MorningWalk
Leading Member
In that case I would use auto ISO and RAW. You can correct WB in PP, the camera manages your ISO and you can concentrate on framing, taking the shot at the right moment, etc.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Thom Hogan's D750 review up
- Thread starter jtan163
- Start date
jtan163
Senior Member
antoineb
Veteran Member
Hi jtan163,
a link posted with no added value is pure advertising which should be paid for.
Attempting to draw traffic to a given site, without properly identifying the intent, nor paying for it, is against the rules, be they general internet use or here at DPR.
a link posted with no added value is pure advertising which should be paid for.
Attempting to draw traffic to a given site, without properly identifying the intent, nor paying for it, is against the rules, be they general internet use or here at DPR.
sgoldswo
Veteran Member
T
Tom Ames
Guest
What will be the point of list pros and cons after he made several updates? He has worded his review a lot more positive now, as many points out.
sandy b
Veteran Member
Look, whats the harm? Thom's reviews are always eagerly awaited and respected, and are pertinent to a Nikon forum. No one is forced to click through, no different than posting a link to a DXO test.
antoineb
Veteran Member
Hi sandyb,
- I'm not saying that this Thom is not a competent photographer and reviewer.
- what I AM saying, however, is that "coincidentally", anytime he writes a new review then someone immediately starts a thread about his review, on DPR. He's the only one to do this. We NEVER see this happen for the likes of, say, Ming Thein (who seems just as competent a reviewer and much superior a photographer), Ken Rockwell (whether we like him or not, he has his freedom of tone and is quite competent), Gordon Laing at Cameralabs, dkamera dot de, and so on. So something is clearly amiss here.
- I think it would be fine if, occasionally, someone pointed at one of his reviews. And it would be even more fine if the link was provided with a comment, i.e. not just a plain attempt to draw traffic.
- finally I think it is important to realise that the Internet has a commercial aspect, yes, and that this commercial aspect is ruled by actual laws. These laws include disclosure. And DPR is a commercial site, and they have very clear rules about advertising: if you want to leverage on their traffic to draw traffic to your own site, be it bythom dot com, or amazon, you are supposed to do this above not below the table, and pay them money.
In yet another occurrence of blatant adversing for Thom, we (1) do not have any disclosure when obviously the OP ie either Thom himself under an alias, or someone close enough to him - the LAW requires that they write something like "I am Thom / I am in business with Thom and have an interest in drawing traffic to the site."; (2) we have an attempt to deprive DPR from its revenue. So the two rules are broken.
Where is the HARM?
Well, just pause and think for a second: what would happen if each reasonably decent review site, systematically started a thread here to advertise each time they post a new review!
- I'm not saying that this Thom is not a competent photographer and reviewer.
- what I AM saying, however, is that "coincidentally", anytime he writes a new review then someone immediately starts a thread about his review, on DPR. He's the only one to do this. We NEVER see this happen for the likes of, say, Ming Thein (who seems just as competent a reviewer and much superior a photographer), Ken Rockwell (whether we like him or not, he has his freedom of tone and is quite competent), Gordon Laing at Cameralabs, dkamera dot de, and so on. So something is clearly amiss here.
- I think it would be fine if, occasionally, someone pointed at one of his reviews. And it would be even more fine if the link was provided with a comment, i.e. not just a plain attempt to draw traffic.
- finally I think it is important to realise that the Internet has a commercial aspect, yes, and that this commercial aspect is ruled by actual laws. These laws include disclosure. And DPR is a commercial site, and they have very clear rules about advertising: if you want to leverage on their traffic to draw traffic to your own site, be it bythom dot com, or amazon, you are supposed to do this above not below the table, and pay them money.
In yet another occurrence of blatant adversing for Thom, we (1) do not have any disclosure when obviously the OP ie either Thom himself under an alias, or someone close enough to him - the LAW requires that they write something like "I am Thom / I am in business with Thom and have an interest in drawing traffic to the site."; (2) we have an attempt to deprive DPR from its revenue. So the two rules are broken.
Where is the HARM?
Well, just pause and think for a second: what would happen if each reasonably decent review site, systematically started a thread here to advertise each time they post a new review!
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Ease up Antoine...... Thom Hogan has been around a LOT longer than the others - Ming is fairly recent, and while he's an excellent photographer, he's in a different category than Thom, and Thom will tell you he doesn't post the best of his own work so comparisons are difficult there. Plus we have to get over this connection that ONLY if one is an amazing photographer that then and only then can they give photographic advice. There isn't as much connection between the two. During my RIT days I learned the most from guys who were competent, consistent photographers but not special and learned not as much from guys who were "amazing". Ones artistic ability, or ones professional ability to make income, isn't directly correlated to the ability of them to TRANSFER knowledge in a realistic way to others.
Sounds like you got something againt Thom - who frankly has been contributing to the Nikon community a lot longer than most of us, most particularly in the early days of DSLR when there wasn't much else to get real information from. His "value" as a "reporter" may be less these days when we have so many sources, but that doesn't undermine what he's done in the past.
Note I don't always agree with Thom - I find his lens reviews weak for example, but there is no doubt the man has earned some street cred most of the others guys are still working on, and thus a little respect is in order.
-m
Sounds like you got something againt Thom - who frankly has been contributing to the Nikon community a lot longer than most of us, most particularly in the early days of DSLR when there wasn't much else to get real information from. His "value" as a "reporter" may be less these days when we have so many sources, but that doesn't undermine what he's done in the past.
Note I don't always agree with Thom - I find his lens reviews weak for example, but there is no doubt the man has earned some street cred most of the others guys are still working on, and thus a little respect is in order.
-m
To be fair I've seen reviews from most of those you list posted here and linked in a similar fashion. I do understand your point however.
Verkku
Forum Enthusiast
+1
jtan163
Senior Member
I thought other people would be interested. Which I think is self evident, this being a forum about Nikon FX cameras and the D750, the camera being reviewed is Nikon FX camera and one that has been discussed quite abit in this forum.
Not to mention the fact that Thom did/does still frequent these forums at times and is arguably one of the more prolific authors on Nikon cameras.
Like I say, seems self evident to me.
And some what proven given the volume of conversation.
Thom's intent is also fairly self eveident I think.
He generates income by selling books and teaching workshops and he provides free content on his site to do that.
Or vice versa.
But since your so confident which rule(s) did you mean.
For your convenience, here are the rules for general internet use as per the IETF
I strongly suspect you'll be surprised to find there actually are some.
I'm sure you'll be kind enough to point out chapter and verse where linking to sites you read, articles you find interesting or that you think other people might find interesting is prohibited.
I suggest you take that up with the DPR staff (you will recall that DPR link to various bloggers on their main page on slow news days - so good luck with that) or the moderators.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3834954216/froknowsphoto-guide-to-dslr-video-now-available
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0094709719/filterblog
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/48...tographer-muse-in-a-sartorialiast-styled-blog
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6653068087/bbcphotoblog
What was their motivation?
Were they paid?
And on the few occaissions where I've come even close to the DPR rules I've had my posts deleted.
If you're not, why not simply choose not to participate?
Oh and what's your intent in this post?
And why do you presume to speak for DPR?
Do you have a fiduciary interest in DPR one of the parent or subsidiary corporations?
I hope you ideas and thinking about investment are better than your ideas and thinking about the internet.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/9762497@N05
http://www.jtpix.com.au
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
jtan163
Senior Member
No chance that the audience of DPR and Thom is a mathematical union?
It was not an attempt to draw viewers.
I resent your putting words in my mouth and I am insulted by your suggestion.
It was an attempt to inform people that an article that some might be interested in was available and then stimulate conversation about it.
That link in your profile - is that advertising.
Have you paid for it?
Thanks for pointing that out.
I'd never noticed commerce on the internet or DPR.
So on one hand you're talking about the law and on the other your making unfounded allegations, that might well besmirch my reputation.
In some countries there is a tort called libel it is intended to allow a person who is injured by untrue characterisations or allegatons to recover damages to compensate for those untrue characterisations etc.
So do you have any evidence that I am benefting from "
Neither.
I have never met Thom, I am not Thom, Thom has not paid me.
I have emailed Thom on a few occaissions to discuss some of his writing.
As such I have no duty to disclose anything, thought I have chosen to do so to show you how ridiculously foolish you appear.
I hope that tinfoil hat is a good fit, you might find it cuts around the ears otherwise.
Yes that is true in some parts of the world.
As far as I know not where I live, ut even if it were, it would be irrelevant.
The problem with your conspiriacy theory is my business relationship with Thom is I bought a book from him once, and one day may buy another.
I have no interest in drawing traffic to his site per se, and certainly no fiduciary interest and gain no benefit from doing so.
So I'm under no obligation what-so-ever to make an disclosure.
More people would read them more reviews and they'd have a broader range of opinions to base their product assements on.
Then when the readers read the reviews, some of them would come to the thread, and talk about the reviews.
And return to the thread as it developed.
And each time they did the hosting site would have to opportunity to present adverts to them.
Targeted adverts because the site has been tracking your demographic information, the links you've clicked on, the articles you've read etc. The hosting site also has the possibility of selling that information on.
Some of those people might then choose to buy the object being reviewed.
Then if the hosting site was owned by say a huge retailer a proportion of the people who buy those objects will buy them from that retailer, especially if the site has links to that retailer...
[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Tusk24
Veteran Member
What gave me some encouragement was this part of the review:
''The D610 is a clear bargain. You save at least US$600 over a D750 and you really don’t lose that much. The D750 is better than a D610 in lots of small ways, but when it comes down to basic image quality, the small differences become almost minute. If you’re the type that’s likely to put one of the variable aperture zooms on the camera and shoot away (18-35mm, 24-85mm, 28-300mm, etc.), I’d say get the D610 and save the extra dough. Maybe even buy a lens you don’t have with the savings''.
My situation at the moment wouldn't allow me to pay that difference of US$600 towards the D750 so it's good to hear from Thom Hogan that the D610 is still a worthwhile buy.
Just my own take on it.
Best regards.
''The D610 is a clear bargain. You save at least US$600 over a D750 and you really don’t lose that much. The D750 is better than a D610 in lots of small ways, but when it comes down to basic image quality, the small differences become almost minute. If you’re the type that’s likely to put one of the variable aperture zooms on the camera and shoot away (18-35mm, 24-85mm, 28-300mm, etc.), I’d say get the D610 and save the extra dough. Maybe even buy a lens you don’t have with the savings''.
My situation at the moment wouldn't allow me to pay that difference of US$600 towards the D750 so it's good to hear from Thom Hogan that the D610 is still a worthwhile buy.
Just my own take on it.
Best regards.
Last edited:
Interesting review as always from Thom Hogan. That said he starts off with "... D750 is one of the best DSLRs you can buy right now." and finishes with "Overall, another winning FX DSLR from Nikon." Well worth reading the entire review as he does have extensive experience with Nikon.
It falls in the middle of Enthusiast and Pro categories and I suspect doesn't hit all of his needs. That said it does satisfy my needs coming from use of earlier Nikons and recent D610, D800 and D800e use. I do find focus acquisition and low light capabilities really amazing in comparison but do miss the "crop" factor of the D800 range.
My experience with the D750
http://jbipix.com/?s=d750
D800e
http://jbipix.com/?s=d800e
D610
http://jbipix.com/?s=d610
All great cameras, IMHO the D750 is better for me!
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
I find it funny that Thom revising his review to mention that the AF on the D750 is better than the AF on the D610 (didn't we already know that?), that the D750 has improved amp noise, and putting in "Highly Recommended" seem to have changed your negative tone towards Thom's review despite his not backing down at all on what you called a lengthy list of cons from a "grumpy old man."
Tony Beach
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,967
- Solutions
- 5
- Reaction score
- 7,035
Is that a question? Look, you're making an outrageous implication suggesting that those that post links to Thom's website are shills.
Robert Cohen
Veteran Member
>> Shooting raw you have zero disadvantage to changing it later if need be. I use auto wb, if it's wrong (usually isn't) then I change it. <<
>> Disadvantages include a less accurate histogram while shooting (for individual color channels) and a potentially less accurate WB if there isn't a good neutral subject to key the WB from in post. <<
If you're shooting under conditions that permit you to make changes based on the histograms of individual colors then you probably don't need to use any auto settings. Many of us have to work more quickly than that or under conditions that are varying, in which case auto WB is quite useful and any error can be reasonably well corrected in post.
>> Disadvantages include a less accurate histogram while shooting (for individual color channels) and a potentially less accurate WB if there isn't a good neutral subject to key the WB from in post. <<
If you're shooting under conditions that permit you to make changes based on the histograms of individual colors then you probably don't need to use any auto settings. Many of us have to work more quickly than that or under conditions that are varying, in which case auto WB is quite useful and any error can be reasonably well corrected in post.
The original review contained almost no mention of the ways in which the d750 was superior to the d610 - not AF, not card-write speed, not amp-noise. Other than the ergonomics, I struggle to remember a single area in which Thom unreservedly said the d750 was better than the d610. And in his conclusion, he wrote:
"The D610 is a clear bargain. You save at least US$600 over a D750 and you really don’t lose that much. The D750 is better than a D610 in lots of small ways, but when it comes down to basic image quality, the small differences become almost minute."
(That paragraph is still there, btw...and still no mention of the AF superiority).
If I were trying to make up my mind between the d610 and the d750, there was next-to-nothing in the review as originally published which would make me want to shell out over $600 more for the d750. Even now, you have to read pretty carefully (i.e., not just the intro and conclusion and bounce around the rest of a long review) to find solid reasons why one would chose the d750.
So yes, lukewarm.
I also get the sense from Thom's review that he's not a huge fan of the D750, or at least thinks it's not as compelling as the D810 upgrade was; he doesn't have anything really bad to say about it but he minimizes the differences between it and the D610. I find it surprising because IMO the D750 is a much larger upgrade over the D610 on a major-feature-weighted basis than was the D810 over the D800. I think he believes the D810 is a much better camera and so believes it's worth the price premium over the D750.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum