Mark Romero 2

MOST authors wallow in obscurity. MOST authors work 9-5 jobs, and then eat a cold sandwich for dinner, then go out and work a 6-10 job, and then maybe find a few hours on the weekend to write some stuff. Maybe someday some of it will get published in a way that they might make a few dollars. Most likely it will end up in some literature magazine or some literary competition where the author HAS TO PAY to have the work published. Is that a business model you want to follow???
Financially successful authors know ahead of time who they are writing for if they hope to get published. They may not have analyzed it in terms of demographics at a granular level, but they will have at least a good idea that they are writing for "kids who like magic" or "moms who like yoga and feel guilty about having a c section instead of vaginal birth" or some good idea of who their work is for. You can create work about stuff that YOU love but if you want other people to notice it, then you have to make sure it gets in front of their eyeballs.
What does that mean??? Do you mean you want to create something and have it become popular with no effort on your part to promote it at all???
You can always just do what you like to do and hope you get lucky and maybe someone who is an influencer will start promoting your work because they think it is the dog's bollocks.
Maybe it will happen. But it should be unique AND in demand content. I don't even think quality has to be paramount. Look at starbucks; they sell fake artisan coffee to people who think that they have good taste in coffee.

I don't know.So many young people iI know just seem to be depressed as hell. Wasn't that way when I was young. And it is because Nothing is easy today unless you are just lucky as heck. I know you can make yourself lucky but man, it is pretty unpredictable now, and that is what is bad. I heard something I think is crazy is that by 2030 40% of the people in the USA will be self employed! Hell that vast majority of people are not made to lead, most normally are followers. And that is the way it Should be. You can't have too many chiefs and not enough Indians as they say. If that is true God help 50 % of them. They will be worse off than before. Bankrupt and depressed even more. Running a business is nerve racking, you are never relaxed, have time for nothing, family or friends way to live. It is a FULL time job 7 days a week. Yeah that ought to all work out well LoL. I hope like heck that is not true. It will be Really ugly.

THIS!!!
You either have the wrong content, or you are getting your content in front of the wrong eyeballs.
Seriously??? Your not willing to shell out $100 a year on marketing / advertising???
I am not saying that email marketing is the BEST thing for you. But you need to familiarize yourself with the various marketing / advertising / outreach options and try and figure out which one is going to most effectively reach your target audience.
And you had BETTER have a good idea of your target audience. Otherwise, if you don't have some understanding of your target audience, then you are just digging yourself a whole.
Oh, and mail chimp has a free plan as well with up to 2,000 subscribers. That might not seem like many, but it will take you a LONG TIME to reach 2,000 subscribers to an email list.

There are no embarrassing questions - especially this one where there isn't an easy answer.
In terms of the basic premise that underlies everything, that one is easy...  give people something valuable.
I watch Casey because he's entertaining, and also has a strong personal philosophy that makes me question my own.  This is worth my time.  Peter McKinnon is also entertaining, and sometimes I learn something from him.  I watch Caleb Pike because I learn things.  I watch Wedding Film School and Kraig Adams because I learn things, plus they're entertaining.  I watch Juan Melara because I learn a crazy amount from every video he makes, even though his videos aren't particularly entertaining.  I watch Aliens Guide because it's funny as hell.
I love watching documentaries because I learn things about how the world works, I love watching foreign films because they give me an insight into other cultures or other periods in history.
Work out what you're selling, then get out there and find people that want that thing.
Gary Vaynerchuck says that people struggling to start a business should vlog because their journey to try and create something is actually more valuable than their business (because most businesses fail).  He's worth a look on YT if you haven't heard of him - super opinionated and hugely "go go go" motivational guy, but he doesn't mince words and he knows his shit, plus he's built a $100M social media marketing company so he knows a thing or two about how to succeed.
Ignore viral anything and all the clickbait BS - give something valuable to people and get out and tell people about it and you'll be fine.  but don't expect it to happen quickly.

No, I’d have a comparison based on how I would use the setup. If I had a C200 or 1DXii with the 24-70mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. If I had an X-T3 and 23mm f/2, I’d use it wide open and if I had a GH5s with the 12-35mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. Sensor size fairness is for kindergartners, I only care about how I would use the camera/lens in a real world scenario. 

I got the X-T3 as a hybrid. I don’t consider the GH5S a hybrid. It’s too video centric while having inadequate resolution for stills.

Funny, I also had my hands on the EOS R at Photokina and could have sworn it felt like a cheap $500 mirrorless camera with poor ergonomics and really dated video mode, but then I don't have 700,000 hungry Canon viewers on my YouTube channel to feed.

I think what @DBounce mentioned about colors can be important. While the GH5S colors look nice to me (I do, after all, shoot with Sony cameras), it might be good to plan around how much time you will have for coloring / grading.
Neither camera has IBIS. Is that going to be an issue? If I had to go by "gut feeling" alone, then MAYBE the tilty screen of the X-T3 would be easier to use than the flip-out screen of the GH5 when using on a gimbal??? If you are using a small "single hand" gimbal (Crane or something similar), will the motors block the flip out screen???
You can hear some of Jordan Drake's thought on the X-T3 here:
https://youtu.be/6situ5QPf6s?t=579
It seems the AF tracking in video is not on par with the Canon (and I would assume Sony as well... not that canon or sony cameras are in the running in your decision at all, just that maybe that is one slightly less advantage in terms of the X-T3).
Will you be using lighting??? If not, does 10-bit 4:2:2 hold up any better to color correcting mixed lighting than 10-bit 4:2:0 (I think Jordan says the Fuji is 10-bit 4:2:0 when recorded internally).
Do you not want a B cam??? Since you mentioned you own a GH5 already, then having a GH5S as an A cam and your GH5 as a B cam makes a lot of sense.
What is the lens budget looking like? The only people I know who say "Fuji lenses are inexpensive" are people who used to shoot Sony...

You do understand that with the FTZ adapter, you have all the modern Nikon lens (the last 10-20 years) which work natively on the z series camera. We are not talking about lens that won't focus, meter etc. but work as good with fast focus etc. This already makes the Z cameras have a big advantage in terms of lens compared to any Sony. Now ad the Sigma's which all work very well on the Z and some Tamron's. I am sure Tamron will be working to make sure all their lens work. Some like the 24-70mm is working. Then you have all the lens that can be adapted, we already saw a lot of adapter coming on.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/09/24/12-novoflex-lens-adapters-for-nikon-z-mirrorless-camera-officially-announced.aspx/

GH5 series is something of a standard. I think Panasonic earned this honor. But my goodness, does the X-T3 throw a monkey into the wrench. Either if epic. But I can tell you from owning both, the Fuji is easier to match with Canons. And straight out of camera colors on the Fuji are quite lovely.

Me too!

1)  Voigtlander 40mm f2. Light, wonderful rendering, and it's the focal length I see in.
2) The same.
3) Nikon 105mm 1.4
4) Not anymore, I've realized I like to shoot Nikon, so that's what I'm going to stick with for photography at least. Video cameras will vary.

Alistair Chapman made a comment in an interview that broadcasters will more likely be using Rec 2020 sooner than they would be broadcasting in 4K since Rec 2020 doesn't require more bandwidth than Rec 709, while 4K requires a lot more bandwidth that HD. (By broadcasting I mean ALL forms of broadcasting whether over the air, internet, 5G... whatever)
I know they aren't mutually exclusive or anything like that; Many 4K TVs sold today are already HDR capable.
But does that make sense to you guys? Do you think we will see a wider adoption of HDR over SD sooner than we will see an adoption of 4K over 1080p???
I know Tony Northrop said something like they only shoot their videos in 4K now because they wanted to make them "future proof." My understanding is they still shoot in SD gamma and gamuts though...
Then again, maybe I am misunderstanding the science behind all this...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Rec.2020 only specifies 4k and 8k resolutions, using standard dynamic range, not HDR. Perusing Wikipedia, I'm finding:
Rec.709: standard dynamic range, standard color gamut, 1080p, 8 or 10 bit
Rec.2020: standard dynamic range, wide color gamut, 2160p/4320p, 10 or 12 bit
Rec.2100: high dynamic range, wide color gamut, 1080p/2160p/4320p, 10 or 12 bit
So perhaps Alistair Chapman was referring to Rec.2100? (Not trying to be pedantic, just making sure I understand the alphabet soup here!)
 
Back on topic, I think 4k is easier to market for whatever reason, so we will see mass adoption of 4k before HDR. The public seems to "understand" 4k better than they do HDR. Moreover, we're all agreed on what 4K is, whereas HDR is still in a kind of format war from what I can see, between HLG and PQ.

Pop down to your local hardware store and browse, always interesting stuff there, you can probably reuse various types of tool boxes there for your needs.
 
 

Sam's Club used to, and still may, sell these. I bought two of them for my GH5 and G85. They're very well built for the price. 
https://m.samsclub.com/ip/16in-safety-box/prod20353692
Amazon also has some lower cost options under the Amazon Basics brand. I got one for my wireless lav. 

I have a bunch of these padded inserts ($19):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Partition-Folding-Flexible-Padded-Camera-Lens-Insert-Bag-Dividers-Case-for-DSLR/292318664042?hash=item440f8cd56a:g:1iQAAOSwQS1Z~xXq
 
PLano cases are good for light duty use, I put my slider, tripod, lights etc in here, no wheels though and a bit flimsy ($40):
https://www.amazon.com/Plano-Sportsmans-Trunk-Black-108-Quart/dp/B00HVCPT4W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536359&sr=8-3&keywords=sportsman+trunk
I actually use these over my Pelican 1650s because those are so heavy and overkill for what I'm doing (working by myself). 
 
I use this onstage cart to truck everything around, goes on sale for like $80 I think:
https://www.amazon.com/OnStage-UTC2200-On-Stage-Utility-Cart/dp/B01KQ0X3OS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536449&sr=8-1&keywords=onstage+cart
I have a huge rocknroller but it's pretty big so I don't end up using it too much.
 
For light stands I was using this:
https://www.amazon.com/Stage-LSB-6500-Lighting-Truss-Carry/dp/B000PGS5M4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536549&sr=8-1&keywords=onstage+light+stand+bag
But I can't really cram too many stands in there, I just switched to a golf bag bag, we shall see how it goes.
https://www.amazon.com/CaddyDaddy-Constrictor-Travel-Cover-Black/dp/B007OK866Y/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536587&sr=8-2&keywords=constrictor+golf
 
I also have a bunch of these types of bags I put my audio gear in, you can probably find one on craiglist for like $5 as they give these out with noobie gear.
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Large-Gadget-Orange-interior/dp/B00CF5OHZ2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536841&sr=8-3&keywords=padded+camera+bag
https://www.amazon.com/Ape-Case-Digital-Camera-ACPRO1400/dp/B00079SWNQ/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1538536859&sr=8-5&keywords=ape+case

If you're looking for a cheap alternative to the Peli 1510 case, then these are actually pretty decent for a quarter of the price.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/329-US-PRO-Waterproof-Wheeled-Rolling-Travel-Equipment-Tool-Box-Hard-Case-Foam/162057203114?hash=item25bb5cadaa:g:APUAAOSwLs5XKx2R
These padded dividers are really useful for transforming any rucksack into a camera bag and for general storage and faster packing of real camera bags. I have a load of them and organise gear into logical sets (speedlites with triggers in one pack, mics and recorders in another one etc etc) so I can pack bags quickly for different jobs.

http://amzn.eu/d/0OlQsE5

Are you mostly shooting real estate (like me)???
If so, have you checked out Matt Rosendahl's work with the a7 III?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoKNd-cLR8u2C2zXh4A696g
He's using the a7 III and the 16-35 f/4 on a (rather expensive) Movi M5 Gimbal. His results are pretty impressive:
 
Anyway, if you are mostly shooting real estate (like me) it just MIGHT be the best hybrid camera for RE until the Z6 is actually available in the real world.
Of course, the new Panasonic FF might be better so there you have it, and there is supposed to be a new Sony APS-C camera releasing soon, so there is that.
I think the Tamron 28-75 is kind of a game changer for us people who liked Sony but were dismayed by the lens selection and pricing.

And we see absolute magic coming from people that wouldn't have been able to operate or afford to make anything on that old equipment.
The old days aren't better, or worse, they are just different. Get over it.
Anyone who has the privilege to be able to do something and is complaining that too many people also have that privilege is just showing fear of being inadequate.  Master artists aren't campaigning for schools to stop giving students access to art supplies!

Many of the older has more accurate MF. The WRs can drift.

Firstly, this is confusing terminology. Wider apertures are considered "faster". So the f1.4 lens is "faster" than the f2. I believe what you mean is "quicker". As in quicker to focus. That said, the slower but newer f2 lenses are very snappy when focusing. Also of interest for video work is the fact that they are near silent in operation. When I purchased the X-T3 I was sure to get the newer f2 trinity so as to cover the bases for video. But after reading many reviews I was compelled to also add the 16mm f1.4. Which by many accounts is one of the best lenses ever made.

Q: "What is the medium format look?"
A: an empty wallet...

Q: "What is the medium format look?"
A: an empty wallet...

Q: "What is the medium format look?"
A: an empty wallet...