When it comes to the high end ones, like Z8, it was expected. . Prior to inception of Zs, number of F mount lenses were definitely not following your math. So, it changed, and I think, with good reason.
Alistair1 wrote
Fact Check: Of the 10 Nikon Z bodies he has reviewed, Thom gives 2 a Highly Recommended rating. 🙂
I agree the post you were replying to was definitely hyperbole, but it is fair to note that Thom changes his ratings over time (and even takes down the oldest reviews) as cameras become outdated, so some of those cameras may have earlier had higher rankings. For example, I just checked his DSLR reviews and only one (D850) is [still] 'Highly Recommended', which I'm almost certain has not always been the case.
I actually think the opposite - he is oddly critical about Nikon in ways that often go against the broader public opinion. He didn't even give the Z 400/2.8 TC, one of the best lenses currently available from any manufacturer, a Highly Recommended . Most bodies he does not Highly Recommend, and he only upgraded the Z9 to Highly Recommended some time after release. He also does not Highly Recommend the 14-30S, 14-24S, or 24-70S to name a few. Occasionally he changes these ratings or qualifies them with the years they apply to.
I actually don't read his articles anymore, at least not regularly. His writing style has shifted over the years from interesting and insightful more towards grumpy ramblings. Maybe that is an unpopular opinion, but I used to enjoy reading his stuff a lot more than I do now. He seems to really genuinely think that Nikon cares about his 'advice' to them, he thinks he knows Nikon's customer base better than Nikon, and he has been going on and on about unpopular DX lenses for as long as I can remember.
Thom is a yeller-at-clouds and his write ups are closer to drunken ramblings. He wishes he was still in deep with Nikon, but it's clear that he's bitter that he's not and his writings reflect that. Not a trusted voice of reason in the Nikon world IMO.
RoamingScott wrote:
Thom is a yeller-at-clouds and his write ups are closer to drunken ramblings. He wishes he was still in deep with Nikon, but it's clear that he's bitter that he's not and his writings reflect that. Not a trusted voice of reason in the Nikon world IMO.
This just in: bitter guy on photo forum accuses other guy with photo site of being bitter. News at 10!
Even if one doesn't agree with his reviews, he demonstrates a lot more knowledge of cameras than 95% of youtubers. He's a worthwhile resource (though don't trust his "predictions/rumors" one bit) IMO, if a bit grumpy these last 10 years.
Thom has some interesting information sometimes - like I said, I used to enjoy reading his articles a lot more in the past than I do now, so it's not all bad. It's his tone I personally don't like. Many of his articles have this pretentious undertone to them, written from the perspective that he is some kind of authority that Nikon should be consulting. For example in one article he made a comment that Nikon lens designers don't understand how their lenses work in the real world. In another, he made a comment claiming to be personally responsible in some way for lens availability issues, I guess due to how many people he perceives buy what he tells them to buy? For me anyway, that's what I don't like and those are just two random examples I was able to find in a few seconds, but his articles are full of those types of comments. He will start many sentences with things like "Nikon still hasn't figured out that...." I get that he's been around for a long time, but frankly Nikon couldn't care less what he has to say and that seems to eat away at him.
The other thing he never does is post his sources - he prides himself on having highly technical details (which I really do appreciate), but we never see any citations. It would be nice to see where that info actually comes from and maybe read more about it. I love the technical deep dive articles that Imaging Resource used to put out, for example, and if Thom is referencing articles like that, I would love to read them myself.
Also sometimes he just publishes factually incorrect information - for example he says the 800 PF has a carbon fiber lens hood, which it clearly does not. Was that not a hands-on review? I know that's nit-picky but he has an entire paragraph about the hood/cap solution and someone reading his review before making a purchase decision might think they are getting a $1,000 lens hood.
Anyway, like I said, not all bad, but I would enjoy reading his articles a lot more if he dropped the whole "why isn't Nikon listening to me" attitude.
In the time I've been interested in photography, Nikon has fallen from neck-and-neck-for-first to not-even-especially-close-to-second. There's *something* "Nikon still hasn't figured out". I don't know that Thom Hogan knows what that something is, but, eh, I figure as long as I'm gonna speculate about it he has a right to as well.
He sounds like AngryPhotographer 2.0 now RoamingScott wrote:
Thom is a yeller-at-clouds and his write ups are closer to drunken ramblings. He wishes he was still in deep with Nikon, but it's clear that he's bitter that he's not and his writings reflect that. Not a trusted voice of reason in the Nikon world IMO.
CanadaMark wrote:
Thom has some interesting information sometimes - like I said, I used to enjoy reading his articles a lot more in the past than I do now, so it's not all bad. It's his tone I personally don't like. Many of his articles have this pretentious undertone to them, written from the perspective that he is some kind of authority that Nikon should be consulting. For example in one article he made a comment that Nikon lens designers don't understand how their lenses work in the real world. In another, he made a comment claiming to be personally responsible in some way for lens availability issues, I guess due to how many people he perceives buy what he tells them to buy? For me anyway, that's what I don't like and those are just two random examples I was able to find in a few seconds, but his articles are full of those types of comments. He will start many sentences with things like "Nikon still hasn't figured out that...." I get that he's been around for a long time, but frankly Nikon couldn't care less what he has to say and that seems to eat away at him.
The other thing he never does is post his sources - he prides himself on having highly technical details (which I really do appreciate), but we never see any citations. It would be nice to see where that info actually comes from and maybe read more about it. I love the technical deep dive articles that Imaging Resource used to put out, for example, and if Thom is referencing articles like that, I would love to read them myself.
Also sometimes he just publishes factually incorrect information - for example he says the 800 PF has a carbon fiber lens hood, which it clearly does not. Was that not a hands-on review? I know that's nit-picky but he has an entire paragraph about the hood/cap solution and someone reading his review before making a purchase decision might think they are getting a $1,000 lens hood.
Anyway, like I said, not all bad, but I would enjoy reading his articles a lot more if he dropped the whole "why isn't Nikon listening to me" attitude....Show more →
Honestly, I have no idea if he has any pull with Nikon or not. How would I know? How do you know?
re posting sources......posting sources often makes those sources no longer be sources.
Lens hood thing I will take you at your word.
It sounds like he just rubs you the wrong way. There are writers that rub me the wrong way as well, so completely understandable.
CanadaMark wrote:
For example in one article he made a comment that Nikon lens designers don't understand how their lenses work in the real world.
[...]
In another, he made a comment claiming to be personally responsible in some way for lens availability issues, I guess due to how many people he perceives buy what he tells them to buy?
1) it's entirely conceivable that they don't. There are some odd design decisions that lead to strange ergonomics and that adds friction to the buying process. For example, just trying finding a set of primes in the z-system that has the same filter size. Sometimes they know better and I discover that after using something (the WR-11a, for example). But not often.
2) he has a large readership. zsystemuser + bythom.com + sansmirror.com +dslrbodies.com + filmbodies.com == more than 110K site visits per month. I would not discount, especially for high-end gear, his influence on buying patterns. I generally wait, for example, for his reviews / books before picking something up.
The reviews are accurate and done from the perspective of a working photographer trying to relay their perspective, warts and all. He isn't sponsored.
The constant whining of "nikon should do x' is annoying, as others have mentioned. So I just tune it out and get to the meat.
First of all, I have a big respect to Thom for what he continues to write. I do find Thom’s articles to be quite informative, right on the money, and his reviews are one of the few worth calling ‘review’. I also don’t find him to be grumpy. I agree with most of his comments on what Nikon has missed, did wrong,or continue to do wrong, ie how DX holds financial key and yet Nikon continues to lag, etc. He got solid knowledge, insights, information, and rationale to build his speculation. I trust his comment far more than any other sources including any forum chatters.
. Most bodies he does not Highly Recommend, and he only upgraded the Z9 to Highly Recommended some time after release. He also does not Highly Recommend the 14-30S, 14-24S, or 24-70S to name a few. Occasionally he changes these ratings or qualifies them with the years they apply to.