I was chatting with some folks on a photography group and one posted a link to Rockwells Z7 review.. and he took it serious. I knew of Kens page, I've went on a few times but, is this guy serious or what? I mean most of his pictures are literally horrid. People take his reviews serious, yet based on his pictures, I don't know if he's serious. The thing is, why or how can people take camera advice from someone who can't change white balance to make the picture look like it was taken on Earth and not mars. I mean look at this:
Nobody is perfect.
Ken likes highly saturated pictures. And he admits himself. He doesn't shoot raw and this might affect his subjective evaluations.
Nevertheless, his reviews are not worse than many technical comments I read in the web.
I never consider compressed JPEGs, as those posted by Ken, as a tool for gear evaluation. Nor I think he is a great photographer.
Ken says a good photo does not depend on lens or camera, but on the photographers only. He is right, most of people know he's right but "believe" that higher resolution bodies and/or lenses allow taking better pictures ...
Most visitors probably go to the site for the photos. I've learnt to value his enthusiastic opinions judiciously usually for stats and timelines, which the guy takes pride in collating, clearly (eg subtle differences between successive 300 Nikkors etc)
There are far worse "sources" across www for photography gear. One learns to sift out the rare nugget, and we know who there are! (eg the Lensrentals blogs, PL etc & see links below)
utube is by far the worst. Three exceptions are Riccitalks, 3 Blind Men and An Elephant & Steve Perry's
on the subject of WB, when is it done or not and to what level is a subject of debate. I have seen too many images of fires places with "white" fires blazing away.
Ken's just a dude who reviews gear. Take his reviews, as you would anyone else's, for what they are worth. He provides a relatively detailed overview of the specs of whatever piece of gear he is reviewing, and that can be quite useful.
That FroKnows motormouth claims that Rockwell is "Dangerous to Photography" in a 2 hour YouTube rant.
Years ago I've spoken to Rockwell a couple times. Nice family man, does not take himself too seriously.
Read his stuff it can't hurt. I've not in several years now. He used to do Nikon only, last I visited i see hes talking Canon too.
chambeshi wrote:
Most visitors probably go to the site for the photos. I've learnt to value his enthusiastic opinions judiciously usually for stats and timelines, which the guy takes pride in collating, clearly (eg subtle differences between successive 300 Nikkors etc)
There are far worse "sources" across www for photography gear. One learns to sift out the rare nugget, and we know who there are! (eg the Lensrentals blogs, PL etc & see links below)
utube is by far the worst. Three exceptions are Riccitalks, 3 Blind Men and An Elephant & Steve Perry's
Thern wrote:
Imo the best reviewers are those who tell us what we want to hear
As someone who does the occasional review, I can verify this is 100% correct! In fact, I often avoid reviewing an item that I'm going to have to really tear apart because I don't want to deal with all the drama. I had thought of doing a full review of the Z6 / 7, but decided against it because I knew I would say some things people didn't want to hear and it would turn into a sh*tstorm - even though a review of it would be largely positive (I learned this the hard way when I did my initial specs review and voiced concerns - ALL of which turned out to be correct). It takes WAY too long and way too much effort to do a proper review only to have the results cause countless headaches - I often think people watch reviews to justify a purchase rather than to make a decision about buying the item.
Did you ask permission to post his image? As per the FM rules: Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own (link the images, do not embed them in your post).
This is the most useful part of his site, he has a lot of detail information for lots of lenses in one place. He also has a good bit of historical info too on changes over time. The reviews themselves are a lot of times more for entertainment. Now thanks to this thread I have to go check out his site, it’s been awhile since my last visit.
BobSacamano wrote:
Ken's just a dude who reviews gear. Take his reviews, as you would anyone else's, for what they are worth. He provides a relatively detailed overview of the specs of whatever piece of gear he is reviewing, and that can be quite useful.
Steve Perry wrote:
As someone who does the occasional review, I can verify this is 100% correct! In fact, I often avoid reviewing an item that I'm going to have to really tear apart because I don't want to deal with all the drama. I had thought of doing a full review of the Z6 / 7, but decided against it because I knew I would say some things people didn't want to hear and it would turn into a sh*tstorm - even though a review of it would be largely positive (I learned this the hard way when I did my initial specs review and voiced concerns - ALL of which turned out to be correct). It takes WAY too long and way too much effort to do a proper review only to have the results cause countless headaches - I often think people watch reviews to justify a purchase rather than to make a decision about buying the item....Show more →
Oh No. I am truly mortified. You mean you could not find a Pdf for the Nikon Z7 and Z6 to enable you publish a "truly informed review".......
I visit his site daily. He is usually one of the the first to post who has what on sale. I think some of his photos are great, but as was posted above, he admits to liking the saturation cranked to very high levels. In his words, insanely high. I find his reviews concise, in depth and easy for non-scientists to follow. He doesn’t mind pointing the things he loves, hates and doesn’t care about in everything he reviews. I believe so many members here don’t like him is because he doesn’t spout the notions that you need to spend thousands upon thousands to get great results, that you don’t need to spend more time processing to get great results and that you don’t need to run out and buy the newest, hottest equipment. I think his site is invaluable to beginners and hobbyists because he helps eliminates the potentially intimidating and daunting process of selecting gear. His site is infinitely better than this one for beginners to glean decision making information. Pros who spend enormous amounts of money on their gear don’t want to hear that most of their time, money and effort spent MAY not be necessary.
Charles Loy wrote:
He used to do Nikon only, last I visited i see hes talking Canon too.
He also uses and reviews Fuji and Sony extensively. He recently posted photos from a workshop in Yosemite where he used a Canon 5DS/R, Fuji’s GFX100 & XT-30 and iPhone Max.
I do check his site and reviews first before buying something I find costly, but not exclusively. I also take his reviews and recommendations with an appropriate grain of salt. When I was first considering getting into Fuji, I checked his review on the X-T2. He was very complimentary in nearly all aspects, except on color rendering. He said Fuji was great, the best, for people, but not for places and things. I don’t like to shoot people. My least favorite subjects. But I saw what others were doing with Fuji and made the move. My point is that his reviews are full of facts AND opinions. I’m educated enough to know the difference.
Steve Perry wrote:
As someone who does the occasional review, I can verify this is 100% correct! In fact, I often avoid reviewing an item that I'm going to have to really tear apart because I don't want to deal with all the drama. I had thought of doing a full review of the Z6 / 7, but decided against it because I knew I would say some things people didn't want to hear and it would turn into a sh*tstorm - even though a review of it would be largely positive (I learned this the hard way when I did my initial specs review and voiced concerns - ALL of which turned out to be correct). It takes WAY too long and way too much effort to do a proper review only to have the results cause countless headaches - I often think people watch reviews to justify a purchase rather than to make a decision about buying the item....Show more →
Your last statement is so true... reviews that support buyers remorse are trashed, while those that give praise to the genius of a purchase are applauded.
The best reviews are done by oneself... does the gear produce the desired outcome? If so, it’s a keeper.
His site is very organized, well structured, and consistent. He thoroughly explains spec's in a very consistent and standard form, I know what I can expect from him, in advance.
His site is a very rear, where you can go deep into the history, and I like it a lot.
To be honest, I prefer his site way more, than most of the YT channels, especially those with huge subscribed crowd, those will do anything to increase traffic, creating all kinds of contraversy.
I learned very well what best review is, just do it by yourself, so KR isn't my source of, to buy or not to buy, it's more like feel in information.
I used to use online web site reviews to buy goods. I once bought a liquidiser recommended by the Good Housekeeping Institute. It was the worst POS I’ve ever bought and cost a fortune. I gave it to a charity shop. What HiFi reviews sound brilliant, but I couldn’t make head nor tail of them when I tried to work out what they meant. I find owner reviews useful, they tell you about the niggles that appear after a few months, or the reliability issues. Forum threads here are useful. KR is one person with one opinion. As is that big hair chap. They make controversial statements to get traffic. Fair enough. There are a few online reviewers worth trusting IMO, such as Hogan, but even he annoys me at times!
usually for stats and timelines, which the guy takes pride in collating, clearly (eg subtle differences between successive 300 Nikkors etc)
