One thing I've always liked about his reviews are the very detailed photos of the camera or lens, ones that don't require me to zoom in or double-click to see anything.
Ripolini wrote:
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 ...
This is just about how I feel about Ken’s reviews. But I do not read the whole reviews. Instead, I go directly to his “Introduction” section.
That's where I hope to see summarized ....... the conclusion I've already arrived at.
I like Rockwell’s reviews, even though his pictures are over-saturated.
Like many here I'm divided. I think Ken's photography is uneven, and his opinions often questionable, and I would not base an equipment choice on that, but his basic information tends to be good and well organized. If you want to know how a thing works, what it fits, whether the buttons are in the right place, nd so forth, this is a good first stop. I am likely to discount a high opinion, as I think Ken may not know the difference between good and better, but if Ken finds a thing doesn't work well, or is lousy, it probably is.
And as others have mentioned, the formatting of the site and its photos is very nice. I think this is one of the few sites that showed all sides of the FX AFP 70-300 lens, so that one could actually see what switches are on it.
It's fun to rag on Ken, because I don't think he's a very good photographer, but I think he's a pretty good resource up to a certain level.
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 →
Justification or confirmation....
It's hard to swallow to read or view a review of gear one bought for his savings to learn it isn't that good like 'the internet' made believe.
People just don't want to hear that and they will let you know
Those searching for info will view your review and it will certainly help them to make a better weighted decision.
It's 'the internet', Parrots and 'Those in the know' (yeah I played with it in a store or hey! I borrowed it for a couple of days ) which is responsible for the hypes.
For the record that's the reason why I never participate in threads about gear I didn't extensively use myself.
You surprised me with your 'Z PDF review'
but you confirmed my personal thoughts about the Z in every way for the use of wildlife photography.
Reality learned you were a full 100% correct for wildlife shooters. (which you stated upfront)
Keep up the good work bro! and ignore the all asses.
Charles Loy wrote:
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.
I saw that video but didn't care to click it. FroKnows literally complains about EVERYTHING. Like everything is substandard to him. He went from a Nikon fan to a Sony kiss a$$ in no time.
Thern wrote:
Justification or confirmation....
It's hard to swallow to read or view a review of gear one bought for his savings to learn it isn't that good like 'the internet' made believe.
People just don't want to hear that and they will let you know
Those searching for info will view your review and it will certainly help them to make a better weighted decision.
It's 'the internet', Parrots and 'Those in the know' (yeah I played with it in a store or hey! I borrowed it for a couple of days ) which is responsible for the hypes.
For the record that's the reason why I never participate in threads about gear I didn't extensively use myself.
You surprised me with your 'Z PDF review'
but you confirmed my personal thoughts about the Z in every way for the use of wildlife photography.
Reality learned you were a full 100% correct for wildlife shooters. (which you stated upfront)
Keep up the good work bro! and ignore the all asses.
Thanks for the kind words And, although my Z7 spec review was correct, it's interesting to note that I also did a spec review at that same time for the 500PF (don't worry, I learned my lesson and no longer do spec reviews ). However, other than maybe wishing it was a touch faster than F/5.6, I didn't disparage the lens - and everyone loved the specs review - no complaints! Of course, I went on to do an exhaustive field test for that lens as well. Just interesting that when a review echos someone's option they say it's great and pat you on the back, but mention any potential issue, and they don't want to hear it.
I also have this happen with my full, regular reviews as well - often people like to nitpick any criticism or discovered shortcomings I mention. Nature of the beast, but still interesting (And that's why I do far fewer reviews now - some like the drama, I really don't.)
I considered him a joke long before I considered others a joke as well. Now I'm at the point that I consider almost all of them full of s**t, but at least he admits that he is.
Nov 16, 2019 at 01:33 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Back to Ken Rockwell. I think he knows very well how to play the internet game of driving traffic to his site and I think that can explain much of what he does. For example, it would seem incoherent to both argue as mentioned above that you don't need expensive gear to make good photographs and that it is a waste to buy expensive equipment while also arguing that Voigtlander lenses are all garbage and that it is ridiculous to buy anything but Leica M lenses for a Leica M camera. I think Ken knows that very well, however, there aren't a lot of people reading both those sentiments on his site. He has different followers and of course Leica shooters who have bought predominantly Leica M lenses love to hear what he says and hobbyist who haven't spent much on their gear love to hear the other part of what he says. Those two groups aren't likely to read the posts directed at the other group on his site. There is of course some truth to both points of view, but together they are incoherent, but if they both drive traffic and I don't think Ken cares.
Likewise, I think Ken often tries to be controversial to drive traffic to his site. For a good long time he had disclaimer's saying his review were for entertainment purposes only. I even think his careful measurements and thorough reports of gear history (which I do appreciate) are also there because they drive traffic.
In any event, I think Ken is crazy like a fox. He says a bunch of not very sensible things. He makes arguments that are logical inconsistent. His photography is pretty weak. But he does make some useful contributions too and he definitely knows how to get at the top of a google search and drive traffic to his site.
as the line goes: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts". the internet has allowed for many a part to be acted out. and Mr Rockwell has found his starring role.
jpelt78 wrote:
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.
That’s what his site is good for, and great for Nikon legacy lenses. I find his opinions slanted if not self serving. He basically tells people the only way to avoid grey market or fraud sites is to follow his links. He was telling people when the 850 was in short supply to only go to his links, inciting false fear that smaller shops were selling grey, and there was a long wait. He was telling people in essence that smaller authorized Nikon dealers were frauds because they didn’t have an affiliate program that he could profit from. Never mind that you could get an 850 from someone like Roberts camera faster than the waiting list at B&H because they weren’t an affiliate. In other words, his advice was bought and paid for. Hard pass, and dirty pool.
coudet wrote:
Yes, he does it deliberately and very successfully, if I may add. He knows the game.
As Vivek said, Ken has outlasted everyone.
Indeed, people may dump on him, but whatever the merits of his site he earns a very good living doing something he clearly likes. Wasn’t he in marketing before?
Ken's website is a wealth of information, which I refer to frequently, and thank him for that. He's a real contributor to our collective avocation/advocation. I should make a donation to him.
Danner wrote:
Ken's website is a wealth of information, which I refer to frequently, and thank him for that. He's a real contributor to our collective avocation/advocation. I should make a donation to him.
And my opinion is quite the opposite. One area in which he used to excel was SEO, no argument there.
I am indifferent about his site, but I do not like this thread. It starts with the improper posting of a copyrighted image. All photographers should be upset at that. Then it takes pot shots at the image. All photographers should be really upset about that. Finally, it is really not related to Nikon gear at all, it is just a nastygram. Something I would expect to see on DPR, not FM. Also it breaks FM rules.
The only redeeming quality of this thread is that it will end up driving more traffic to Ken’s site so he can have the last laugh.
For those printing larger than 8x10 for a living, there are more technical sites to use. KR is helpful and entertaining for the majority of us.
As far as the few who mock him, post your web site so we can compare.
FYI...been told he does 1 million per year
And, although my Z7 spec review was correct, it's interesting to note that I also did a spec review at that same time for the 500PF (don't worry, I learned my lesson and no longer do spec reviews