Trusted reviewers of Nikon gear?

[james_kennedy9]

<p>Before I buy, especially when it comes to previously owned equipment, I turn to all the sources I can conveniently find. I know that KR is somewhat flamboyant and I know that he is persona non non grata on the Nikon site here, but I have learned some things from him. I visit Thom Hogan's site frequently, and I find him to be pretty comprehensive and authoritative. I have copies of his field guides, 1st and 2nd edition and his book on Nikon Flash systems and find them excellent. I have Michael McBroom's 5th and 6th volume his reviews and price lists handy and consult them very often. He frequently posts here. Some of Galen Rowell's books have excellent discussions of Nikon equipment.</p>

<p>I would like to get your impressions of Moose Peterson. I have several editions of his comprehensive reviews of Nikon equipment and a lot of good stuff on what lens hood goes with what and good histories of the progress of Nikon lenses and camera bodies. But at times, he sounds a little too much like Nikon's top cheerleader. So many of the lenses he mentions are "spectacular" and "amazing", etc. It is nice to read that about a lens you have purchased, but sometimes he is just a little too ardent. What do you think?</p>

<p>Any other notable trusted reviewers out there? I turn to Matanle for the older stuff. It's a grim rainy day in Seattle today, so i will be doing more reading than snapping. I hope it clears up enough soon to visit the Japanese cherry trees in the quad of beautiful Udub, where I spent three years on the faculty.</p>

<p>And for a little porn, the following are on route to me.</p><div></div>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>And in the same shipment, a little friend from Germany, not Singapore.</p><div></div>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>You are going to love the Rollei 35, I've had several, most had 40mm f2.8 Tessar front element focus, the B model with the triotar was the model about which I did not care as much. I never owned the 55 f1.2 Nikkor, handled one, too heavy for me. Caution: depth of field on f1.2 lenses from any manufacturer is very shallow but that may be the desired effect for certain photographs. My f1.4's do nicely for me and have several: Nikkor 50 f1.4 both slr and rfdr mounts, Canon FD 50 f1.4 for my F-1n, Konica 50mm f1.4 AR with my TC and TCX. Have fun with the new toys! </p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Bjørn Rørslett, a frequent photo.net contributor, is brilliant and thorough--and does modifications to Nikon gear that will make the hairs of mere mortals stand on end!</p>

<p>His site is <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">here</a>. Click on the Lenses and Reviews tabs to see his evaluations of lots of stuff--and make sure you poke around the rest of his site, too. His work is amazing.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I find Moose Paterson to be very straightforward and honest with his usage, reviews and opinions in general - As well as Bob Krist. </p>

<p>Both shot in real situations (as does Thom and KR) and don't get locked into debates about 100% crops at f/16 and lines of resolution.</p>

<p>The only thing KR is you need to keep your sense of humor and bs filter firmly locked in the on position. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>Moose Peterson is in the same category with Joe McNally these days -- the celebrity photographer who seems to make his living more from books and personal appearances than from photography. The "Moose filter" (warming circular polarizer) was a great idea, but I'm really not all that interested in his opinions about cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is an interesting guy. The challenge with his site is that you have to have a sense of humor to appreciate some of his articles, which apparently is too much to ask of some people. When he proclaimed the "death of digital" ("Everyone's going back to film!") a while back, it really should have been obvious that he wasn't entirely serious. Ken specializes in the "kernel of truth" exaggeration -- he'll take something that is arguably true (in this case, that film isn't dying as quickly as some would have you believe) and boost the saturation and contrast to the point that it becomes satirical in the interest of making an amusing article.</p>

<p>Another thing that has to be understood about Ken is that he is not trying to be "objective" in the manner of, say, DP Review. His site is ultimate a personal expression and he doesn't feel obliged to warn you every time he expresses a personal opinion or a judgment that is influenced by his own interests. If he refers to super-telephoto lenses as "stupid" it basically just means he has no use for them himself. I think he expects the reader to understand that this is a personal evaluation and not a universal or objective judgment, but again, it seems that this is too much to ask of some people.</p>

<p>I've read many of Ken's lens reviews, and for those lenses I have experience with, for the most part I agree with his assessments. Some of my favorite Nikkors were bought on his advice and they really are as good as he says (e.g. 20mm f/4 AI, 28mm f/2 AI, 85mm f/2 AI-S, 300mm f/4.5 AI-S).</p>

<p>PN contributor Bjorn Rorslett also has some very interesting and helpful reviews on his site, but I find that my experience does not always agree with his assessments.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Bjorn Rorslett is top of the heap for Nikon gear: serious and thoughtful.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan can also be good.</p>

<p>KR has found the secret of internet celebrity: say crazy stuff regularly and people will talk about you frequently driving up your google rank -- sprinkle in some sensible advice to get them to come back twice, but most visitors won't notice that most of what you say doesn't hold water but some will come back for the entertainment value. It is a great business model.</p>

<p>Peterson I don't read so I can't comment on.</p>

<p>McNally, is a terrific photographer and as photojournalism has dried up he has turned to the lecture circuit. I think he still really cares about the photos he makes and is a talented public speaker. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>These "opinionated" sites are fun, but I've never found them to be of much real use.</p>

<p>The one review source that seems to me consistently to be on the spot is <a href="http://www.photozone.de/">Photozone.de</a>.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I read them all and try to see where there are significant differences in opinion. In the end if there is general agreement on an issue, there is a reasonable possibility that the conclusions are reasonably accurate...but as we all know what one has or is buying can vary a lot from the general assessment.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>James -<br>

Put it on a smallish body to enhance the hugeness. :o)<br>

It's a strange beast but amazing at low light, even with some veiling and batwings aside.<br>

You'll luv the 3 micron thick DoF too ! Enjoy<br>

Jim</p><div></div>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"trusted reviewers" </em>- yes, most of them can be trusted.</p>

<p>Frequent problems I find is that they do write original user reviews, to start with, then they skim on the depth, and start re-writing vendors specifications or vendors opinions, instead of their intended original usage based reviews.</p>

<p>By doing this, they can easily produce lengthy reviews, but fall into trap of collaborating with vendors, and propagate unproven features, and just simply wishful thinking from original equipmnet manufacturer vendors.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p><em><strong></strong></em>Bjorn Rorslett is the best. As Bernard Miller mentioned above, he will modify Nikon lenses, and that might drive classic Nikon devotees crazy, but it also reflects his expertise. You have to know what you're doing to change an older Nikon PC lens to provide both tilt and shift. That knowledge is reflected in his reviews.<br>

Moose Peterson is good, sometimes seems like too much of a cheerleader for equipment. One thing that's not helpful is that he will sometimes remove his older reviews, so that older equipment descriptions sometimes disappear from his site.<br>

Thom Hogan is excellent, if crusty sometimes.<br>

Since you were asking about "trusted" reviewers, keep in mind that KR, in the "About" pages of his site, says that he enjoys "making things up." In the past, the "About" page warned readers that they needed a good BS detector to use his site, but just now I couldn't find that warning. Every day must be April Fool's for him. I would not trust his reviews.<br>

Photozone is very good but not terribly relevant to Classic Manual Cameras.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>I suppose it's a little perverse, as I'm the one who first brought up Bjørn Rørslett, but I do enjoy reading Ken's reviews as well.</p>

<p>I know when I read one of Bjørn's reviews that he will have tested the lens/gear thoroughly--to its limits and beyond--and that his summation of its performance will be concise, sober and judiciously considered, and rendered in as objective a fashion as one person can express an opinion about a piece of kit.</p>

<p>Ken is a guy who has a point of view, he's not bashful about expressing it, and he's so bluff and breezy that he seems either not to realise that he sometimes rubs certain readers the wrong way or that he really wants to tweak them a bit.</p>

<p>I've found his reviews to be at least entertaining, and sometimes helpful in making decisions. I don't take them as gospel, but view them as the experiences of a guy who's used something and is offering his own opinion about it--strongly rendered as that may be--which might provide some useful information relating to how I would employ the item in question. He writes reviews like a guy arguing passionately over who's better, Radiohead or Coldplay. Ken's the Radiohead fan: certain that they're smarter and better, and unable to comprehend how anyone else could fail to grasp the band's genius and depth, or might dare to suggest the other compares favourably in any way.</p>

<p>But at least he's quite often amusing. Erm, so long as he isn't making fun of your favourite lens/band, I guess.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>OK, more than two can play at this game.</p>

<p>I do use my Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 on Nikon equipment (FTn, EL, F), but it also works well on some other equipment.</p><div></div>

[craigd]

<p>Oh, I spent my whole trip to Yosemite last year shooting manual-focus Nikkors (AI and AI-S) on a Canon 5D Mark II. It was a wonderful experience and the photos came out astonishingly well. The sharpness and clarity of those lenses is just incredible. I don't have a 55mm f/1.2, though. I think that's about the only prime standard-length F-mount Nikkor I don't have!</p>

<p>Regarding Ken's warning that he "enjoys making things up", this really doesn't apply to his equipment reviews, which are certainly subjective but at the same time very down to earth. It's more his essays on current events that you have to be careful about. Lately he's been claiming to be living at sea outside the USA's territorial limits, which I don't believe for a moment. I think he's really just having fun with the idea as a comically extreme solution to the recurring threat of Amazon cutting off all California-based affiliates (including KenRockwell.com) if the state passes a law saying that the presence of an Amazon affiliate in California is equivalent to Amazon having a retail storefront in the state.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding Ken's warning that he "enjoys making things up", this really doesn't apply to his equipment reviews, which are certainly subjective but at the same time very down to earth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>His warning means he takes no responsibility for anything he says, in his "subjective" reviews and elsewhere. Our task in this thread is to suggest trusted reviewers. Should we suggest trusting KR more than KR says we should trust him? That doesn't make sense.</p>

[craigd]

<p>That's your interpretation, Hector. It isn't mine.</p>

<p>There's no denying that Ken is at times a prankster. But it's not equally true at all times and in all situations. His equipment reviews are generally much more serious and straightforward than some of his other writings.</p>

<p>Another aspect of the "don't take me seriously" disclaimer is that I think Ken finds it kind of strange that people will get so bent out of shape about what somebody else writes on some web site. The disclaimer encourages people to lighten up a bit, though apparently in some particularly clueless cases it has the opposite effect.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Craig, you are right, I am clueless. I thought believing the reviews from someone who announces that he lies was not a good idea, and not a good thing to recommend. And worse, I couldn't lighten up. I thought you were serious in defending KR. I finally realize you were joking! It is now April Fool's day, after all, by the photo.net clock based on the U.S. East coast time. So Happy April Fool's! And the best to you.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Looking at my answers above, I want to apologize to everyone for getting so contentious. It made me neglect something important -- there are wonderful contributors to photo.net besides who provide excellent guidance on equipment. Four come to mind now, but I'm sure I'm neglecting many others. Bob Atkins frequently reviews equipment on photo.net and his own site, and knows more about optics than just about anyone I read. Within photo.net threads, Ellis Vener, who contributed to this thread, Matt Laur, and Nadine Ohara have been outstanding in providing excellent information and advice both on photography and on the more narrow area of photographic equipment.</p>

[conrad_smith]

<p>I've purchased more than a dozen MF Nikkors based on Bjørn Rørslett's reviews and found that my experience with each corresponds exactly with his comments -- for example, the 400/3.5 was great with film alone or with TC-301 teleconverter, but has way more CA on digital than film bodies. Bjørn's strength is that he goes beyond resolution to examine lens characteristics such as performance at infinity vs close focus, lens flare, ghosting, stability tripod mounts on long lenses, etc. David Reuther also provides useful information that coincides with my own experience using some of the Nikkor MF lenses that he evaluates.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I agree pretty much with the others' comments regarding Moose Petersen, Thom Hogan, and Bjorn Rorslett. And, yeah, KR is good for a chuckle now and then too. A site that I will visit also from time to time is the Luminous Landscape:</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml</p>

<p>I find the reviews to be comprehensive and well laid out, and their essays and columns to be entertaining and informative. There do seem to be holes in the site's search engine's capabilities, though, because I've had to resort to google to find items at their site that their internal search engine won't catch.</p>