald, so many people encourage him to make the video cause everyone suspect the S9 reviews are too good to be true. No viewfinder, no shutter, no hot shoe mount, flat grip design, is this the 90s? Fujifilm launched the x100vi to great heights cause it was a camera that everyone went, yes it’s good, so even when so many people were given the trip up, the people on the ground didn’t mind, cause it is a great product. Donald Trump while being president also cherry picked a few news outlet, that was not ok, so how is this ok? This S9 saga deserves to be called out. If not, camera manufacturers are just going to slap old tech into retro body and market it as new with cherry picked reviews. Just like insta360 saga, has to be called out.

Generally I tend to agree with most of your guys' approaches, but I have to say that the view on assuming people know things are paid trips is 100% wrong. Anytime you have a relationship with a brand for co-marketing or for payments that have occurred or any kind of in-kind exchange, you should clearly state that unambiguously at the very very front of the video each and every time. There's no downside to doing it, and it just makes you more transparent and ethical. Also, on the whole "camera jail" thing, you failed to mention the fact that when companies act like that by treating your negative comments punitively and not inviting you on the next trip or not sending an early camera to you that (especially for newer creators) they are fundamentally affecting your ability to compete with other channels and get the views/clicks/revenue. It's OK for a company to be offended by a negative response, but they should be held to a high standard where they do not restrict future invites/participation as a result of it. That is also very bad behavior. And saying "companies do it all the time" is really not an excuse.

The bigger question in my mind is the aspect of affiliate links, isn't it in the creators best interest to show a glowing review or preview so they hopefully get more affiliate purchases? I have felt that many times that seems to be what drives so many people to make videos on the same device/item. I may be wrong but if creating a glowing review = more revenue from affiliate links I'm sure that must effect creators content at least to a degree, right?

The biggest winner in all of this is Camera Conspiracies - long live Casey

Lots of copium going on here. "It might sway other people's opinions... But not ours!!". Least you could do is follow the FTC guidance about disclosure. And what is the value to the consumer? Exactly? Of these events? Versus just waiting to get a retail copy of a camera a bit later? Hmm???

I have been watching you guys since the early days of the Camera Store channel, and I love you. Genuinely, you are one of the few channels I subscribe to because I feel like you guys are honest and do a good job of giving reviews that discuss the good and the bad. I also am a big fan of Gerald's for the same reason. Ultimately, what I want to talk about (and wish had been touched on more here) is the responsibility to the viewers. Listening to this episode...I will be honest, you guys come off as very defensive. I know there's been a lot of heat around Gerald's video and that there are reasonable places to disagree. However, I think Gerald's larger point about trust is well-founded. There are a LOT of channels (not you, thankfully) which feel like they are regurgitating press releases and are just there as hype machines. I avoid those channels, but I know quite a few of them that do very well. And, look at what happened to MKBHD recently when he was overly critical of a product that wasn't good: people attacked him for not towing a company line. Gerald's video was not directed at you, but I think there is an essential truth about how brands can use access to "work the refs" into providing more favorable coverage. Companies will vary in how aggressive they are about it, and it'll work better with some reviewers than others. While I do think that, generally, Gerald comes off as a bit more blunt, if a company is hesitant to bring him to a press event because of that I'd LIKE to know that, frankly. It's their right to invite who they'd like, but it's also his right to call them out for it. There are certainly real people on both sides, but these are companies with large enough budgets to hold events like this, and that gives them power. Consumers, on the other hand, often have to save up for months or years to afford this equipment. As an amateur filmmaker, I know this firsthand: I used both videos from you and Gerald to help guide my purchases and benefited from honest, varying perspectives. There is a real danger when too many channels get caught up in hype that it will be the consumers who will suffer the real consequences of buying into a bad product with their limited resources. And yes, certainly this isn't the first time this has come up. But it's necessary to bring up issues like this every once and awhile because people become complicit over time. It may be old-hat to you, but I am certain that there are many for whom Gerald's video was eye-opening. So, while I appreciate your point of view, and that you should (justifiably) be proud of the work and reputation you've built, I wish you'd given a more thoughtful response that wasn't so defensive. This was one of the few times you guys let me down. I still think you're great, but it feels like you missed the real reason why what Gerald said matters, and good opportunity to discuss what actually matters here.

if any S9 video title says "almost" and/or "perfect". you know to stay away from that creator from now on

Gerald is 1000% right!

Neah bro, these launches are a clown show. Not your fault, no need to single anyone out for blame, but they're a clown show. Saying that "it's been like this in auto since ever" means nothing. That's no standard to aspire to.

Jaron, @21:20 You question Gerald's contention of not being invited because the camera "isn't for him", by highlighting how Chris and Jordan were invited even after being told the same thing, and you conclude @ 21:43 with "it's obviously not true". Are you saying Gerald is not being truthful when he relayed how he was told by Panasonic he wasn't being invited because the camera wasn't for him, and how Panasonic told him others weren't being invited for the same reason?

"We tried to disclose it"-but you didn't! What's so hard about saying 'the trip is sponsored by Lumix' in your video anyway? It's ok to make mistakes, but being unable to be honest after the mistake was pointed out to you is a giant red flag.

I agreee with Gerald. Camera companies don't provide this because of good will. They know that those trips do influence the subconcious of the KZfaqrs.

I think the challenge is optics of these sort of trips, the inundation of videos all at once, the clamber for attention, the sometimes exaggerated titles to get clicks and the majority of reviews felt a lot of the flaws of the S9 was over looked and information was left out. Flaws turned into quirks. I was shocked how much LUTS was mentioned as if that was the entire purpose of the camera. I wonder if this LUTS thing is going to be turned into a money grab or since you can upload LUTS to the app, what is going to stop people from uploading bought LUTS for free for everyone avoiding the cost of buying them? Lots of questions regarding integrity has been brought to the forefront. I think it is a wake up call and I don't think content creator should take it as an attack, but more of opportunity to look at how things are presented and how the optics may look to the general public and viewers.

Just disclose and I have no problem with any of it. Are they paying you or have they ever paid you? Did they give you a free camera, did they loan a review unit, or did you buy it yourself? Were you granted exclusive early access to the product? Did they pay for transportation or accommodation? Any extravagant meals or entertainment? I feel like you can easily cover it all in less than a minute. And yes it really matters to me. I will stop watching a review if it’s not clear what their relationship is to the company, and unsubscribe/block a channel who I think is being intentionally misleading.

I'm not tied up in first-look and review semantics, because honestly there are so many cameras like the S9 that don't get a fair shake after a couple days of use from reviewers that is only really fully trust a review from an owner who used it extensively over time. Everything else is surface level spec talk and some examples. I think the S9 would be a great camera for me, because I prefer compact over EVF and pro features. I shoot the Ricoh GRIII and love the idea of the Z30 or EOS M6II also. All great cameras for my use cases. The Ricoh GRIII especially takes a lot of time to really understand the value it provides with the intelligent quick fire shooting modes, yet all you hear is non-full frame, slow f2.8, bad AF, no EVF - buy X100.

I do wonder if this any of this would have gone down if the LUMIX S9 had actually been a good camera? 😂 Mad respect to you guys for all that you do and do well, but I find myself agreeing with Gerald on this one. Point being, he’s not an industry magazine or website equivalent but an individual who’s build an audience and ‘brand’ on his reputation as a highly detailed, technical and ‘nerdy’ reviewer centred on the video-centric KZfaqr-Content Creator space - which clearly is a huge and influential market these days. He’s carved out a niche doing the kinds of review that other reviewers don’t do: given that many other reviewers just defer to Gerald’s for ‘that kind of info’ rather proves his effectiveness and the fact few others are willing to put in the work that he does. The fact is, he’s built a pretty influential reputation on being thorough, fair and honest - anything that risks that risks both his professional online presence and personal image. This is the same for any individual KZfaq review channel - that’s all they’ve got, their reputation based on a parasocial relationship with an audience who treats them like a trusted confidante. It’s safe to say Gerald has been the king of full disclosure (to the point I can recite his standard boilerplate off the top of my head). I think the main crux of his argument wasn’t that Panasonic were being jerks or anyone posting a positive review after a all-bills-paid trip is a shill, hardly that all… but that KZfaq reviewers find themselves walking a near-impossible tightrope between maintaining credibility with their audience while maintaining access to manufacturers products. Big players might have some grace but up-and-comers certainly don’t. And yeah, I noticed a bunch of much smaller channels doing the LUMIX trip and posting mostly positive reviews of a camera that by all objective measure is either undercooked or overpriced.

"We try to disclose it" LOL C'mon Chris, you barely do it if you do it at all! Are drinks also part of "logistics"? You guys were, and still are, camera salespersons. Gerald tries to be somehow different, more like Popular Photography and Modern Photography were back in the good ol' days when we had good factual data to use as a basis for our photo equipment choices.

39:54 Gerald Undone reviews are rude? Please point to one.

For me it’s about trust between me and the reviewer, there are only 2 reviewers I actually trust (you guys are one of them), it’s way to easy for people to make a false video because either a company is putting the pressure on to not say anything bad about a product, or if they are a new reviewer, they could be scared that they might upset a brand

Ever was it thus, back in the day special interest and hobby products revolved around hard copy magazine periodicals sold in newsagents, substantially paid for by adverts from the very manufacturers products they were reviewing in the same issue. That still is the case. Is there conflict of interest? of course there is, reviewers need to get paid. But they also want to keep their audience, not calling out faults and poor performance will see them loose credibility readership and audience.

Condescending response to Gerald's video, almost as if you guys are defending yourself and missing his point. Simple answer is no, it's not ethical in this case if the company pays for your whole trip to court you into shilling their product and getting on their good side for their "market strategy" or whatever they call it. Nobody knows if you actually disclose these things. His point was on transparency though, and it's absolutely true. I respect Gerald even more now lol, he has the balls to call these things out and the stirring controversy seems to have worked.

Sensor dust has been the major issue for me with the m43 compact fixed-lens bodies, like really really bad sensor dust.

I think that there is two very different approaches to tech review stuff. The first is to do what you guys do : work hand in hand with camera brands, share feedback, get early access, and give your opinion in a fair and objective manner. This is a very good way of doing things but there is a few caveats : the first one is that you need to be established and respected. Camera brands (Lumix could be one, but honestly a lot of brands have been guilty of this) will not hesitate to remove someone from their media list if what they say is not in line with what they think they should hear. If you're a well respected outlet like you guys, you have pretty much nothing to worry about : what you will say about a camera will always be as objective as you can be, and people will trust your judgement on a particular product. Similarly, brands know that since you're viewed as largely unbiased and fair, so they are more willing to give you products to test out for free (that you need to send back after ofc), to fly you over to test stuff ect. A small creator in the same position might think twice before saying anything too negative or negative enough that the sales rep would not like it. Bottom line, it's very good for established outlets, and really not painting new small creators in a good light as a lot of them end up lacking objectivity as a result. The second way of doing things is to be an ethical junkie : you don't want to be associated with any brand that way people can't say that you're biased, no matter if you're an established media or a small creator. This is THE best and most objective way of reviewing anything. If you get big enough, brands might send you stuff regardless, because the same situation as the first way of reviewwing applies. But this is not what dictates what you review or how you review anything. The disadvantage of this methos is that you either have to buy the stuff you're testing, or find a 3rd party (like a camera store) to lend you stuff, and that's not always practical or possible. But the huge advantage of it is that it's really easy to keep your ethics straight : just never accept anything coming from a company when it comes to gifts, free products ect. I'm mostly familiar with the computer hardware reviewing scene, and the same kind of problematic applies, except it's Nvidia, Intel, Asus this time and they do not give a single f*** about banning major and trusted sources : latest in date I think was Nvidia straight up banning Hardware Unboxed from their media list because they didn't like some comments they made about ray tracing in games (and the fact that it still wasn't very used). And In this space, there is some outlets that play by the brands rules, get sent products, do sponsored content and get flown for press events and stuff (like LTT for example), and there is super serious "ethics are everything" people that will buy every piece of tech they test and put it through a lot of rigorous testing (like Gamers Nexus). Both have their place, but there is DEFINITELY a lot more red lines to cross by playing by a brand's rule book, especially if you're a smaller creator. As someone that is a measurement and test technician IRL, that have been watching hardware and camera content for years, that have dabbled into PC component reviewing and recently looked into reviewing cameras I can tell you that there is really strong arguments for the second approach when it comes to smaller creators. Maybe once you're big enough you can go back to the first method, but I think that there is a lot of points where Gerald hit the nail on the head in his video, especially for small to medium creators. His "callout" was really for bigger media outlets to realize that they do have an influence on the medium and smaller ones, and always push them at being there on launch day "to get the views", sometimes at the cost of ethics and personal integrity (even if you, as a larger media are not anywhere close to this).

Re review it!!

If anyone feels that they shouldn't go on these trips, I'll be glad to go in your place. 🤣

Will confirm I've seen Chris and Jordan working their asses off while others were definitely enjoying the sun and some cold beers.

I love the Idea of some re-reviews! How obout also re-reviewing the old RX100 III/IV cameras?

We should just stop using the word "REVIEW" for "FIRST IMPRESSIONS" content. And yes, there will always be bias. If your paid for trip is a VERY BAD experience, you will have a negative bias towards the product because that will be your mental state at that moment, no matter how professional, cold and soulless you try to be.

We try to disclose it, some serious compium there, like an offensive amount. This must be disclosed.

I wish you guys mentioned the fact that Gerald Undone was not offered the trip to Japan. It would have saved me the trouble looking for his video. I think such press trips benefit users like me. I'm often eager to learn about new products. However, I'd like to get the info from the reviewers and not from the marketing materials. Your reviews (including first impressions) are pretty balanced. You guys are good at expressing negative opinions without using negative words. Love the podcast.

I think KZfaq could lean in here a bit, and it would be low hanging fruit. I'd love to have some sort of standardized "first look"/"review"/"long term review" tags. And maybe some more granularity for the paid promotion label too like "product"/"payment"/"loaner"/"travel or experience". Not everyone is going to use them, some might abuse them, but having the option and making it easy would be nice.

In my opinion Jaron kind of ask the wrong questions about the Fujifilm 500mm for GFX. If you just look at where it will outperform other systems it will always loose (at least with the current GFX bodies). The GFX system seem to be fairly popular among landscape photographers though and since they are out there anyway it's hard to imagine that they don't get many opportunities for wildlife or wildlife in the landscape shots where a 500mm would be super useful.

While I’m somewhere below a novice photographer I really like camera talk, reviews & first looks. I love your guys’s content and have watched since the camera-store days. A new release junket like the S9 reveal, are my favorite ones because I get to see a beautiful video exposé with you guys revealing a new product at an interesting location. As someone who has watched you guys for a long time, I have never and would never question your honesty or integrity. In terms of the particular product, the S9 sounds like a fun camera and is the first full frame that’s interested me, particularly because I am only interested in pocket sized cameras and I’m not a camera savant. To me the S9 is an extension of the LX100, RX100, GX9, PENF, evolution. A point & shoot experience with good image quality and limited camera expertise required. There is a lot of camera snobbery and shaming in photography that I don’t get and I’m not interested in. The things missing from the S9 are things I don’t need or use. I want a camera that’s fun, reliable, easy use, small and light, has excellent image quality and it needs to offer some benefits over a phone. Though I wish it were cheaper and will have to wait until it reaches the secondary market. As far as the “controversy” goes, I loved the discussion. Though I’m only 43, sometimes I am reminded just how old I am. Keep on keeping on and keep up the great work!

Just a note on the compressed RAW to save space, if you use Lightroom, the Ai denoise will not work at present. So if you plan on using this feature instead of the standard denoise you'll need to shoot full size RAWs

I don't know man, none of that S9 review gave me the impression that Panasonic was calling the shots or influencing the outcome.

Influencers be circling the wagons… They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Ironically the most biased reviewers are often the people that spend their own money on the products. Look up confirmation bias and choice-supportive bias. It's the very basis of "fanboy-ism".

I’m in complete agreement that paid trips and free “long term loaners” should be disclosed, but generally I think this whole thing is a bunch of hand wringing nonsense. Gerald started a “poop storm” by framing his lack of an invite or prerelease loaner as punitive (first s5ii and now s9). But geez, Panasonic gets to decide who they send their cameras to, or who they spend money on to bring to Japan. If I were them I wouldn’t want to spend any money on someone who sits on the couch the whole time talking shop with other creators, without making a preview video of the product. And most reviewers I saw stated pretty clearly what they were given (the trip, loaner camera). The s9 is a great camera for the target audience. I don’t understand why Panasonic and the creators they work with are getting so much flak. People are making things personal when this is all just pretty basic business logistics.

Now this is one episode I wish I was on loool

I for one would love chris to become the boss of Pentax, yes please 🙏

Hopefully OM Systems gets inspired to release a new Pen-F🙏🙂

Jordan, Chris, and Petapixel need to NAME and SHAME the next time a camera company puts them in the doghouse for an honest review. The only way to change the camera maker's awful behavior is to tell your viewers and readers when a camera company punishes you. And yes, actually reveal the NAME of the camera firm. The Japanese camera makers would see that as rude? Perhaps. But being put in the doghouse for an honest review is *exceptionally* rude.

Yeah, basically share the thought of a lot of others in the comments. Was it obvious/likely that the trip was paid for by the company? Sure, but that doesn't mean you can just "forget" to disclose it. Even if there are no legal implications (though in some areas there are, as pointed out by many others), it's just the right thing to do. Now, as for me, I don't believe that the paid for trip influenced the perspectives put forth in the video. I mean, you guys clearly weren't exactly blown away by the camera and that was pretty clear. And I do believe you don't just see it as a vacation that someone else paid for. Still, though, you can't deny that for at least some people the fact the trip was paid for including the whining and dining WOULD/COULD influence opinions, even if just because they didn't want to step on toes so that they'd be offered another trip in the future. Not saying you guys should refuse all such niceties in the future or anything but you definitely should always disclose all of the details and, if/when possible, you should at least pay for your travel expenses out of pocket even if you do accept the invite to the event.

There's a lot to take in with all of this, but at the end of the day my biggest question for reviewers of any kind of product is: If there is no fear of consequences from the manufacturers / vendors, would that product's review be at all any different than the review given for the same product, but instead the manufacturer / vendor provides a trip / lodging / meals / experience on their dime? This is especially important to consider for the newer reviewers who might more easily be enthralled by marketing shine, wine and dine...and might be more inclined to give a favorable review to stay in a manufacturer / vendor's good graces.

The fundamental problem is here is that as good intended as you want to be, the fact a company (any) pays for a trip and accommodations will bias you in some way (this is basic human psychology and conflict of interest concepts). I am not even talking about potential products then that such companies will exert. Then we have a mix of influencers and ambassadors (ambassadors obviously are acting as sales people) and the fact the message is created to drill on the minds of viewers why this camera is good and ignore some negative aspects. At some point the whole thing starts to become more and more obvious, and to an extent starts to becoming disrespectful as it feels like people are selling a product in very subtle ways. I think this is part of this backlash. I will say specifically for the Lumix S9 now, I was a bit surprised by how relatively critical some of the early takes were (in a good way I meant that) but I still saw a few that were overly positive and completely glossing over some rather important short comings and why they are important (i.e. lack of mechanical shutter as a good example). And I saw very few bringing into the conversation, and why not- ask Panasonic point blank- why not make a GM5 successor instead for MFT- having all the small lenses ready, with LUT capabilities. The whole thing also reeks of mass consumerism which also has become more trite as other priorities in the world have gone up since the COVID "mental reset" and inflation, and I think that brings another level of a point: I think people maybe are starting to get an underlying GEAR fatigue as way way too much videos are all talking about GEAR and *not* Photography (which is what these tools are for). In the end a lot of this has an inherent conflict of interest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest www.researchgate.net/publication/227516071_The_Moral_Psychology_of_Conflicts_of_Interest_Insights_from_Affective_Neuroscience I think there is value in having influences and ambassadors show new features and workflows. I tend to put less value when everything is too overly positive or in particular- when they put down a competitor in the presentation. If it's a news site, I expect them to ask questions (like why not a successor to GM5, etc.).

REVIVE THE COOLPIXES, CYBERSHOTS, and a proper powershot this time.

I don’t care about the press trip. I care that the reviewers weren’t being honest about the camera. Comparing size and weight with a 26mm G8 lens to a 24-70 is a joke and just plain wong. The circle jerk in the comments of every video of other creators cheering was just weird and created an us vs them attitude which continued with the follow up vids and the lumix livestream

22:49 I respectfully disagree. There are KZfaqrs who cover their own costs at these press events to maintain impartiality. Doug Demuro comes to mind.

Gerald is right

The issue is that most people cant "remain true to what they are going to say about the product". If that weren't true then they wouldn't pay to to have everyone there. Why would a company pay to fly people to another country,feed them and put them up in hotels if.....they were going to say the exact same thing for free? The goal is clearly to influence. And most viewers are aware of that. The issue comes when people start to feel that the opinoins are clearly being influenced. I saw many KZfaqrs say the S9 was a fun extra camera. They have 2 - 3 other cameras this one is fun to play around with. Well the problem is they aren't looking at it from the viewers perspective. Clearly the S9 is aimed at being someones FIRST and ONLY camera. And at $1500 its not the best option. So if most KZfaqrs were simply handed the S9 and told its a $1500 camera they would've made very different videos with a much different take. So clearlly most people were influenced by the trip. Trying to hide behind "working hard" doesn't change the truth. The viewers are the reason KZfaqrs are in this position to begin with. A simply "my bad I'll try to do better" would be better than all the gaslighting.

I find this similar to how Linus Tech Tips is black listed by Apple because of how they can be critical of their devices. But this makes me much more likely to watch their videos for an unbiased take on tech since they don't care about keeping Apple in their good graces.

Definately review the DLUX8 as there are some other spec changes already evident from the LX100ii with the changed 2.4M EVF and the 1.8M dot LCD screen. If it also gets a new processor that will be worth a review!

I would say the biggest ethical problem with these events is to fly people around the world totally unnecessarily. I recently heard about a cycling publication that has taken the decision to no longer send journalists to new model launches. And they’re absolutely correct to do so. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot more of that. The other aspect is whether or not the journalists / influencers are able to stay impartial (which I wouldn’t question with Chris and Jordan but would with many others).

Cool to see new Point & Shoot cameras. All they need is to be better than any high-end phone camera but with the camera body experience. If they are crap, doesn't matter who made them, the trend will end eventually, and they will all become just e-waste and shelf props, just like every old crappy Point & Shoot.

The problem with these press access is that, it works little too well. It 100% put the reviewers in a place where it’s beneficial to praise the product rather than criticize it, not to mention the psychological effect it has where you are testing these products during a fully paid trip which will naturally create better image within the reviewers’ head. It’s access journalism where criticizing the product will potentially cause you to not be called for the next event which will put you in a significant disadvantage compared to simply praising the product. Journalist can 100% be “honest” with their impression by mainly highlighting the positive aspect of the product and not focusing on the negative because they aren’t technically lying.

My issue isn't with the press trips, but the long-standing relationship these creators have with the camera brands. Can I trust you to say the new gadget is bad, if the brand might punish you for doing that and not invite you to the next trip?

Pentax making mirrorless versions of their 31/43/77 lenses would be excellent… they could even make a wider lens and a longer lens in the end to further complete the set. They should join L-mount and make an affordable mirrorless Monochrom as well in a K1000 style body.

Great discussion. I think what is going on here is conflating KZfaqr with journalist. I think Chris and Jordon are perceived as professional journalism, which is why they are still invited. Gerold is not perceived as a journalist and never claimed to be. So, I actually don’t think Gerald was talking about petapixel, but more so certain practices that make an “unbiased” review impossible, which has the effect of KZfaqrs being perceived as less trustworthy overall, which does not damage camera companies, but damages KZfaqrs in general.

Yep been waiting for this episode ❤

I’d watch a Dlux 8 review because it seems completely uncompetitive in todays market so I wanna see what you guys say