When someone adds the title "expert" to what they do, that places that person in a higher regard, and an almost dangerous position to be scrutinized more closely. That also leaves less room for error. It is interesting to observe how many "experts" popping up out of nowhere, and when the information that they share are nothing more than just half-truths and twisted facts that were modified so meticulously to serve their own agenda or push their own narrative, I just have this itch to write something down here. Strangely, I have more and more things to say recently, the up surge of blog articles certainly proves that. In this entry, I want to talk about a person whom I will not name (and shame), and how I find his sharing misleading and can be to a certain degree, damaging to the community.
 |
| Olympus E-1, first Four Thirds DSLR camera, featuring a 5MP CCD Kodak image sensor. |
And then came along this one content creator who came in and said I knew nothing I was talking about, since we disagreed on a certain feature on a camera. That scuffle was brief, and I brushed it aside, as people do disagree all the time and he is entitled to his opinion. Now the issue became more serious when he started titling his videos on YouTube with "expert guide".
I thought, ok, fine, let's give this guy a chance. Everyone deserves a chance. Just because he disagrees with you on something Robin, does not take away his ability or credibility as a photographer. But here is the thing, he also claims to be an expert. Let's just see how much expertise he can bring to the table, as he participated in a group live stream with other content creators.
In the first few minutes of him sharing his part, answering the first question, he has made several grave mistakes that I cannot help but to activate the part of my brain that filters out B***shit. Imagine if you have heard one lie, and then the next lie, and after a few lies, coming from one person, you suddenly found yourself putting your guard up and try not to trust this person 100% in everything that he has to say.
The first question was about how Micro Four Thirds can be improved. He took an interesting approach by referring to the "history" of Four Thirds. He then boldly claims that Four Thirds was originally designed specifically for professional photographers, that the format was optimized for pro use. He then went on and on about the right size of the sensor and how the lens plays a part in Four Thirds format that it was made for Pros from the start. Instant Red Flag. You see, I am a Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds fan. I started my photography with Four Thirds DSLR. I remember a lot from those days. Heck, even the Four Thirds official website is still online. Nowhere in my memory, or on that website stated that Four Thirds was created for professionals in mind.
 |
| Four Thirds original design philosophy |
The website's official description on Micro Four Thirds format is this "...system's greatest appeal is to achieve high image quality, compactness, and lightness for photographers who want to enjoy a camera anytime, anywhere. The open standard means you can use lenses and camera bodies from a range of manufacturers. And that gives you high versatility, operability and usability."
Even without looking at the website, I clearly remembered the philosophy of Four Thirds format - making smaller sized, lighter weight cameras and lenses, making them compact and easier to carry around, yet at the same time optimizing the lens design for the digital sensor, resulting in a unique solution for ALL photographers. Yes, obviously Olympus and Panasonic went on to make some great professional grade camera bodies from Four Thirds era, continuing to Micro Four Thirds era as they went mirrorless, but the fundamentals never changed - it was always about making smaller, lighter gear, with great optics. As simple as that. No one said anything about Four Thirds being designed with professionals in mind.
You see, I am not OK seeing someone twisting facts to serve their own story. This claim is erroneous, and it is as criminal as re-writing history.
He then went on to claim the first Four Thirds DSLR has 6MP image sensor. On ordinary days, I would have let this slide, it was a small mistake, I make mistakes too, that is perfectly normal. But then you claimed to be an expert. Then you started spewing half-truths about the principles of Four Thirds and now you cannot even get the megapixel count of the first Four Thirds camera correctly? Like I said, normally this would be easily forgiven, but adding the "expert" title makes things a bit hard to just pass. I still have the E-1, as shown in the image, and I still shoot with it from time to time. If you truly have shot with the camera and had enough experience with it, you won't make such a careless mistake as well.
There were several other mistakes there and here but I believe I have said enough to justify my point. I have no issue with anyone claiming to be an expert, as long as they don't make so many mistakes in such a short span of time. Or worse, changing the facts to fit your own spin of narrative, which does not look good at all no matter how you see things. At this point this person has no right to come and say I don't know how to use my camera, that is just plain rude and completely uncalled for. Also, you being an expert does not give you the permission to judge others. Facts are facts, and if you cannot even get them right in the first place, you have lost all my respect.
As for me, I will just continue to stay on my lane, do what I do, shoot my shutter therapy sessions and continue to share my passion here, and on my blog. I don't need to be an expert to enjoy my photography, and still be able to contribute in whatever small ways to the community the best I can.
