| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2009 09:09:32 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by togtog:
This thread is not to be discussed in this thread without at least also discussing if KenRockwell is a Genius or Fool... |
There's a chance of a new word creeping into English language usage;
Rockwellian adjective - Speech or action which is undefinable as foolishness or genius. His reply was Rockwellian in nature |
Oh my, well done! *claps* :D
|
|
|
|
01/05/2009 08:48:17 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by togtog:
This thread is not to be discussed in this thread without at least also discussing if KenRockwell is a Genius or Fool... |
There's a chance of a new word creeping into English language usage;
Rockwellian adjective - Speech or action which is undefinable as foolishness or genius. His reply was Rockwellian in nature
|
|
|
|
01/05/2009 07:05:24 AM · #3 |
This thread is always fun, I would have been here earlier but real life has been keeping me tied up.
Newbies should be welcomed not ridiculed.
Some newbie posts in this thread appear no different than spam messages with exception of lacking a url to follow.
Some newbie posts in this thread appear to be genuine.
Some people in this thread need to chill out.
Some people in this thread are funny.
Some people in this thread are not.
This thread is not to be discussed in this thread without at least also discussing if KenRockwell is a Genius or Fool...
A Genius is often a hair's width from insanity. Insane people are often seen as fools. People often see fools as geniuses and geniuses as fools.
Maybe the reason this thread burns on so, is because it cannot be answered, maybe Ken is all of the above, a genius, a fool, and insane. Just like I am, and you are, and him over there with the silly hat or her over there talking to herself, or that guy...
Happy New Year!
|
|
|
|
01/05/2009 04:09:28 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by asb-ca:
I am curious what the Canonites have to say regarding the writeups of Canon product ...? |
i think his canon write-ups are there just to make his nikon reviews look unbiased |
|
|
|
01/05/2009 03:50:26 AM · #5 |
I couldn't resist adding a bit more - mainly towards the Canonites.
-- Answering the Topic --
As I said in my earlier notes, I take what Ken says with a grain (well BLOCK) of salt. IMHO he expects all of us to espouse his values. From a marketing point of view, I have to say he IS a genius, from a practical point of view: mere mortal, and from a journalistic point of view: right up there with the Enquirer. For example, other than the CRT: Why would I "upgrade" a D70 to a D40? ... and pixels DO count, depending on what you're using them for. He says the same, but buries it in too much of his own opinionated rhetoric.
From a Nikon users' point of view, I find his articles a good starting point, and whatever else you may say, it is entertaining reading. I am also not foolish enough to read any one source, and tend NOT to buy my equipment online. I have a good relationship with my local dealer who actually lets me try before I buy and offers his own good advice (yet another good source).
-- Slightly off-topic Rambling --
HOWEVER, due to the IMHO absurd pricing of the D3x ($10K in Canada) the Canon 5D Mk II is looking like a good alternative for hi-res photography, given that I can buy the body and some Pro lenses for less than the D3x body alone (I already have the lenses). [No hurry here BTW, still hoping a "prosumer" variant comes out or the price drops.] To this end, I find his Canon writeups worse than useless ... from his site I, unlike his descriptions of Nikon lenses, am not able to determine how to navigate the Canon lens lineup. For better or worse, it would be good to get like coverage somewhere on Canon product.
I am curious what the Canonites have to say regarding the writeups of Canon product ...?
Tony
Message edited by author 2009-01-05 03:51:57. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 06:24:49 PM · #6 |
NikonJeb - Genius or just obsessed with this thread?
Somewhere, hidden on this page is the word "Ignore" - seek it out.
eta: Well, a bit extreme, but this works, too. :)
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 18:48:46. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 04:38:32 PM · #7 |
...and now back to our regularly scheduled silliness regarding our own Chuck Norris of photography...
Originally posted by StOlafPhotographer:
How many Ken Rockwells does it take to screw in a light bulb? |
Zero. Ken doesn't need light bulbs.
When he needs to see something in the dark, he simply uses the modeling light function on his SB-600 SB-800 SB-900 speedlights.
Wirelessly.
WITH HIS MIND.
(To keep this on-topic, I'd say that ability is CLEARLY a mark in the "Genius" column). :D
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 16:42:07. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:33:15 AM · #8 |
Jeb, that's enough. We've hidden your last off-topic post.
Please keep this thread on the topic of Ken Rockwell, and not into debates about whether or not we should be courteous. We should always be courteous.
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 08:34:23. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 08:22:59 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by asb-ca:
OK, here come the "newbie" hits ... ;-) Hi all, and anyhow ...
I've read a lot of this, and frankly, in some ways I agree with ALL of you. The man is very opinionated, and I take everything he says with its due grain of salt. I will, however, add that despite some of his more controversial spoutings, he does provide a good starting point for discussion, much as some of the other sites mentioned here. Like all of us, some of what he says is quite valid, and some is utter crap!
(side note: Wish I had the skills to market myself that well, although I'm not sure I'd like my life to be as public!, Hats off to Ken for that!)
. . .
Having said this, I find his love affair with the D40 amusing. Personally, I went with a D300 to update my D70 BECAUSE of its heft, and find the D40/D40x/D60 too small to use confortably, and my hands aren't that big. I expect that others on the other hand will share his opinions. To each his/her own! We are all entitled to agree to disagree. |
Hello, new guy!
This is exactly my point with the man.
If you read his site at all, it's hard not to realize that the man spends a bunch of time and money on Nikon equipment, THEN he spends a bunch of time writing his impressions of it.
If nothing else, you can get a lot of information from what he has to say.
What you do with it from there is on you.
I know I don't have the time and money to spend buying equipment and doing the research that he does, nor am I interested in doing so.
But I also feel that any decision I make on equipment is on me, and if I don't like the choice, I'm to blame.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 03:34:56 AM · #10 |
OK, here come the "newbie" hits ... ;-) Hi all, and anyhow ...
I've read a lot of this, and frankly, in some ways I agree with ALL of you. The man is very opinionated, and I take everything he says with its due grain of salt. I will, however, add that despite some of his more controversial spoutings, he does provide a good starting point for discussion, much as some of the other sites mentioned here. Like all of us, some of what he says is quite valid, and some is utter crap!
(side note: Wish I had the skills to market myself that well, although I'm not sure I'd like my life to be as public!, Hats off to Ken for that!)
. . .
Having said this, I find his love affair with the D40 amusing. Personally, I went with a D300 to update my D70 BECAUSE of its heft, and find the D40/D40x/D60 too small to use confortably, and my hands aren't that big. I expect that others on the other hand will share his opinions. To each his/her own! We are all entitled to agree to disagree.
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 04:47:06. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 03:29:13 AM · #11 |
Meh NikonJeb, I'm inclined to agree more with you on this one. I see where your coming from BeeCee and I agree that we shouldn't be discouraging them to join. But just like they're allowed to have an opinion so are we. Just as they're able to voice it, so are we! This is a fun thread and I actually enjoy when it get's bumped up by someone just for the fact that we can ridicule him more... not that I don't think that he makes valid points. It's all in good fun though. I've taken some of his advice. All this thread is, is a thread about Ken Rockwell, not whether or not we should be razzing people (shouldn't), so let's get back to Ken Rockwell.
How many Ken Rockwells does it take to screw in a light bulb?
(Let's see some witty responses here and reasons!)
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 02:16:08 AM · #12 |
And I didn't see anything stupid, inane, or irrelevant in Gordon1's comment. I guess maybe I'm just too stupid to see it, though.
If you don't agree with what someone says, fine, argue it. But rudeness simply because they're new?
I'm just not seeing an issue here. Common courtesy... what's the big deal?
"And that's all I have to say about that." -Forrest Gump
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 11:01:20 PM · #13 |
Everyone is free to discuss whether or not Ken Rockwell IS a Genius or Fool, as that is the topic of the thread. Whether or not you think someone has been around long enough to have an opinion is not the topic of the thread.
To jump on new registered users, simply for being new, because you question how or why they came here isn't right. It's mean, and that is bad for business.
Now, let's please try to stay on topic. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 10:55:58 PM · #14 |
BTW, from what I can tell from Ken's info, a D70s, and an 18-200 VR is the way to go if you wanna go reasonable, and have some pretty decent results across the board.
I dinked around with various lenses before I bit the bullet and got the 18-200, but I figure I'm not doing too badly with this lone body/lens combination.
If I get stupid rich, or even make enough from my photography, I'll buy stuff then, but I have no desire to have anything else if I have to take money from anything else in my life.
He's right about that IMNSHO......I stalled and dinked around before buying the lens.......and cost myself three times what I would have spent had I just bought the 18-200 four lenses ago.
In my book, he's a pretty accurate fellow.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 10:44:43 PM · #15 |
The funny thing about all the haters here is that we are all sitting here 15 pages later talking about KEN ROCKWELLS well known website. How many of you have a website that everyone is talking about. Like him or hate him he's the one with the name recognition and we are all wannabees.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 10:26:23 PM · #16 |
REALLY, why are we feeding the trolls?
(I know I just bumped it but sheesh, let a bad thing die already).
Evan |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 10:13:29 PM · #17 |
I missed this a couple months ago when this thread was kicked back to life again... I just had to say thanks for this:
Originally posted by dwterry:
* Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
. . .
* Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
. . .
* Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
. . .
* Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
. . .
* Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts. |
Oh, I'm pretty sure I've hurt myself. Ohhhh, oh.. can't breathe.... That was awesome.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2009 09:31:00 PM · #18 |
| Please don't bite the newbies. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 08:42:26 PM · #19 |
-
Message edited by author 2009-01-04 01:01:00. |
|
|
|
01/03/2009 08:38:51 PM · #20 |
Ken is a talented guy who knows how to articulate sophisticated stuff for the average person who, for the most part, is likely a newbee!...He has taught me alot - I consider him to be a great resource!!!
We are fortunate to have him on the web...sharing his knowledge. He enjoys quality equipment...nikon and cannon happens to be his favorite manufacturers. So What. Don't we all have our favorites? |
|
|
|
12/25/2008 06:56:24 AM · #21 |
| I'd like to wish the 'Genius or Fool' thread a Merry Christmas. May it live long and prosper. |
|
|
|
12/25/2008 06:51:29 AM · #22 |
Bump for those folks with new camera gear.
***
Discuss please. ;) |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:06:17 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I don't know if you're really Ken's mum... |
Finally, someone noticed and said something xD kudos to you  smurfguy, I thought I was the only one. :) |
Not that ignoring the obvious troll wouldn't have really been the true kudos. |
Obvious troll? Huh? It's Ken's mum for crying out loud. We should all feel honored! I think calling Ken's mum a troll is really over the line now. ;) |
*snicker* |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:05:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
lol. Jeb, do you take everything on DPC personally? I want to be your gastroenterologist, I'd be rich ;) |
Nah!
Can't you tell I vent my spleen regularly?........8>)
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 11:04:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I don't know if you're really Ken's mum... |
Finally, someone noticed and said something xD kudos to you smurfguy, I thought I was the only one. :) |
Not that ignoring the obvious troll wouldn't have really been the true kudos. |
Obvious troll? Huh? It's Ken's mum for crying out loud. We should all feel honored! I think calling Ken's mum a troll is really over the line now. ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 06:08:37 AM EDT.
