Thom Hogan: Seven Reasons Why I Shoot With (Nikon) DSLRs

[ahsanford]

you can save yourself you useless rethoric tricks and attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.

It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants: Not everybody, but MANY, MANY, MANY photographers from entry level to advanced to semi-pro to pro would just love to get a great Canon EOS-M "Pro" body right now for APS-C or a killer Nikon APS-C MILC system (instead of a pathetic Nikon 1).

And MANY MORE would immediately shell out money for a Canon or Nikon FF MILC system fully competitive with Sony A7/R/S II.

Denial is really ridiculous.

I don't think anyone disagrees that mirrorless is the future -- I think they are arguing mirrorless is not the present.

You speak of mirrorless in revered tones that would imply it is outselling SLRs today. It's not even close to doing that (unless you include cell phones, P&S, etc. in that tally), and in ignoring that data, you come across as delusional. (That tends to undermine the argument you are making.)

You speak of SLRs like they are a thing of the past, a relic about to die, etc. In fact, SLRs broadly and comprehensively outperform today's mirrorless options except for a few very small and specific needs that do not overpower mirrorless' glaring present limitations, e.g.:

• 1/32,000 shutter is undeniably neato, but carrying 3-4 batteries is not.
• EVFs with histo / peaking / brightness amplification are great, but not if they miss the shot due to lag.
• Being able to use other companies' lenses is amazing but it's not for everyone as AF performance with adapters is spotty.

These are just a few examples of why mirrorless has a ton of SLR users waiting on the side of the pool rather than jumping in. It will happen. But it will not happen soon.

- A

 

[Orangutan]

• You don't know what other customers want
• You don't know what the marketing teams at Canon and Nikon know
• If there were money to be made in mirrorless you can bet your slapper that Canon and Nikon would be on-board with it.

attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless

I never said that. I just said that the big companies know better than you how many there are in that group. Not only that, but they know who is willing to buy mirrorless, and how much they're willing to pay. You don't. Your repeated proclamations do not create facts.

It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants

As my math professors used to say, since it's so evident, you will have no trouble proving it.

Denial is really ridiculous.

You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.

 

[Thom Hogan]

I find Thom to be a repetitive bag of hot air.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. No problems with that.

He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.

That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

When people make up facts to justify their opinions, then I start having problems with their opinions ;~)

His always "expert" view is tiring.

I suppose. But let me ask you this: if you become expert at something, you're suggested that you should always pretend NOT being an expert from time to time?

Everyone is different and has different needs.

I don't disagree with that, and there's nothing in my article that contradicts that. Indeed, the entire article was "this is my decision based upon what I do."

You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be open discussions of what differences those are and what those needs end up suggesting. You're obviously not shooting the same stuff as I am, so I'm sure you'd choose something different. But what if you did shoot the same thing?

Read, don't read, I don't actually worry about that. If you don't like what I write, don't read it.

 

[Loswr]

Why are not more MILC systems bought? because Canon and Nikon are refusing to serve the more discerning/advanced very small minority target group: FF DSLR buyers only have Sony as an (affordable) option. For CaNikon users it would mean full or partial system switch ... something most people are rather cautious about. And for many good reasons.

If Canon and Nkon both had FF competitors as capable and npot more expensive than Sony A//R/S I and II ... DSLR sales would be trailing MILC sales already by a good margin. If we need to talk about "unit sales".

Fixed that for you.

Well, there are a couple of possible reasons that Canon and Nikon don't make a full lineup of FF MILC offerings...

1) They know their market far better than you, and the concentrate their efforts to serve the majority of that market
2) They are clueless idiots serving a mass market of fools

We all know which you believe... :

...make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.

Denial is really ridiculous.

No, you're not the only person on Earth more interested in good MILC systems than in dSLRs. Nor are you the only person on Earth who can manage to sound like a complete idiot. However, despite your rampant refuals to accept documented facts, in the first case you are in the minority. I'd like to hope that you're in the minority in the second case, too, but I'm not sure that's true since unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who sound like complete idiots.

But in either case, you're certainly one of the CR Forum poster children for being ridiculous!

 

[ahsanford]

You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line for Canon given what they already have on the market? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.

One important correction above. Few would doubt Canon and Nikon have deliberately held off their own mirrorless efforts -- because it financially serves them to. They could make money on a mirrorless system right now, it just wouldn't be as profitable as investing further in the galactically big SLR ecosystems they've already built.

Were a dream team of Canon and Nikon lifers to start a new photography company together with the goal to develop a new camera system to dominate the photography world in 10 years time (let's presume they had massive financial backing), does anyone really think there'd be a mirror in it?

So I agree with AvTvM's oracle work of the general demise of SLRs. Mirrorless will absolutely win out. I just think it will take a very long time to get there.

- A

 

[Orangutan]

He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.

That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

Just to clear the air, do you have any sponsorship deals that bear on this discussion?

 

[Thom Hogan]

8 Hours...

It would take train B 8 hours to pass train A, at 11:00pm.

rate * time = distance

r t d
75 X 75x
100 X-2 100x-200

thus 75x = 100x -200 (distance = distance)
thus x = 25x -200 (subtract 75x from each side)
thus 200 = 25x (add 200 to each side)
thus 8 = x

 

[Orangutan]

You need to be more specific: is it true that many people want and will buy mirrorless? Yes. Is it true that there are enough of them to make it a profitable line for Canon given what they already have on the market? Nikon and Canon know best. To deny that is ridiculous.

Were a dream team of Canon and Nikon lifers to start a new photography company together with the goal to develop a new camera system to dominate the photography world in 10 years time (let's presume they had massive financial backing), does anyone really think there'd be a mirror in it?

I believe Keynes famously said, "in the long run we are all past our shoot-by date" or something like that...

The problem is that "in 10 years time" might as well be forever: old companies will die or merge, new companies could rise from a fertile field of venture capital. Looking past two generations is fairly pointless.

So I agree with AvTvM's oracle work of the general demise of SLRs. Mirrorless will absolutely win out. I just think it will take a very long time to get there.

Not much oracle to that, I think few will argue that mirrorless is the future; however, as I said before, if it's not in the next two generations it's not really worth talking whining about.

 

[Thom Hogan]

He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.

That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

Just to clear the air, do you have any sponsorship deals that bear on this discussion?

I have been 100% clear on this for 20 years on the Internet. Whenever I have a relationship that impacts something I write, I disclose it. So let's recap pretty much all of that:

* At one point in the early 00's I had a relationship with Fujifilm where they were supplying one of my books with their camera. I received a camera from Fujifilm (S3 Pro) as part of the remuneration. This was disclosed in my review and subsequent book.
* I'm a member of NPS and qualified the same way all other Nikon-shooting pros do.
* My Web site has an exclusive advertising (not affiliate) relationship with B&H. From time to time I borrow gear from B&H to review. The source of review equipment is always disclosed. Most of the time it is "personal purchase from my dealer." My D500 review, for instance, says "This review is based upon a personal camera bought through NPS, as well as handling and use of two other bodies that I borrowed." Those borrowed bodies were from other pros. And for what it's worth, NPS priority purchases like that still go through your local dealer, it's just that NPS folk get to cut in line.
* Every ad or link to an external relationship on my site is labeled "advertising" or "ad link" or something similar, following FTC guidelines for Web sites to the letter (not a lot of Web sites do this correctly).
* I have, at my own expense, traveled to Nikon and presented ideas and suggestions to Nikon executives and designers. When I mean "at my own expense," I mean it. I hired two of my own translators, paid for absolutely everything, including the traditional small gift offerings you do at the beginning of real Japanese business meetings.
* I have, without remuneration, given camera companies software code that improves their products. The most recent of that was delivering Marianne Olerund's recoding of Nikon's hot pixel suppression scheme, which showed up in the next camera Nikon delivered (and has since been further altered by Nikon).
* I have, at workshops I paid to attend, borrowed Canon and Nikon gear from CPS and NPS for the purposes of the workshop.

Every last bit of the above has been (and is still) disclosed on my sprawling Web sites.

Oh, I guess I didn't answer your question: at present I have no sponsorship deals with anyone. I shoot independently, mostly sports for clients, wildlife for myself and sometimes a client or two. I shoot events for local groups. I shoot landscape for myself.

 

[Loswr]

He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.

That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

Just to clear the air, do you have any sponsorship deals that bear on this discussion?

I have been 100% clear on this for 20 years on the Internet. Whenever I have a relationship that impacts something I write, I disclose it. So let's recap pretty much all of that:

* At one point in the early 00's I had a relationship with Fujifilm where they were supplying one of my books with their camera. I received a camera from Fujifilm (S3 Pro) as part of the remuneration. This was disclosed in my review and subsequent book.
* I'm a member of NPS and qualified the same way all other Nikon-shooting pros do.
* My Web site has an exclusive advertising (not affiliate) relationship with B&H. From time to time I borrow gear from B&H to review. The source of review equipment is always disclosed. Most of the time it is "personal purchase from my dealer." My D500 review, for instance, says "This review is based upon a personal camera bought through NPS, as well as handling and use of two other bodies that I borrowed." Those borrowed bodies were from other pros. And for what it's worth, NPS priority purchases like that still go through your local dealer, it's just that NPS folk get to cut in line.
* Every ad or link to an external relationship on my site is labeled "advertising" or "ad link" or something similar, following FTC guidelines for Web sites to the letter (not a lot of Web sites do this correctly).
* I have, at my own expense, traveled to Nikon and presented ideas and suggestions to Nikon executives and designers. When I mean "at my own expense," I mean it. I hired two of my own translators, paid for absolutely everything, including the traditional small gift offerings you do at the beginning of real Japanese business meetings.
* I have, without remuneration, given camera companies software code that improves their products. The most recent of that was delivering Marianne Olerund's recoding of Nikon's hot pixel suppression scheme, which showed up in the next camera Nikon delivered (and has since been further altered by Nikon).
* I have, at workshops I paid to attend, borrowed Canon and Nikon gear from CPS and NPS for the purposes of the workshop.

Every last bit of the above has been (and is still) disclosed on my sprawling Web sites.

Yeah, but do you have a growing family to feed?

Seriously, thanks for your participation here and your many pithy insights over the years!

 

[Orangutan]

He is also paid by Nikon(which is an incredible camera system), and that fact, in this instance makes his hot air even less palatable.

That I have a problem with. Nikon has never paid me for anything. I have no relationship with Nikon other than I'm a member of NPS, like most pros shooting Nikon.

Just to clear the air, do you have any sponsorship deals that bear on this discussion?

I have been 100% clear on this for 20 years on the Internet. Whenever I have a relationship that impacts something I write, I disclose it. So let's recap pretty much all of that:

Thanks, that covers it.

 

[Refurb7]

Thom's seven reasons are my seven reasons exactly. The viewfinder is my number one reason as well. I second everything he wrote. The only difference is that I shoot with Canon DSLRs, but it could as easily be Nikon.

 

[rrcphoto]

you can save yourself you useless rethoric tricks and attempts to make and make me sound like I am the ONLY person on earth more interested in a good mirrorless system than in antiquated mirrorslappers.

It is so EVIDENT, what the market wants: Not everybody, but MANY, MANY, MANY photographers from entry level to advanced to semi-pro to pro would just love to get a great Canon EOS-M "Pro" body right now for APS-C or a killer Nikon APS-C MILC system (instead of a pathetic Nikon 1).

And MANY MORE would immediately shell out money for a Canon or Nikon FF MILC system fully competitive with Sony A7/R/S II.

Denial is really ridiculous.

no facts is equally ridiculous.

here's a close approximation of the mount marketshare between the EF and the FE mount.

here's a mount markshare for canon + nikon against sony.

here is the marketshare for both EU and NA .. the only real places the A7 series cameras are selling.

the marketshare for MILC is remarkably FLAT for the past 2+ years.

there was as "step shift" when sony dumped the A mount and moved to rolling the hard six on the mirrorless, however, it hasn't gained traction since.

not only that, but sony has obviously not even fully recovered their mount marketshare from pre-NEX days of around 13% reaching only 12% by switching to VALUE that also includes lenses. you can pretty much ballpark sony's overall marketshare has being around 8-10%.

so this idea that EVERYONE is wanting this, and the fact that EVERYONE is purchasing sony is truly your own unsupported myth from your own very "special" AvTvM universe©

 

[Loswr]

so this idea that EVERYONE is wanting this, and the fact that EVERYONE is purchasing sony is truly your own unsupported myth from your own very "special" AvTvM universe©

Where is the AvTvM universe© located in relation to dilbertland™?

Edit: I found a map – turns out they're just across the river from one another. You know which river I mean...

 

[dak723]

No, you are incorrect. Hogan's opinions (at least as far as one can tell) come from a professional photographer based on actual experience and knowledge of how cameras and sensors work and the physics involved. That is far more valid than the opinion of someone who has little no knowledge or experience and just gets their info from internet sites.

His opinions are still that - just opinions. His background doesn't make them any more or less valid.

Now if he were making statements of fact then that would make what he writes more than just opinions.

That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.

That mirrorless cameras drain more power and have battery issues is a fact.

That mirrorless cameras can not focus on moving objects as fast as DSLRs is a fact.

The word you were looking for (but didn't use) is "informed." His opinions may be more informed than many others due to his background but that doesn't raise them above being an opinion.

Yes, his opinions are informed opinions. Informed opinions are based on knowing as many of the facts as possible and being educated n the subject. Personal experience is another major factor on having informed opinions. So, yes, Thom Hogan expresses some opinions. In my opinion, informed opinions are worth more than uninformed opinions. If you don't believe that informed opinions are more valid that uninformed opinions, then that is quite unfortunate.

 

[zim]

You know which river I mean...

Cleopatra syndrome
Laugh, I nearly bought a round! the old ones are the best ;D ;D ;D

 

[ahsanford]

here's a mount markshare for canon + nikon against sony.

Understand exactly what you meant, but your text, your chart titles and your numbers need some unification.

(Hint: Canon didn't have 0% market share in Jan of 2012.)

#axistitles

- A

 

[Orangutan]

That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.

According to Mr. Hogan, the lag is "1/250," which I interpret to be 4ms. The human vision system has a lag (light falling on eyeball to brain recognition) of about 100ms. That's a 4% increase over the inherent neuron-based lag; this is probably well within human variation and well-within the ability of a normal human brain to accommodate. To my mind, a 4ms EVF lag is, for any practical purpose, non-existent.

 

[AvTvM]

Where is the AvTvM universe© located in relation to dilbertland™?
Edit: I found a map – turns out they're just across the river from one another. You know which river I mean...

Sorry, don't understand what you mean, except that it is (probably) some kind of insult. What exactly is it about the Nile?

 

[ritholtz]

That EVFs have a time lag and OVFs have no time lag is a fact.

According to Mr. Hogan, the lag is "1/250," which I interpret to be 4ms. The human vision system has a lag (light falling on eyeball to brain recognition) of about 100ms. That's a 4% increase over the inherent neuron-based lag; this is probably well within human variation and well-within the ability of a normal human brain to accommodate. To my mind, a 4ms EVF lag is, for any practical purpose, non-existent.

How come every review is noticing this. Sony has to reduce resolution so low with high fps.