Very quality insight it even a better advantage for the business because shipping the product and 1 sale is still more profitable than paying and not getting the ROI they would project. And it a more cost effective way of advertising, it a video review.
The Federal Trade Commission made a ruling a couple of years ago that if any product was given, loaned or sold at a discounted price there is a legal requirement for the reviewer to state that clearly so that the person seeing the video knows. There are very expensive fines involved for those that fail to comply. Also, some of the people I know have been having problems because they did not let the IRS know that they received the products. The IRS will take the advertised consumer price and consider that as additional income. I think that there is too much government intervention and with Biden's hiring thousands of additional IRS agents the problem will get worse. The IRS is informed because companies keep a list of products sold, or given for free and report that information to The IRS as a means of deducting expenses. A news agency that I have worked with has compiled a list of reviewers who have received free or discounted products and have indicated to their readers that these reviewers are much less credible, and I agree. They are more prone to be accused of fake or paid reviews. No matter what anyone says, they are influenced by that fact that they got free product. The more honest reviewers with integrity will purchase the products at the consumer price and therefor are totally unbiased or influenced. It appears that you video is just a way of getting or helping people "somewhat legitimately but not ethically" induce companies to provide free product. I have suggested to companies that they do not provide product to anyone with less than 100k subscribers and only for channels that specialize in the products being tested.
All pro cameras are pretty much comparable right now. Differences are extremely minor and hardly dealbreakers. If you’re on a system, there’s really no reason to swap.
Nikon for the win, better colors, better lenses, better ergonomics, better pricing, better features, better built, great AF now, etc etc :) Sony has many issues starting with releasing way too many cameras way too soon. IMO.
Colors are, subjective. I had canon (will have again) and a z6. Af is stil canon or Sony. Neither z9/8 or the new z6III has the af of any recent canon camera . Built, dunno both are good there. Handling is also subjective, but i would pick Canon for that (they have 3 command dials + 1 on many lenses, means you have for everything a dial (shutter,apperture,iso, without pressing a button). Both have amazing lenses and both are pretty expensive glass wise. Neither is Leica, except af it would win mostly. Fuji has amazing lenses, Pentax has dslrs and OM has cute, little workhorse cameras. Panasonic with s5 is also a great camera, with a building up lense collection (from Leica too).
@@georgelpons True true. I mean, like I said at the end of my message, in my opinion :), ... there is no need for you guys to get so offended and angry and worked up over that. Also, I don't do sports, so I don't need "perfect" AF to take photos, the ZF/Z8/Z9/Z6II/Z6II etc are all more than enough for 95% of case studies, so we need to stop listening to those dumb arguments and AF tests by people like The Fro and others, nobody is jumping around, ducking, and moving erratically for a photo... there are many things you take photos of too, architecture etc, AF won't save us if we are bad at composition, creativity, lighting etc. Fuji and others have way worse AF than all Nikon cameras yet I don't see people complaining about them, we need to put a rest to the AF thing when it comes to Nikon, they have pretty much fixed it and will keep improving it... If anything, that's all Sony and Canon have over Nikon, very marginally better AF.
@@felm.974 I find in street, situations where the nikon, does the same as fuji. Saying it has focus and then you look at the picture and see that it focused a bit further away or closer than the spot (its not always and as its a dslm, it is not a defocus problem) you put to focus. I am not really offended, i say only, that all camera producers make good cameras, so that the handling and what you prefer therefore, is the deciding factor, for the camera you take. You can make great pictures with any camera on the market. I have a fuji (xt4) and a nikon (own a z6 used a z8), the af is not that far apart of each other. As said both say few times, that they got the af, when it hasnt and yes i like both enough, that i like both of them and use them. But to say nikon has the best af (or better than canon), is a bit far fetched. Canon and Sony have very similar af and nikon and fuji are a bit away from those two. So that i would prefer, when i shoot birds or moving cars etc. a canon. Because then i am sure that it got the focus, when it says it has it, always and not 90% of the time. When you disregard handling, there would be no way around medium format, for landscape and even architecture. Nothing can beat a bigger sensor.
But to be honest I don't I could ever leave Canon. Unless they really did something stupid. Sony bodies are too small for me and the look out of the camera is not it, especially when you do events you can't sit and edit each photo for 5 minutes. You'll never finish. Maybe Sony is good for fair skin, but us dark and chocolate skin. Canon is the only real option. Lenses/ batteries are also what will stop someone.
Based on his experience... 00:21 -> 1. Stop listening to advice online. 01:22 -> 2. Build a solid foundation. 03:22 -> 3. Learn different medium to be versatile. 05:32-> 4. No need to be a full-time photographer 06:41 -> 5. Explore multiple revenue streams
Once you update to the latest version it comes with the application. I cannot remember what version they implemented it. Get your software up to date and you will have the AI tools.
So when doing beauty shots using a camera with high megapixels will create a lot of details which is more texture so that’s not ta good idea to do? Use a lens that’s more softer on the face?
