| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2006 12:49:38 AM · #26 |
I really like Ken. He's refreshing and not afraid to offend anyone. I like the way he's taking his readers on a journey of learning with his new Nikon D200. It seems that the D2 folks don't like Ken. Maybe it because Ken thinks the D2 is too big and heavy.
I think if you set his bombastic style aside, you can get a lot of good and useful information by reading his articles. He has blasted Nikon when he thought they deserved it.
Ken's a professional photographer and cinematographer in Hollywood. CA (lots of competition there). OBTW he was spot on about the Casio. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 12:55:16 AM · #27 |
Every article I've read has been a joke.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 02:10:07 AM · #28 |
I just went through his photos and done so I would say they are good but nothing to awfully special about any of them...the only thing I envy him for is that it looks like he travels allot and has seen many more beautiful places than I have. As far as his photography...good, but nothing really that impressed me. Maybe that's just that one site and he has done more and I haven't seen it. I've seen allot better from people on this site and others that put his stuff to shame, and they don't have any publicity. But if he as a “following” than it looks like enough people like him that I don’t have to.
Clint
|
|
|
|
02/10/2006 04:09:39 AM · #29 |
speaking as an arrogant w****r, without any expertise; I definitely feel a bond of brotherhood.
Ok, I don't like him.
at all.
I do like nikon though.
Message edited by author 2006-02-10 04:10:08. |
|
|
|
02/10/2006 05:40:45 AM · #30 |
With my Nikon D70... bla bla bla...
which is just like a D70s but without an 's'...
Yak Yak Yak...
and I don't like this lens cos' I don't have one...
rant, moan, mutter...
Me, my Nikon D70, me, my len's...
You get the idea!
I have a Nikon and I love it but Ken seems closed minded and self centred with regard to his views I feel.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 08:08:04 PM · #31 |
When you guys were posting your opinions about Ken Rockwell, your manners were exactly like his-- stating what you like/dislike and what you think right/wrong. Except, Ken talks about cameras and you talked about someone who you don't work with in photography. Isn't this a terrible waste of time? And using those harsh words certainly proved that Ken was influetial on you and what he is saying is partly, if not all, true. The energy you spent on judging another photographer could have been better used in your own photography.
Ken speaks with experiences and examples. He has made it very clear in every review that it's HIS experience, and based on that, HIS recommendations. One doesn't have to listen at all.
To me, his website serves as very good reference. I don't expect any individual can come up with some photoncyclopedia. It's the readers responsibility to select and extract what is useful for their photography. Most of the judgement posted here were just hoping someone's website objectively serves everyone, which is impossible from the first place.
If you don't like Ken's website, don't read it, there are plenty more out there (yet I really question how many are as devoted as Ken's). But still, reading others' experience won't help you much in your own photography. Experience cannot be imparted.
Message edited by author 2006-02-18 20:13:08. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 09:11:04 PM · #32 |
Stop beating him. Guy just says what he thinks. It's just another opinion on the internet, nothing else.
I read it and pick out interesting things and sometimes he is right and sometimes he is not.
As I learned in Nikon School answer to all photo questions is: "IT DEPENDS". So there is no way to say that one person is right or another. Read it and extract what you think is useful for you. Not sure, try it and see if it works for you. If it doesn't, just move on. Have fun.
Nick
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 09:40:55 PM · #33 |
| Neither genius or fool. Just another reasonably well experienced blogger sharing those experiences. I like his style! |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:03:38 PM · #34 |
I'm not a Rockwell fan nor do I use his site much. I tend to visit Hogan and Rørslett for my Nikon info.
But to bash a guy because he is sponsored and Nikon biased is disingenuous at best. How many Canon-centric people are there out there?
Relax and do what I do, don't read him. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:40:13 PM · #35 |
| In some threads we argue vehemently as how the photographer is more important than camera or equipment. In the next thread we bash a guy because he likes his nikon (some of the canon owners do). How easily we change thread to thread , forum to forum. Aren't we wonderful thing. |
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:56:56 PM · #36 |
| Actually he's a genius (for all the people he has fooled) ... |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 09:31:18 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
In some threads we argue vehemently as how the photographer is more important than camera or equipment. In the next thread we bash a guy because he likes his nikon (some of the canon owners do). How easily we change thread to thread , forum to forum. Aren't we wonderful thing. |
I would say without doubt that the photographer is more important than the camera, that's not the issue. It's the way he seems to knock anything he doesn't want or need and make a fuss of what he has. A very un-balanced way to write reviews I'd say. |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 09:52:48 AM · #38 |
I responded to one of his articles on digital vs film. Basically he said film was better than digital based on his comparisions. But he wasn't comparing apples to oranges. In order for a fair comparison to the film (scanned) he used, the digital would have to be over 100MP. I explained this, his response was "exactly!". My point was that his comparision was flawed, not that film was better. But I digress.
Message edited by author 2006-03-07 11:20:55. |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 10:06:45 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by TomFoolery:
I just went through his photos and done so I would say they are good but nothing to awfully special about any of them...the only thing I envy him for is that it looks like he travels allot and has seen many more beautiful places than I have. As far as his photography...good, but nothing really that impressed me. Maybe that's just that one site and he has done more and I haven't seen it. I've seen allot better from people on this site and others that put his stuff to shame, and they don't have any publicity. But if he as a “following” than it looks like enough people like him that I don’t have to.
Clint |
Exactly what I was about to write. Thanks for saving me the trouble! :) |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 10:21:10 AM · #40 |
After looking through his Website I concluded I like some of his photos. I feel for the most part the lack character or look to be OOF. But they do have wonderfull colors and usualy have some pleasant lines. If I was to jusdge him from his photos alone I'd say he wasn't to bad most of his work I would have scored between 4-7 here on DPC. Wich BTW is better than I rate my own work. His artistic talent look to be decent. I think he Ok as a photographer. I imagine with a $5000 camera, a $4000 lens and a bottomless suppy of plane tickets my photography would look pretty good too. AS far as his technical knowledge of photography. I don't realy care. I can't afford 99% of the stuff he rants about anyways. ..But if he were to send me some free demo equipment i'm sure he could have me singing praise to Nikon as well.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 10:21:10 AM · #41 |
Ken Rockwell is a great entertainer ;)
His site is not a bad resource if you want one man's opinion on some interesting Nikon lenses. At least he admits he isn't a great technician and that you need to look elsewhere for good technical info and he is good enough to point you in that direction.
His odd way of taking photographs does make me smile though...he doesn't like lens hoods and tripods, even for macro work. Nutcase :)
Roger |
|
|
|
03/08/2006 05:38:33 AM · #42 |
I was amused by this quote from his comparison of digital wide zooms
//kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
:
"This all goes to prove that Nikon, who has been making optics continuously for almost 100 years, still knows a trick or two. Nikon also makes $10,000 pairs of astronomical binoculars and the extremely expensive (about $1,000,000) lenses used in manufacturing the chips inside your computer. They don't squander their resources making copy machines or printers."
Got to love that last line/dig at Canon!
Strangely, he then goes on to recommend the Canon 10-22mm as the best available wide angle for digital. It is odd: he has an obvious dislike for Canon, but seems to go too far in trying to appear objective because he raves about certain Canon products in an OTT way...
Amusing.
Message edited by author 2006-03-08 05:38:58.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 05:45:24 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Strangely, he then goes on to recommend the Canon 10-22mm as the best available wide angle for digital. It is odd: he has an obvious dislike for Canon, but seems to go too far in trying to appear objective because he raves about certain Canon products in an OTT way...
Amusing. |
Well, it IS the best available ultra-WA zoom on the market; hell, even Ken Rockwells says so!
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-03-08 05:55:09.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2006 07:15:15 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by WinuP:
When you guys were posting your opinions about Ken Rockwell, your manners were exactly like his-- stating what you like/dislike and what you think right/wrong. Except, Ken talks about cameras and you talked about someone who you don't work with in photography. Isn't this a terrible waste of time? And using those harsh words certainly proved that Ken was influetial on you and what he is saying is partly, if not all, true. The energy you spent on judging another photographer could have been better used in your own photography.
Ken speaks with experiences and examples. He has made it very clear in every review that it's HIS experience, and based on that, HIS recommendations. One doesn't have to listen at all.
To me, his website serves as very good reference. I don't expect any individual can come up with some photoncyclopedia. It's the readers responsibility to select and extract what is useful for their photography. Most of the judgement posted here were just hoping someone's website objectively serves everyone, which is impossible from the first place.
If you don't like Ken's website, don't read it, there are plenty more out there (yet I really question how many are as devoted as Ken's). But still, reading others' experience won't help you much in your own photography. Experience cannot be imparted. |
Exactly my thoughts , any information , you r the judge. Take it or leave it , decision is urs. |
|
|
|
06/11/2006 11:29:56 PM · #45 |
Ken's article on the Canon XT caused me to look at it above the Nikon D50. Then I got such a deal on a Nikon that I bought it anyway. I thought he was fair in is assesment. He has some interesting takes.
I think it is goofy to put your pict on the front of your website with a lense that you would normally see on the side lines of a NFL game just to show the visitors that you have one so that you will deem him credible. Just once I would like to see a photographer put up a picture of themselves with a 18mm lense and no battery grip. But the size of your lense = the quality of your photos right? I really think that all the ribbon winners and much of the other stuff on this site is better than his stuff. It is all about marketing. Can't blame a guy for promoting himself so he can make a living. I wish I could. |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 05:55:44 PM · #46 |
| this may be way off, but i'm wondering if peoples oppinions of ken bear any relationship to where they're from? it seems to me that quite a few of the bashers have been british or australian (just judging by the language) and the cheerleaders american? Is this possibly the product of a much more cynical, critical society that isn't as used to and doesnt take so kindly to ken's style of exremley enthusiastic, self important, ego stroking oppinions? (and no i don't mean to insult all americans or brits here) |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 06:06:41 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by bwatson87:
this may be way off, but i'm wondering if peoples oppinions of ken bear any relationship to where they're from? it seems to me that quite a few of the bashers have been british or australian (just judging by the language) and the cheerleaders american? Is this possibly the product of a much more cynical, critical society that isn't as used to and doesnt take so kindly to ken's style of exremley enthusiastic, self important, ego stroking oppinions? (and no i don't mean to insult all americans or brits here) |
Maybe. I am Canadian..and never heard of the guy. |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 07:14:45 PM · #48 |
I'm an American and I think he's pretty much a blowhard. While he is knowledgable about certain things, he is definitely clueless about many others. This isn't what bothers me as I'm clueless myself on just about everything :D. Here's my take on Ken: If he'd take the time to showcase where his talents lie rather than make a fool of himself on the things that he knows nothing about, he'd be more respected.
This is just one of many pages where you can see the real Ken.
Here is an excerpt:
I love the Nikon D50. It's the camera I recommend for anyone who wants the best camera possible, and they sell for only $650, including lens. Time moves fast in digital cameras. This D50 is better than the D1H for which I paid $4,000 in 2002 and didn't even come with a lens.
The best camera possible is such a wide open question that it cannot possibly be answered without needing quite a bit of information from the buyer, yet Ken has no trouble with it.
That's nothing though. This is my favorite quote from the page:
Personally I use the more expensive and very similar D70, but only because I'm one of the very few photographers who understands some of the few extra features offered by the D70
Wow. One of the very few who understands the extra features on the D70. Ken is an amazing guy (according to Ken).
Frankly, if he is giving advice on sharpening photos or adding contrast I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is comparing one thing to another (such as Nikon vs Canon or Raw vs Jpeg) I couldn't care less as to what he has to say. He has definitely shown me that he doesn't have the ability to compare anything without being biased.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2006 07:40:10 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I'm an American and I think he's pretty much a blowhard. |
'nuf said. |
|
|
|
07/09/2006 08:25:26 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If you're a Nikonian Bjorn Rorslett or Thon Hogan seem to be the most respected guys that I have found.
Read Bjorn's D200 review...wow on the detail. |
I'm glad I started reading this thread, I've never been to Bjorn Rorslett's website but from first glance it seems like a great resource.
Ken Rockwell's review was one of many I read when deciding which way to jump into the digital camera world. And like all reviews I took it with a grain of salt (maybe a teaspoon of salt in kens case) but I still ended up getting a D70. But Kens review did have some effect on the purchase, as did at least 10 other reviews.
I've continued to read Kens reviews, and disagree with a lot of what he has to say, but why would I read anything on the internet that I agree with, I may as well talk to myself in the mirror.
I have to agree with dudephil and say on the whole he comes across as a bit of a "blowhard" and a bit overly opinionated - but surely thats why you read websites like his - to get an opinion?
|
|
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: 04/19/2024 10:43:31 AM EDT.
