Interesting things about lenses - not m43

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Speedliner, Mar 12, 2015.

  1. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    This isn't about m43, or adapting lenses. I just thought it was interesting. I learned a few things about lenses that I would never have thought of, or realized could be an issue.

    So not relevant to us, but I still learned and enjoyed watching it. Funny in that his conclusion counters the impression of nearly everyone I know...and sounds legit.

    • Like Like x 1
  2. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Tony Northrup is a YouTube version of Ken Rockwell.
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    As annoying as Ken Rockwell is, he actually has a pretty impressive database when it comes to old Nikon lenses. Tony Northrup on the other hand just reeks of suburban soccer Dad who picked up a camera one day and decided to do Youtube videos! :eek: 
  4. bassman

    bassman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 22, 2013
    New Jersey
    The Bassman
    However, the description of the focus breathing impact on the 70-200s makes the thread trying to determine whether m43 has a crop of 1.92 or 2.0 or 2.08 kind of silly. To quote Dr. house, everybody lies.
  5. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Yes, I know he can be annoying, but he used published data. I never would have guessed that Nikon's zoom isn't as usable at the longer focal length? Nor did I realize that lenses can limit the resolution of a sensor. Seems obvious now, but I learned a few things.
  6. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I've not watched this video, but I watched one he did on focal length and f-stop equivalence between u43 and FF. He's got some seriously muddled thinking IMHO and ended accusing Panasonic of misleading the lens-buying public by claiming their 12-35 f2.8 isn't really f2.8 at all but f5.6.

    He also blathered on about how FF has lower noise because the bigger sensor catches more photons. Without mentioning pixel density (which he didn't), this is a dumb statement since by that logic if you cropped an FF shot you'd get more noise - which isn't really true.

    He seems a bit of a self publicist IMHO and I think I'll avoid adding to his YouTube earnings by watching any more of his stuff.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I weakened and watched it... Oh dear - this guy needs to go back to school and do some learning... Talking of the respective 600mm f4 lenses on the Canon 5d mkiii and the Nikon D800e, he quotes DxO's "perceptual megapixel" measurements and notes that the Canon only gets 20Mp, whilst the Nikon gets 24Mp. Wow he says - that's 20% more on the Nikon which is amazing and any wildlife photographer would really want it. What???? That 20% difference relates to the area of the sensor - but in linear measurement it amounts to less than 5% which I'd be very surprised if ANYONE would see - even if everything else was perfect (focus, camera shake, subject movement, lens calibration/alignment, low ISO, perfect exposure, ...).

    The whole thing looked pretty pointless to me anyhow - his conclusion is that only Canon offer a 70-200 f2.8 FF zoom that's sharp enough for him and therefore no other manufacturer is capable of producing lenses that he could possibly use for portraiture.
  8. faithblinded

    faithblinded Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Nov 25, 2014
    Cleveland, OH
    I enjoy watching their portfolio reviews sometimes, where they actually offer a lot of good advice, besides the annoyance of how hard they shill for squarespace. As gear heads Tony often misses the boat, and just plain doesn't understand product features before making a video about it. His equivalence videos are some of the worst out there, full of misinformation and poorly connected arguments. He preaches DxO as gospel, and constantly refers to them as the de facto standard by which to measure sensors, and thereby, camera value. That is, until they slammed the 7dmk2 for only being 2/3 of a stop better than it's ancient predecessor. Tony went so far as to make an entire video to backpedal and justify and tear apart DxO's methods and numbers on the 7dmk2. He reeks of a complete lack of integrity. I rarely watch them any more, though I am still subscribed.
  9. Lcrunyon

    Lcrunyon Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2014
    I actually have his e-books, and learned a lot from him. He's not a total hack. But I've been disappointed with some of his videos of late, just as have most folks here. I honestly don't think he lacks integrity; he's just not aware of his own biases (which in the end can be just as bad, if a bit more forgivable). He's tried and failed to be fair, and that's hurt his credibility quite a bit.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.