Tony Northrup Admits He Was Completely Wrong About Drones

Tony Northrup uploaded a video in July 2018 which discussed his thoughts on drones and why he thought you probably shouldn't buy one. This video was met with a lot of criticism from many people especially from those who had already bought a drone. In a recent video however, Northrup seems to be changing his tune. 

How is it possible that someone such as Northrup could offer such ridiculous advice about drones while owning a bunch himself? I mean sure he's probably built up a great deal of experience with them and come across many of the issues around filming with a drone. Also he didn't exactly say that no one should ever buy a drone and simply wanted to point out some of the drawbacks so people are aware of what they're getting into; which is actually really useful and good to know, but even still, how could he? Fortunately, Northrup has clearly found sense as of late and decided to reconsider his position on drones. The question that remains is if Northrup so easily flip flops on his points, then how can we ever trust him again? I mean does he even know what he's talking about? 

Yes, the answer is "yes" because what's relevant today may not be relevant tomorrow. It's brilliant that laws are changing and drones are becoming cheaper and more effective, so it might actually be a good idea to add a drone to your ever growing list of equipment. 

Check out the full video linked above and watch as Northrup tries to dig himself out of this one. 

Log in or register to post comments


"Tony Northrup Admits He Was Completely Wrong About Drones"

Hes wrong on a lot more then just drones

Usman Dawood's picture

So is everyone else including you.

Edison Wrzosek's picture

That response was totally uncalled for...

Michael Jin's picture

Why? it's a factual statement. All of us are wrong all the time on a ton of issues.

Edison Wrzosek's picture

It wasn't a necessary response, as the original OP was correct about Tony being flagrantly incorrect about a multitude of things he posts, and then frequently back peddles despite originally putting out bad information as gospel.

Also the response could've been worded a bit better so it didn't make Usman come across so arrogant and obnoxious.

Michael Jin's picture

No response is strictly necessary. :/

Przemysław Kałwa's picture

Most of us don’t make money out of that though, right?

Haven’t you noticed a certain pattern with Northrups? One day they criticise something and a month later they make a video about how they were wrong.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

He tells things with no room for doubt, everything is white or black, untill he decides the opposite. I stopped watching his videos a long time ago because of that.

No Tony does not just make mistakes like everyone else, he continuously lies and misleads people year after year, for no apparent reason, because he's obviously an intelligent man. For example he continuously pushes falsehoods about crop sensors gathering less light, total light, only working well with APSC specific lenses. Just the other day he tried to say full frame lenses are less sharp on crop sensor camera's, which is actually 180 degrees opposite of the truth as they are actually always sharper using only the center portion of the lens. He says things, like "the new Canon 90D has no good lenses for it!" What? Like as if ALL Canon EF lenses somehow don't work on a 90D? So I'm sorry Tony is either a moron (doubtful), knows nothing about photography or just likes misleading beginners. If it was just a one off "mistake" I would totally agree with you, but it's constant and never ending complete misleading and or WRONG!

Edison Wrzosek's picture

This is why I don't watch either of them, because at this point, after all the BS they've peddled to unsuspecting viewers, I wouldn't trust them if they said rain was wet.

I agree. Tony Northrup is a calculating deceiver as far as I can see. His YouTube channel is full of annoying click-bait. On top of that, his defamatory hit piece about photographer Steve McCurry was blatantly false.

Reginald Walton's picture

What else is new?

Still waiting for the videos on Steve McCurry, shooting JPEGs, ISO and many more subjects about how he wrong on those topics also.

Me too. Still waiting for a massive, groveling personal apology to Steve McCurry. Northrup's video about McCurry is one of the meanest, nastiest videos on YouTube. It was a sloppy hit piece built on lies and errors, calculated to exploit and abuse a great photographer's name for clicks for the Northrup gear review channel. Absolutely disgusting.

Studio 403's picture

Notable post and transparent. I am not a fan of Mr Northrup and his style. But I think he nailed it on this article

Adrian Bateman's picture

I don't really get why Tony gets so much hate on here. He seems like a genuinely good person and puts out a lot of free educational videos to help photographers. You may disagree with some of the things he says but at least he contributes quite a bit to the photography community, which is more than most of us can say.

Contributing or selling? In any case, he tends to be a bit holier than thou.

Adrian Bateman's picture

I just checked and they have over 1000 free videos on their channel so I would say they contribute quite a bit. Of course, they need to make money too so I don't see the issue with them plugging some of their stuff as they go.

I was referring to advertisements and I agree they need to make money; I have no complaint with it, it's just not "contributing".

Adrian Bateman's picture

Advertisements as in before the videos/midrolls? Considering the videos are free to the viewers I would consider that contributing. But to each their own.

So, you think he, and others, would still "contribute" without getting paid by the sponsorships or getting ad revenues? 9_9

Adrian Bateman's picture

I don't think that should be the basis of whether he contributes or not. Youtube ads don't really pay that much anyway. The videos are free and educational to the viewers so I view that as contributing.

We could have ended here but you HAD to throw in, "educational"! :-D
No big deal. You win. ;-)

Adrian Bateman's picture

Haha I certainly understand where you're coming from, we just disagree on this one so you're right, no big deal :)

Michael Holst's picture

"You may disagree with some of the things he says but at least he contributes quite a bit to the photography community"

If you disagree with what someone says, you're probably not going to be a fan when they start putting out as an authority on any topic. Additionally, you'd probably be annoyed that what you might view as false information is being used to teach people. The few posts on this thread haven't said anything about him as a person. They're calling out points he's made.

Adrian Bateman's picture

I see a lot of comments every time he's brought up that just say he's wrong or "what else is new" without providing any substance, those are the people I'm referring to. He communicates pretty well with his audience from what I've seen so if enough people have an issue with something he's said he'd probably be willing to discuss it further on a podcast or video.

I have no problem disagreeing with someone on some things and still taking their advice on others.

Reginald Walton's picture

His videos provide all the substance (or lack there of).

Michael Holst's picture

I get your point but it's not the job of everyone else to proof all of the content someone else makes. If someone is wrong, they should probably to a better job of coming up with information that's more accurate.

Adrian Bateman's picture

I wasn't trying to say that it was everyone's job to do so. I was trying to say that with over a 1000 videos of course there are going to be a few mistakes along the way and I like that he keeps open dialogue of sorts with his community so that things like that can be discussed further. I'm not saying he's perfect, I just don't like when people jump on the hate bandwagon without contributing anything to the discussion.

More comments