| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2006 01:02:21 AM · #51 |
Well if you have any doubt have a read of his film vs digital comparison, one of the worst things I have read. He loves film - I have no problem with that. But he then does some awful stuff to try to prove film is better. He compares a 4x5" film camera against an unnamed (!) muti-megapixel digital camera....
This is like comparing a disposable film camera with a Nikon D5... he should compare modern full frame DSLR against the same manufacuter's high end 35mm film camera, using the exact same scene and lens. That would be a fair comparison. Film is better for some things, digital for others. He tries to prove it has far superior resolution though which is simply not true if you compare apples with apples.
He has put up another comparison - D200 vs 4x5 but treats the whole thing as a joke. I don't understand why he bothered if he wasn't going to do it properly.
As far as I'm concerned - his entire website belongs in the rant section :-) |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:01:55 PM · #52 |
Thanks to Ken Rockwell I now own a Mamiya 6 kit and its wonderful, his review was spot on. I dont agree with everything he says but so what, thats the great thing about freedom of information and the internet. He has a very valid oppinions and he wants to share them and i'm sure he has provided extreamly helpful information to many people. I think he should be thanked not analysed after all anyone who takes Kens oppionions as 100% correct without any further research deserves everything they get.
Genius. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:34:13 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Leok:
He has put up another comparison - D200 vs 4x5 but treats the whole thing as a joke. I don't understand why he bothered if he wasn't going to do it properly.
As far as I'm concerned - his entire website belongs in the rant section :-) |
Buried at the bottom of that article is the following:
"For fairness I compared my D200 with my film camera of similar cost. It would be silly to compare my D200 against a less expensive film camera, like my 35mm. 35mm film went obsolete in 1999. Likewise I didn't compare it to medium format either, mostly because I was too lazy. 4 x 5 film is the best choice for serious still subjects. Roll film is going away because digital offers almost the same quality with far more flexibility. Sheet film still offers superior quality."
R.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:53:02 PM · #54 |
| Ken was comparing "Bang for the buck" rather than format. In that effort he was correct. But in that regard, why not use a $39 scanner with a $150 surplus aerial camera lens and beat either of his examples for image quality. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:57:58 PM · #55 |
| I love how he goes on long rants about how the equipment doesn't matter, how the only thing that matters is the photographer behind the lens, how people can simply use disposable cameras and create great results......and then follows that up with 10 in-depth reviews of cameras and lenses. |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 09:45:52 AM · #56 |
Well, I see that Ken just ordered a bunch of Canon equipment, and wrote an article about Canon and Nikon being just as good as each other.
The thing Ken is rightfully reknowned for, is his directness. For example the UW-zoom comparison test. His conclusion: 1. Canon 2. Nikon, the sigma is the widest and not too bad, the tamron is worst, Tokina is the best budget buy.
Such a clear conclusion in invaluable to a lot of people who can't/ don't like to / don't want to waste their time on extensive reading and testing, yet do want to have a decen UW-zoom and are confronted with five seemingly almost identical options. If you do your own reading and testing however, you may of course end up with a different conclusion.
The same with his remark: Just get a d70 and never look back. For his audience, 99% of his readers will be perfectly happy with a d70, it's capable of more than they are even aware of. If you think this wrong, the article and the advice probably aren't for you.
Not a single review has a conclusion that can be qualified as wrong. Every review IS opinionated and biased, because different reviewers look for different things, have different experience, and write for different audiences. Many nit-pick reviews lead to nothing but corny and endless forum discussions about minor performance differences, and are in fact only elaborate spec sheets, not reviews.
I think Ken is a very valuable resource. You know his style. You know he's been using Nikon for ages. You know he doesn't really like Sigma. You know that he doesn't give a shit about build quality. You know that he gives much priority to convenience/usability and less to image quality tham most others. Other writers have their own quirks. You are free not to read him at all, or to disagree (as I often do).
This thread alone is proof of the fact that he fuels the debate with a valuable contribution. |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 10:08:22 AM · #57 |
I used to like like his reviews and he was a deciding factor in my purchase. However, his attitude against third party manufacturers is flawed IMO. I found my Sigma 70-300 to be top in its class, both for quality and value. And also, I can't see how someone can recommend the 18-55 kit lens against the 18-70. On the other hand, there is a lot of valuable info on his site, and we are all entitled to our opinion. Being able to filter what you read and keep the good bits is up to the individual. Heck, it can't be that hard. If I can do it, so can most people who take photography half seriously. Use what you read as a recommendation, but keep your mind open and you can usually make the right (for you!) purchasing decision.
My 2p
Harry |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 10:21:33 AM · #58 |
Ken Rockwell - I guess he is just trying to help people out so I cant fault the man.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2006 11:51:39 AM · #59 |
Well since this has come to the top again...
He's a salesman at best (well a salesman). I see he's gone back to the plethora of banner ads that he used to have not long ago. They ole "If you found this paragraph useful feel free to donate so I can write more." must not be panning out.
I think he really shines at confirming and backing decisions that people have already made in their own minds. These people just need approval from a web hero. Well Ken says...
Should people disagree with his findings, that is when they become a Ken hater. Ken is pretty biased (sponsor driven) disguised as an expert in the field.
I'm suprised that he don't have a "What cars photograpers drive" article, explaining why one is better than another... (Guess he couldn't get Volvo to sponsor a banner)
He does like to push the don't listen to people in forums, just look their finished work ideal... Check out his photos and tell me that there is something there to die for...
Right place, right time kind of fellows, promoting himself for where he's been, who he's taken photos of, and what equipment he has used.
It don't take much to find contradiction on that Infomercialesque site.
My favorite Ken line:
The guys and girls of whom you've never heard are the ones making all the great shots. They aren't giving workshops, promoting themselves or being paraded around by Canon, Nikon, Sony and Epson promoting gear.
The people whose work I admire the most don't show it, and if they do, usually have klunky websites at best.
Girls make better pictures than boys. The girls just do it, while the boys are talking about who has the best camera. You'd vomit if you saw all the guys I do paying for workshops who stand around discussing noise figures of Canon vs. Nikon while the magic 60 seconds of light passes them over at sunrise in some remote scenic location.
If you found this post useful, feel free to help my cause by donating... :)
Ed: Typos
Message edited by author 2006-09-23 11:52:55. |
|
|
|
09/23/2006 01:49:39 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
35mm film went obsolete in 1999.
R. |
Hehehehhe. Alright Bear, maybe went obsolete in the 2004/5 timeframe. Still has some things going for it in certain disiplines. To address the original thread, Ken is a force of nature. I liken him to a mudslide. Others have different comparisons. ;)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2006 02:18:36 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
35mm film went obsolete in 1999.
R. |
Hehehehhe. Alright Bear, maybe went obsolete in the 2004/5 timeframe. Still has some things going for it in certain disiplines. To address the original thread, Ken is a force of nature. I liken him to a mudslide. Others have different comparisons. ;) |
Hey, it wasn't ME that said that, it was KEN. I'm just reporting here :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2006 05:21:54 PM · #62 |
I agree awpollard - I don't see the point in the work he shows on his website.
I'd label any of those pics 'low risk', disney-coloured and most of 'em not visually interesting. Some of 'em are probably hard to get right, and quite an achievement in that sense, but that's another story.
Oh, by the way... 35mm film... I still love it, I still use it, but it's as dead as a doornail. For most heavy users (journalists) it probably went obsolete with the arrival of the DSLR + speedy internet connections. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 02:53:05 AM · #63 |
I just read Ken Rockwell for the first time . And I came away very confused. On one hand he sounded very convincing but then he ranted on and on and repeated himself. Bottom line I am new to Digital cameras but I want to have a go with this art form . I will spend a few grand to get equipment. So after reading Ken, here is what I came up with. Camera a Nikon D-200, 3 Lens...Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-6.5: Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye: Nikon 12-24mm f/4 wide angle. Am I going in the right direction. Appreciate you comment.
Thanks Liam O'Brien (GalacticCannibal)
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 10:39:56. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:04:44 AM · #64 |
wow, this thread just got revived? :)
I kinda laughed when I read Ken's write-up about the rumoured (leaked?) Nikon D40. He tries very hard to make the whole thing sounded like he just VERY accidentally read about it from somewhere - but why post it at all then? lol |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:20:57 PM · #65 |
personally I disagree with all the negativity because my decison to purchase both of my 'nice' lenses relied heavily on what I read from KR.com. So far I believe his analysis and advice are right on the money. It sounds to me like most people dislike KR because of the WAY he writes, not so much because the stuff he writes is inaccurate?
Just my 2 cents...since the thread is now revived anyway.
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 21:22:37. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:30:43 PM · #66 |
| Ken is a NIKON man so if you going with a Nikon then he knows his SH*T so you can take it from him on good advice.. I personally like to test a lens out buy renting / borrowing before I buy but I like KR and think he offers his personal opinion. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 08:13:10 PM · #67 |
I feel compelled to defend Ken (not that he really needs it, he's doing okay) because in spite of his sometimes biting commentary he is a nice guy. Well, granted we have similar engineering backgrounds so we do get along.
The point is, most of his critics here either just don't get it or are blindly biased so they don't read everything he writes. If you actually read his commentaries on the Canon cameras, you will find more than token praise for the advantages over Nikon. If you read other articles you'll find it's primarily an issue of what you already own (and can afford) that drives what brand and what level camera to you should get. It's stupid to suggest that he is paid by Nikon because he usually suggests getting cheaper models and does not endorse the consumer Nikons which is probably where Nikon makes money. Some of you guys should also look at when some of the articles were written. Obviously some of the OPINIONS he had back then have changed as technology changes.
Do I agree with everything he says? OF COURSE NOT! I go with what works for me. He did make me realize that nothing comes from obsessing with measurement numbers. What matters is the final image and the emotions it evokes. Emotions being subject to personal taste and experience. Did he teach me a thing or two? OF COURSE! For those who have the gall to criticize his professional work, I'm willing to bet you haven\'t seen the prints or the chromes.
Just go out there and take your own pictures, build your own website. You don't have to beat down another guy's work to get recognized, do you? DO YOU?
Message edited by author 2006-11-18 09:33:29. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 09:00:25 PM · #68 |
someone needs to invite the guy to this discussion. PM me first so I can get the popcorn ready! :)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 09:20:06 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Bisdak:
You don't have to beat down another guy's work to get recognized, do you? DO YOU? |
I have no beef with his work. I just think he's an ass. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 09:34:42 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bisdak:
You don't have to beat down another guy's work to get recognized, do you? DO YOU? |
I have no beef with his work. I just think he's an ass. |
:-)
|
|
|
|
11/17/2006 09:40:20 PM · #71 |
Like any other site on the web, I read it and make my own judgements about what to take in and what to ignore. There's a lot of good information on there, and he describes his thought process on a lot of things I hadn't thought about before... in the process, I sometimes see things differently, but at least he has gotten me to think about something new.
I read his site regularly, and often refer friends to specific articles of his. It's a perfect example of what modern blogging technology offers... everyone can say what they think, and we can decide what to read and what to ignore... but there's another step: for the stuff we read, we can decide what to accept as fact and what to cast aside. I think some of his articles (megapixel myth, why IS matters) are helpful. Others less so.
In the end, as with most blogs, the advice is worth every penny you pay for it. Get out of it what you want. If you feel strongly in a different approach, don't complain... just start your own blog. |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 10:17:18 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Ram21:
Ken is very Opinionated. And with that I leave you with a quote:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln |
Ya. But the loud ones give us something discuss. That blows my mind.
Message edited by author 2006-11-17 22:18:17. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 11:32:47 AM · #73 |
Ken Rockwell has no idea about the new software and technology, he is not a professional photographer and therefore no one should take him serious.
Just another clown wannabe on the WEB.
Ken wants to be famous and he does good work on that though by polluting the web with many stupid and false articles.
I love Nikon but i hate people like him. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 10:30:59 PM · #74 |
Ken Rockwell is a chimp.
Per his site on the D200 you can get 250 shots on a battery.
I just shot 2200 tonight on a single battery.
What a chimp. |
|
|
|
12/22/2006 09:29:22 PM · #75 |
Who's spreading around misinformation, I wonder?
"The big LCD uses a lot of power. On my first charge I only got 250 shots because I was playing with the menus all day. Today I regularly get 500 shots when I get the low battery warning, and at 600 shots it dies. As an experiment to check if it was the LCD or whatever I decided to see how many shots I could motor off after the Low warning before I recharged. My battery was at 15% and gave me the low warning after 600 shots. I usually look at the LCD after every few shots. I turned off the auto preview I always used on my D70 to save power. With the LCD off I held down the shutter at 5FPS repeatedly to see how many more shots I could get on my last 15% of battery. I ran it up to 1,200 shots, or just as many shots on the last 15% of battery with no LCD as I did with the LCD on the first 85% of charge! Of course this also could have been from the VR of my 18 - 200 VR; however my other VR lenses haven't used more battery than other lenses. I'll have to look into this, too."
And, since I can speak from experience, the VR 18-200 eats up batteries more than my other non-VR lenses. |
|
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 04:00:10 PM EDT.
