Laughable Chris and Jordan video on medium format

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, kye said:

The people in the comments section always know more than the people in the video, even if they don't lol.

There are rumors that Kotaro & Hannah are going to replace Chris & Jordan over at DipshitReview...

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

I guess this discussion is the one I dislike the most. The light gathering mostly comes from the lens. My fastest 6x9 lens is a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 105mm 3.5. My Canon f/1.2 lenses gathers more light on a full frame sensor than any of my 6x9 lenses. However, I don't really care as both of them gathers enough light for my uses.

It's not the case with digital where it is about how much light the sensor absorbs, not just how much light the lens is projecting.

You can still have a noisy image at F1.2

It is up to the sensor to gather the light projected onto it.

Some sensors like the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K with global shutter have a lot of front-side mounted circuitry that get in the way of using more of the available surface area for the diodes and microlenses.

Of course in video we also need to take into account exposure times, frame rates, etc. because higher ISOs to compensate for higher frame rates, shorter exposures, result in less signal to noise ratio, thus less light in the end result.

3 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

And now to the admission that you might be right. Every time I've taken photos with my GH5, I've been disappointed with the look. It's hard to explain why, but the photos simply looks boring compared with my full-frame photos. It's almost like the magic is missing. Maybe my full-frame cameras would feel the same if I owned a medium format digital.

Nothing boring about the any camera let alone one as capable as the GH5 if you have good subject material to shoot and the right light.

The full frame look is popular because like slow-mo it adds a special sauce to mundane scenes... that is the look of the lenses at fast apertures on a large sensor can be very beautiful.

So to increase sensor size again with medium format does the same but more.

Alas it still will depend on the talent behind the camera and what you're shooting, as any camera no matter how capable can be used in unappealing ways! I've seen enough puke HDR landscape shots from a GFX 100 to know that the camera's usually not to blame!!

[tupp]

On 1/22/2022 at 4:54 PM, amweber21 said:

Sets the cameras to match each other, and surprised they look the same.

The thing is, they don't looks the same.  The testers even acknowledge that fact on the video (but they dismiss it).

Furthermore, they didn't actually set the cameras to look the same -- they set the cameras mathematically, according to the DOF formula, but they disregarded any inaccuracies in the aperture markings, and they apparently didn't match the effective location of the apertures.

 

On 1/22/2022 at 4:54 PM, amweber21 said:

Thinking that DOF is the only reason to choose a sensor size is ridiculous.

Well, there actually seems to be general differences in the DOF from optics designed for different formats.  The difference is not in the location of the front/back DOF -- the difference is in how the focus generally "falls off" within and without the DOF range.

Unfortunately, like 99.99% of all such equivalency tests, we can't see how the focus falls off nor can we see the location of the front and back limits of the DOF range.  Here is what we see in the videos main test :

SOFT FG OBJECT  >>  AIR  >>  SHARP SUBJECT  >>  AIR  >>  SOFT INTERMEDIATE BG OBJECT  >>  AIR  >>  SOFT OPAQUE BG WALL

Most such tests don't include the foreground object nor the intermediate background object, so I will give them credit for adding those items.  However, to properly conduct any DOF or equivalency test there must be a continuous ruled surface (or continuous line of closely-spaced, uniform objects) that runs from the near foreground to the distant background.  Such a proper set up will reveal the locations of the front/back DOF extremes and how the focus falls-off at those points and elsewhere.

 

[Andrew Reid]

57 minutes ago, tupp said:

The thing is, they don't looks the same.  The testers even acknowledge that fact on the video (but they dismiss it).

They dismiss a lot and gloss over an insane amount, and it makes you wonder why. If they're only talking about shallow DOF as being the primary advantage of medium format, or portraying it this way - in a myth busting video - you have to dismiss 99% of the truth and focus on 1% misinformation otherwise it wouldn't work as clickbait.

But I think mainly Chris and Jordan dismiss the incredible creativity behind medium format and lens selection because they don't understand it. They don't understand why you might shoot a close-up of a face at F11 on medium format, they dismiss the resolution of a larger sensor and the low light advantages as well, they also dismiss the video capabilities of something like a GFX 100, because they're your usual run of the mill Cansony shooters who take 1 or 2 seconds over a shot of a pavement or a wall, stick it in a video and call it art.

57 minutes ago, tupp said:

Furthermore, they didn't actually set the cameras to look the same -- they set the cameras mathematically, according to the DOF formula, but they disregarded any inaccuracies in the aperture markings, and they apparently didn't match the effective location of the apertures.

In common with nearly all the "leading lights" in the clickbait industry I never see any images from these people that rise above the merely boring (some don't even qualify as eye candy!) but it would be great if for the next myth busting video Chris and Jordan could bust themselves by shooting some portraits on medium format vs full frame, and looking at the rendering of a classic medium format Hasselblad V lens vs your autofocus Sony, and maybe going even further and looking at the resolution of 100 megapixel vs whatever is the max on a Canon full frame camera (50?)

Not a small difference is it!

[Andrew Reid]

The other myth busting episode has a big boooobie as well, and I'm not describing Chris Nichols.

As far as I can tell they are shooting at ISO 6400 on the A7S III which is a digital gain on the base native ISO.

The dual native ISO kicks in at 12,800.

So had they gone to a proper high ISO like 25,600 the A7S III would have been squeaky clean and A7R IV would be really noisy.

It's nothing to do with viewing prints or blowing stuff up.

A 12 megapixel full frame sensor will see more in the dark than a 60 megapixel full frame sensor, it's just science innit?

[Andrew Reid]

Then again...

You can't expect too much insight from someone who subscribes to a gun nut channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons

And to Tony Northrup

https://www.youtube.com/user/niccollsvideo/featured

When Toneh is your touchstone for all things creative inspiration you know you're in trouble

[kye]

13 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Kotaro became quite the celebrity after his sax playing exploits.

 

OMFG!  Famous for good reason!!

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What do you mean when you say "magical"? It's a bit of a strange word you can read all sorts of meanings into. Also you have to take the lenses together with what sensor size they look most interesting on. Oddly enough a lot of my full frame lenses look more interesting on a GFX camera even though they're designed for a full frame sensor.

Some look better, some don't work. Likewise, put the vintage Canon Dream Lens 50mm F0.95 on Micro Four Thirds and the magical look is lost.

Larger sensors have magical technical properties as well. More light gathering abilities per exposure, and usually higher dynamic range in RAW. That's not to say you can't fake it with smaller sensors by combining multiple frames like smartphones do and other advanced DR and noise reduction techniques, but the larger the sensor the cleaner the image all else being equal.

GFX for me is magical, it has a different look with ALL of my lenses compared to full frame. Of course I have more lenses designed for full frame but the fun is in trying these on an even larger sensor, and capturing images with a look I've simply not been able to do before.

I hope we can think in terms of matching lenses to cameras, not in basic terms of tech specs or shallow DOF.

There are beautiful lenses and looks on ALL formats. Even smartphones with their computational optics and apps.

Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 I would never trade in just because it only covers a relatively small Super 16mm sensor.

The look is special.

Canon Dream Lens I would never sell because it vignettes on medium format GFX mount.

Medium format I would never give up because that's unique as well.

So yes there is magic about a certain sensor size - both creative magic and technical - and in certain lenses when combined with particular sensor sizes.

Please do not listen to the click weasels and their oversimplification equivalence BS.

I've been trying to work out what might cause different sensor sizes to have a different look and one aspect that I haven't ruled out was to do with the percentage of the sensor that was able to absorb light (ie, not the area between the pixels).  This plays into how the threshold between in-focus and out-of-focus would be rendered - the "roll-off".

Now that manufacturers have managed to make the gaps between the pixels smaller, have you noticed if this changes the look of the format?

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

There are rumors that Kotaro & Hannah are going to replace Chris & Jordan over at DipshitReview...

An upgrade at last!

8 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

And now to the admission that you might be right. Every time I've taken photos with my GH5, I've been disappointed with the look. It's hard to explain why, but the photos simply looks boring compared with my full-frame photos. It's almost like the magic is missing. Maybe my full-frame cameras would feel the same if I owned a medium format digital.

In the case of the GH5 (which I own and appreciate) it should be noted that it has quite average colour science.  Compared to the superior colour science of the OG BMPCC or BMMCC the GH5 pales, and so do the images, to me at least, despite these having smaller sensors than the GH5.

The problem with assessing the aesthetics of such things its very difficult to create a direct comparison where everything else is equal.  A slight difference in brightness or contrast or saturation or WB or DoF can overrule some of these more subtle aspects like what we're talking about here.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They dismiss a lot and gloss over an insane amount, and it makes you wonder why.

I would suggest that almost all camera reviewers understand less than half of what is going on inside the camera.  Most less than a third and probably the majority approaching 10%.

Chris and Jordan are particularly bad because it's obvious that along with the tech, they also don't understand how people significantly different to them use cameras either, which are probably responsible for the majority of images created.

[Andrew Reid]

49 minutes ago, kye said:

I've been trying to work out what might cause different sensor sizes to have a different look

There is no "might" about it my friend, it is all to do with the lens and how much the sensor will see of the image projected by it.

49 minutes ago, kye said:

and one aspect that I haven't ruled out was to do with the percentage of the sensor that was able to absorb light (ie, not the area between the pixels).  This plays into how the threshold between in-focus and out-of-focus would be rendered - the "roll-off".

Now that manufacturers have managed to make the gaps between the pixels smaller, have you noticed if this changes the look of the format?

No, it won't change anything to do with focus or focus "roll off".

The gap is microscopic even on a front-side illuminated sensor and focus is a property of the lens combined with how much you can see of the image it projects into the camera body.

The gap between pixels on the sensor can only influence the quality of the signal going into that pixel, in terms of things like noise and dynamic range.

49 minutes ago, kye said:

In the case of the GH5 (which I own and appreciate) it should be noted that it has quite average colour science.

Panasonic is pretty good.

When I brought out Pro Color for Sony, I did one for Panasonic. The Sony version sold at a ratio of something like 50:1 more, even though EOSHD at that time had a roughly equal amount of Panasonic and Sony users reading it.

The demand wasn't there for the Panasonic cameras.

And sensor size has not much to do with colour science at all really, as long as your sensor is rammed with pixels and has a noisy image.

BM Pocket Cinema Camera original with the small 1080p Super 16mm sensor was able to do very good colour, but that has more to do with having a very good codec, high data rates and a sensor that performs well below ISO 800. Of course BM colour science itself is well setup, well tuned out of the box, good skintones - but so is Panasonic's.

49 minutes ago, kye said:

The problem with assessing the aesthetics of such things its very difficult to create a direct comparison where everything else is equal.

The idea about assessing the aesthetics of sensor size is NOT to make everything equal.

It's very simple to put the same lens on 3 different sensor size cameras isn't it?

49 minutes ago, kye said:

A slight difference in brightness or contrast or saturation or WB or DoF can overrule some of these more subtle aspects like what we're talking about here.

Yeah this is what happens in Mattias Burling's blind-tests a lot, they are fun but really pretty much down to chance which shot has some appealing aspect that connects it to the viewer. Sometimes a camera will win because of an extra ray of sunlight rather than something to do with technical abilities.

It's been proven a while back by Zacuto's Shootout too, with the GH2 able to go toe to toe with RED and ARRI just by lighting the set well enough.

49 minutes ago, kye said:

I would suggest that almost all camera reviewers understand less than half of what is going on inside the camera.  Most less than a third and probably the majority approaching 10%.

Chris and Jordan are particularly bad because it's obvious that along with the tech, they also don't understand how people significantly different to them use cameras either, which are probably responsible for the majority of images created.

Look at Kai Wong for another example.

Thing is, to be a good photographer you don't need to understand the inside workings of a camera, but you do need to be a good photographer.

I'm more bothered about the latter, and the fact our culture seems to be holding mediocrity aloft as some sort of authority on creativity, just because it appears to be on level with the public and shouting in a loud obnoxious voice to thousands of subscribers.

[Video Hummus]

I'm sure they will all change their toon when Fuji releases their next MF camera and lenses and they need to "review" it. I'm sure Chris will say. something like: "...and you get that unique medium format look...".

Don't watch the marketing monkeys.

[webrunner5]

 Kai Wong is a crazy good photographer. One of my favorites.

[MrSMW]

To be fair, I do quite like Kotaro &...I mean Chris & Jordan.

But as long as you understand they are not the be all and end all of reviewers and it's just a bit of fun.

I like crazy Kai as well...and a lot of others.

But as above, pinch of salt with most of them and have a very short list of specific folks who I do trust for a proper review and they tend to be specialists for: stills photography/cameras, video gear specific to weddings/events, a couple of drone guys.

The one's I have the least time for are those that are constantly 'switching'. I can't take them seriously.

And the one's I can't stand are the one's where it's more about them than the review.

Summary is that there is a ton of incorrect info out there, a load of mediocre/spec reading info and only a relatively small amount of good info/reviews and it's just a case of identifying who is who.

[fuzzynormal]

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

mediocrity...as...authority...shouting in a loud obnoxious voice

I'm American.  That doesn't work here.  We get by on merit; the principals of the best talent rising to the top and...  Oh, who am I kidding?  That's pretty much only how it works here.  

Land of opportunity, innit?  

...and FF is a look unto itself when you're putting fast lenses on em.  If you've used it, you recognize this.  No charts or online debate is really needed.

[fuzzynormal]

I just did a sloppy car commercial Sunday where I was asked to shoot extreme shallow DOF.  So, FF with a fast lens@f2. Not something I'd normally like to do, but the client wanted it, he gets it. Weeee!

[MrSMW]

FF f2 is my thing 😜

[MrSMW]

But then I do shoot weddings where loads of slo mo and shallow DOF are compulsory 🤪

[Django]

Never shot MF but I sure do like the look of it, especially MF film. 

I always thought digital medium format was more about super high MP, better DR/ISO performance etc?

Also the native 4:3 aspect ratio and lack of AA filter is great for landscape.

And of course the exclusive lens systems (Fuji, Hasselbad, Pentax, Mamiya).

Speaking of different sensor sizes, I had really mixed results when shooting on APS-C during my Fuji XT2 period.

Mainly because my favorite focal length in photography is 35mm and a 23mm lens just doesn't give the same look (due to distortion etc) even if the APS-C crop gives you a 35mm focal length equivalency. The 56mm f1.2 was great though. 

Also when adapting the lack of vignetting and overall characteristics of a FF lens were gone.

Probably why the "magic" or mojo goes away when shooting crop sensors.

 I can totally imagine how on the reverse end how FF lenses might look even better on a MF sensor. 

Hopefully one day will bite the bullet!

 

 

 

[kye]

On 1/25/2022 at 8:18 AM, Andrew Reid said:

There is no "might" about it my friend, it is all to do with the lens and how much the sensor will see of the image projected by it.

No, it won't change anything to do with focus or focus "roll off".

The gap is microscopic even on a front-side illuminated sensor and focus is a property of the lens combined with how much you can see of the image it projects into the camera body.

The gap between pixels on the sensor can only influence the quality of the signal going into that pixel, in terms of things like noise and dynamic range.

Panasonic is pretty good.

When I brought out Pro Color for Sony, I did one for Panasonic. The Sony version sold at a ratio of something like 50:1 more, even though EOSHD at that time had a roughly equal amount of Panasonic and Sony users reading it.

The demand wasn't there for the Panasonic cameras.

And sensor size has not much to do with colour science at all really, as long as your sensor is rammed with pixels and has a noisy image.

BM Pocket Cinema Camera original with the small 1080p Super 16mm sensor was able to do very good colour, but that has more to do with having a very good codec, high data rates and a sensor that performs well below ISO 800. Of course BM colour science itself is well setup, well tuned out of the box, good skintones - but so is Panasonic's.

The idea about assessing the aesthetics of sensor size is NOT to make everything equal.

It's very simple to put the same lens on 3 different sensor size cameras isn't it?

Yeah this is what happens in Mattias Burling's blind-tests a lot, they are fun but really pretty much down to chance which shot has some appealing aspect that connects it to the viewer. Sometimes a camera will win because of an extra ray of sunlight rather than something to do with technical abilities.

It's been proven a while back by Zacuto's Shootout too, with the GH2 able to go toe to toe with RED and ARRI just by lighting the set well enough.

Look at Kai Wong for another example.

Thing is, to be a good photographer you don't need to understand the inside workings of a camera, but you do need to be a good photographer.

I'm more bothered about the latter, and the fact our culture seems to be holding mediocrity aloft as some sort of authority on creativity, just because it appears to be on level with the public and shouting in a loud obnoxious voice to thousands of subscribers.

I'm not questioning if there is a look, I'm trying to work out what technical aspect might be causing it.  Anything you can understand you can work with, and potentially accentuate or minimise for creative effect.  

One of the main challenges with trying to compare sensor sizes is that you can't change single variables - every change effects so many variables simultaneously that it's almost impossible to do any kind of aesthetic tests. 
What I mean is that you can get two cameras with different sensor sizes and two lenses and set them up to have an identical FOV and POV.  If you organise your test well you can also perfectly match one or two other variables at the same time, but you'll have probably 5+ other variables all different.  
I think that's why there are a lot of very well done technical comparisons that only focus on one or two variables (for example Steve Yedlins excellent comparison of Lens Blur on different formats) but only very subjective comparisons of the overall 'look' between formats.

I've read a lot of these accounts of subjective comparisons and tried to discern what technical aspects might be behind them, and I'm yet to actually find anything in-particular that is fundamentally different, but there are still many factors I haven't ruled out, and I've definitely learned a lot of stuff along the way.

One thing that I thought was especially interesting was the effect that background defocus had on 3D 'pop'.  In my lens tests I have consistently found that even a small difference in background defocus (ie, shallower DoF) had a large impact on depth.  One test I did involved comparing lenses all at the same aperture and looking with one eye through a roll of cardboard so that I couldn't see the edges of the image, and comparing how much depth I perceived from the image.  The interesting thing was that there was a surprisingly strong perceived difference in my test between a 55mm lens and a 58mm lens at the same aperture.  Obviously the 58mm lens had slightly shallower DoF, but it was so slight that I had to actually measure the bokeh balls in the background to confirm it was different, but subjectively it made a much bigger difference than you'd imagine.

My current thoughts on it is that it's likely to be a combination of a range of factors that accumulate to form the aesthetic impression.  Of course, I still have much more to learn about it so this isn't a conclusion but rather more of a working theory.

I do find that it's actually been a very good question to ponder, as it has lead me down quite a number of paths of enquiry that have taught me a lot about the technical aspects of a digital imaging system as well as the aesthetic implications of various technical aspects of such.  Like all things, the value is in the questioning...

Interesting about the Panasonic vs Sony EOSHD Pro Colour sales, but not entirely surprising.  Sony used to have terrible colour!  My impression of Panasonic colour is that it was ok with the GH5 but has gotten nicer with subsequent releases.  If the GH6 has Panasonic S1H level colours then that would be a huge draw-card for me in upgrading I think.

There's a rumour that something will happen in their live-stream this week, so I guess we'll see about that 🙂 

22 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I like crazy Kai as well...and a lot of others.

I quite like Kai but with a few caveats.

Firstly, he doesn't make the mistake of stepping out of his expertise (or doesn't do it like others anyway).  He doesn't pretend to know the tech, doesn't try and explain it, and doesn't pretend that his testing is anything other than waving a camera around in a relatively hap-hazard way.

I've delved into the world of professional DPs and seen their camera tests (which are very difficult to find BTW as they're normally on Vimeo with cryptic titles) which typically only test one variable at a time and aren't meant in any way to be a review, just exploration of the tech.  There is also a world of semi-professional DPs who do commercial work but also do YT and non-DP revenue streams (like Tom Antos, Matteo Bertoli, Humcrush Productions, etc) but even these guys often have elements of their testing processes that aren't controlled for.  Of course they're not normally claiming that a test is pristine and not claiming to know the tech or try and explain it, but sometimes I'll watch a test and think "I wish they'd manually WB the cameras beforehand rather than just set the colour temperature" or similar things like that.

This leaves the poor YouTubers with basically no hope.  They don't actually shoot things professionally like the "hybrid" DPs so they can't talk about the concerns or working methods of real sets, and they also don't have the discipline that sets often involve like a DP requesting a particular T-stop and lighting ratio and doing things by the numbers.  They also don't have the technical discipline to review things because they are in the business of producing, hosting, filming, editing, and selling advertising on a show, rather than in the tech itself.

Some of these people understand that and keep within the lines, and others just don't, and make fools out of themselves in the process.

Of course, the sad thing is how many people don't know enough to know the difference, which is why these people can have lots of followers and yet fumble most of their content.

9 hours ago, Django said:

Probably why the "magic" or mojo goes away when shooting crop sensors.

What are your thoughts on the OG BMPCC and BMMCC in this regard?

I thought they were well known for their magic / mojo.  If so, they are an interesting example because they're doing it despite their sensor size rather than because of it.

They do raise an interesting element though, which @Andrew Reid touched on earlier when talking about how much of the lens image circle falls onto the sensor.  Despite the BMPCC / BMMCC having smaller sensors they are often used with c-mount lenses that were designed for this sensor size, or potentially even smaller, and thus they are looking at almost all of the image circle from many lenses they are used with.  
I must admit that I find them less magical when used with glass designed for larger sensors like MFT or FF.

[MrSMW]

10 hours ago, Django said:

Probably why the "magic" or mojo goes away when shooting crop sensors.

Personally, shooting Fuji APSC for around 9 years, I did find ‘magic’ in the system…but it varied between sensors (first there was the Bayer 12mp and then I think 4 versions of Xtrans going through 16, 24 and 26mp) dépendant in the lens choice, focal length, Jpeg or raw, how the images were processed and how/where they were viewed. Basically a gazillion variables and certain combos would shine just as some wouldn’t.

For photo.

For video, difficult to call…

I liked the output mostly, but prefer the results I am getting these days from Panny FF.

I guess the only way to really test anything side by side would be with the most comparable and basic set up possible, but unless we are ‘scientifically’ testing anything, we aim for the best combo of everything.

Could I go back to cropped sensor now?

For stills or video, easily.

I think it’s relatively easy to take a step in a single direction without noticing a huge difference but it’s when moving 2 steps we really notice such as an APSC user moving to MF or a FF user moving to 4/3.

Back in the day, I did shoot plenty of MF film photography and it definitely had a quality over 35mm but I haven’t shot MF digital so can’t comment but would expect it to be pretty special.

I think my ultimate combo would be digital MF for stills and APSC for video. Maybe Fuji next year with a GFX100s (stills) and an XH2 (video) combo…

[Emanuel]

6 hours ago, kye said:

I quite like Kai but with a few caveats.

Firstly, he doesn't make the mistake of stepping out of his expertise (or doesn't do it like others anyway).  He doesn't pretend to know the tech, doesn't try and explain it, and doesn't pretend that his testing is anything other than waving a camera around in a relatively hap-hazard way.

I've delved into the world of professional DPs and seen their camera tests (which are very difficult to find BTW as they're normally on Vimeo with cryptic titles) which typically only test one variable at a time and aren't meant in any way to be a review, just exploration of the tech.  There is also a world of semi-professional DPs who do commercial work but also do YT and non-DP revenue streams (like Tom Antos, Matteo Bertoli, Humcrush Productions, etc) but even these guys often have elements of their testing processes that aren't controlled for.  Of course they're not normally claiming that a test is pristine and not claiming to know the tech or try and explain it, but sometimes I'll watch a test and think "I wish they'd manually WB the cameras beforehand rather than just set the colour temperature" or similar things like that.

This leaves the poor YouTubers with basically no hope.  They don't actually shoot things professionally like the "hybrid" DPs so they can't talk about the concerns or working methods of real sets, and they also don't have the discipline that sets often involve like a DP requesting a particular T-stop and lighting ratio and doing things by the numbers.  They also don't have the technical discipline to review things because they are in the business of producing, hosting, filming, editing, and selling advertising on a show, rather than in the tech itself.

Some of these people understand that and keep within the lines, and others just don't, and make fools out of themselves in the process.

Of course, the sad thing is how many people don't know enough to know the difference, which is why these people can have lots of followers and yet fumble most of their content.

Nice thoughts : ) The most funny is not every DoP (less than before but still today come from film realm) are more expert on these modern digital cameras than a few digitally oriented since the beginning we could call just enthusiastic ; ) I've found many really good and with only their late 20s, 30s, which means they practically were born or yet children when the transition occurred if we can tell it like that :- ) There's a difference between a real DoP with a YT channel and those who are actually reviewers, that is, press, whether mere shills or more than that.

[MrSMW]

The other thing about crap YouTubers, is they make the good one’s look even better.

It’s all about balance in the end.

And opinions.

But the only opinion that really accounts is yours, to yourself, after you have personally tried something.