Awesome Northrup videos!

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

whumber wrote:

He's completely correct on both of those counts. Roger over at LensRentals has written articles about the same topics with the same conclusions.

Any damaged lens means profit for Roger.

Then, shooting with a naked, large front element, is equal to going out in full sunshine and wind without any eye protection and opening eyes as wide as possible to be beaten by the aforementioned.

It is as stupid as it gets.

Tony perhaps has money to burn a forest coming from clicks of the one million losers, but not much common sense to lit even a candle.

He also brags about shooting full sun at mid day, to achieve a need to restore 10 stops of information from contrasts, despite that that practice with any larger lens literally cooks the insides of the camera, and can quickly permanently damage the sensor.

People are mostly listening to absolute doodles when it comes to photography. Therefore you deserve to become like them.

Instead of doing what those nincompoops are suggesting, why don't you outclass them – buy a new camera and a new lens, and then play eggs tapping with them against rocks, straightaway.

Be Tony's Tony, and Roger's Roger.

Here's what Roger actually said:

"Evaluate the cost to benefit ratio of using a UV filter. Don’t use a $100 filter to protect a $100 front element.
Evaluate the situation. If you are in a high-risk environment, use a filter to maximize your protection.
Never, ever use a cheap $30 filter unless you don’t care about image quality."

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/front-element-lens-protection-revisited/

He largely did not use UV filters back in the day because front elements didn't cost much to replace compared to the cost of the UV filter, but for newer lenses that cost more to replace, he may use them. For private use, adding a filter or not depends largely on if you intend on reselling the lens.

hindesite wrote:

NCV wrote:

Life is too short to watch clickbait videos. Please give us a precis so as we do not have to watch them.

I much prefer the written word, it is much easier to skip the boring bits.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of expecting me to give you a precis of something you apparently have zero interest in, you could contribute to the thread by linking to "written word" articles that cover the same detail as a 2 hr video?

Thanks, I imagine that would be a big help for others of your disposition.

IMNHO the Northrups deserve every click they get; and these are most definitely NOT clickbait (which is where the title, description or thumbnail is misleading about the content).

The OED defines clickbait as "(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page".

It does NOT refer to "title, description or thumbnail" and it DOES refer to "content".

Many Northrup videos certainly apply, because they often want to get involved in internet debates on cameras, or even make statements that become the source of internet debates.

If they just stuck to uncontroversial tutorials on using one's own cameras, then fine.

These are thoughtfully and professionally presented and instructive videos that are among the best of their genre (and are free).

Videos, ugh. I agree with NCV.

The trouble with typical blogger videos like the Northrups is that they are so unprofessional. They are the equivalent of a technical content writer who provides no TOC and no index, no chapters, no paragraph breaks and no subtitles and no subheadings. Every technical writer who does that will be dismissed by the audience in short order.

It's not about "I prefer written word, you prefer video". Any professional online video production with technical content needs an associated TOC with headings and subheadings, with live links direct to each heading and subheading. As a minimum.

TN Args wrote:

hindesite wrote:

NCV wrote:

Life is too short to watch clickbait videos. Please give us a precis so as we do not have to watch them.

I much prefer the written word, it is much easier to skip the boring bits.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of expecting me to give you a precis of something you apparently have zero interest in, you could contribute to the thread by linking to "written word" articles that cover the same detail as a 2 hr video?

Thanks, I imagine that would be a big help for others of your disposition.

IMNHO the Northrups deserve every click they get; and these are most definitely NOT clickbait (which is where the title, description or thumbnail is misleading about the content).

The OED defines clickbait as "(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page".

It does NOT refer to "title, description or thumbnail" and it DOES refer to "content".

Many Northrup videos certainly apply, because they often want to get involved in internet debates on cameras, or even make statements that become the source of internet debates.

If they just stuck to uncontroversial tutorials on using one's own cameras, then fine.

These are thoughtfully and professionally presented and instructive videos that are among the best of their genre (and are free).

Videos, ugh. I agree with NCV.

The trouble with typical blogger videos like the Northrups is that they are so unprofessional. They are the equivalent of a technical content writer who provides no TOC and no index, no chapters, no paragraph breaks and no subtitles and no subheadings. Every technical writer who does that will be dismissed by the audience in short order.

It's not about "I prefer written word, you prefer video". Any professional online video production with technical content needs an associated TOC with headings and subheadings, with live links direct to each heading and subheading. As a minimum.

To be fair someone pointed out upthread that they do have an index in most of their tutorial videos if you click to show the description.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61844879

No text.

JakeJY wrote:

TN Args wrote:

hindesite wrote:

NCV wrote:

Life is too short to watch clickbait videos. Please give us a precis so as we do not have to watch them.

I much prefer the written word, it is much easier to skip the boring bits.

Maybe, just maybe, instead of expecting me to give you a precis of something you apparently have zero interest in, you could contribute to the thread by linking to "written word" articles that cover the same detail as a 2 hr video?

Thanks, I imagine that would be a big help for others of your disposition.

IMNHO the Northrups deserve every click they get; and these are most definitely NOT clickbait (which is where the title, description or thumbnail is misleading about the content).

The OED defines clickbait as "(on the Internet) content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page".

It does NOT refer to "title, description or thumbnail" and it DOES refer to "content".

Many Northrup videos certainly apply, because they often want to get involved in internet debates on cameras, or even make statements that become the source of internet debates.

If they just stuck to uncontroversial tutorials on using one's own cameras, then fine.

These are thoughtfully and professionally presented and instructive videos that are among the best of their genre (and are free).

Videos, ugh. I agree with NCV.

The trouble with typical blogger videos like the Northrups is that they are so unprofessional. They are the equivalent of a technical content writer who provides no TOC and no index, no chapters, no paragraph breaks and no subtitles and no subheadings. Every technical writer who does that will be dismissed by the audience in short order.

It's not about "I prefer written word, you prefer video". Any professional online video production with technical content needs an associated TOC with headings and subheadings, with live links direct to each heading and subheading. As a minimum.

To be fair someone pointed out upthread that they do have an index in most of their tutorial videos if you click to show the description.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61844879

To be fair I did say that the tutorials are fine. It's the rest, the majority.

RCicala wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

Any damaged lens means profit for Roger.

Damn! It seems I must have overlooked a highly-profitable method to make money by damaging my gear.

My apologies for dragging you into this.