Do I think he’s an amazing writer? No. Photographer? Not really. But there’s definitely reliable stuff to pull from his reviews (product/technical details, changes from one version or generation of a lens to the next, etc).
What I DO NOT understand is what kind of insecurity it takes for all these people to rush over here and dump on the guy. He’s not hurting anyone. Why all the hate??
ChiShutter wrote:
Do I think he’s an amazing writer? No. Photographer? Not really. But there’s definitely reliable stuff to pull from his reviews (product/technical details, changes from one version or generation of a lens to the next, etc).
What I DO NOT understand is what kind of insecurity it takes for all these people to rush over here and dump on the guy. He’s not hurting anyone. Why all the hate??
Good lord. Insecurity?... not really. Basic critical thinking skills?... yeah, maybe.
"He’s not hurting anyone." If he offered even a modicum of tempering qualifiers in his rants/recommendations, I'd agree. But he doesn't. He's not hurting folks into gear that they assumed was better than it was because he said it was.
1) He presents himself as the be-all, end-all of photography common-sense-every-man fountain of wisdom - as in, let me clue you in and don't be a sucker.
2) 80% of his information is a recitation of the manufacturer's camera specs - meant to impress but frankly, borrowed content and too much for his target audience of newbies.
3) "Why all the hate?" I think you may be confusing hate with the photography community's wincing and frowning. Mr. Rockwell is a pretty good resource once you understand him and know when to disregard his opinion (and absolutely barren graphic design sensibility).
4) "But there’s definitely reliable stuff to pull from his reviews (product/technical details, changes from one version or generation of a lens to the next, etc)."
YES.
You're basically talking about specifications and brother, I could not agree more.
But, Ken doesn't stop with reciting camera specs. He presents opinion (geared toward the uninformed masses) as singular and almighty statements of fact - and he generally salts and peppers those comments with his general smugness.
And so, we have KR.com delivering three categories of stuff:
-- Factual camera specs and generally useful call outs of what's changed from the previous model. Stuff like that.
Grade: B+ if not a full blown A
-- Advice on what the reader needs and doesn't need with very few explanations or qualifiers as to the readers skill level.
Grade: C ...and that's often being kind.
-- Photographic examples and illustrations.
Grade: Mixed. Beauty is in the eye of the unbelievably over saturated.
ChiShutter, I genuinely appreciate peacemakers and perhaps the thread needed your calming influence. Thank you. But...
"He’s not hurting anyone."
Yeah, he is. And he does.
He may not realize it, but he does do damage - and mostly to those who don't know enough to recognize the difference between his spot-on call-outs of exceptional gear and his fairly regular claims that entry-level gear is just as good as good.
Years ago, I used to poke fun at Ken for his weird photography advice and opinions, until one day I came across one of his articles called "How to afford anything" and it changed my life. I took it very seriously and it started my obsession with investing and personal finance. This was several years ago and I still read that article once in a while for inspiration.
I only read the 1st couple of pages in detail which largely echo the criticisms that KR has had to endure down the years as well as the occasional support.
In my experience he is a basic resource - when I converted to digital in 2007 with a gift of a used D70 I looked up Ken's site and for starters set up my camera using his settings. It worked fine for me as a digital beginner. Later I turned to RAW and adjusted the settings to suit my eye - the point is it was free and a great help. When I moved to a D200 I used Ken as a reference and it helped make the purchase. This time I set up using Thom Hogan's guide.
I have a number of Ai and Ai-s lenses and have found KR to be very knowledgeable.
His Leica M glasses web page are also the best on the web.
Many things I am holding different opinion to his but I don't mind his humor and wisdom. I don't need appreciate his photography as I have hundreds photo books and infinity internet resource for that.
I get what I need from his website and always appreciate his quick summary and clean well lay-outed webpage. He is smarter than 95% you-tuber out there.
Wow, I guess there are 3 things that are constant:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. KR thread on FM...
Yeah I kinda went away from this site for a few years due to personal reasons, but now that I'm lurking more often, look at what I see.... A KR thread!!!! !
(didn't read past 1st page)
Avi B wrote:
Wow, I guess there are 3 things that are constant:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. KR thread on FM...
Yeah I kinda went away from this site for a few years due to personal reasons, but now that I'm lurking more often, look at what I see.... A KR thread!!!! !
(didn't read past 1st page)
Take the above, then add in endless discussions of the endless disastrous failures of Nikon as a company and how many card slots cameras have and you pretty much have the current state of the forum summarized. See you in a few years again!
Yes, Ken brags about shooting JPEG only, Vivid mode, Saturation +3. Overall his advice often has a useful hint of practicality to it, but I rarely turn to his reviews preferring others by a wide margin. His Youtube channel has a jaw dropping 3.7 million "subscribers" but judging by the activity in the comments and "like"s, very few of them look at his videos. He has been around a long time as a camera reviewer on the internet.
I am on the fence with him. He has some good content on older glass for example which is helpful. I recently saw a video he did and claimed you should always buy from Adorama and not your local camera store because that item will have been passed around to people before you buy it. As soon as he said all that his credibility dropped for me. I can't stand anyone who promotes an opinion when that opinion clearly has a financial motivation behind it.
I must agree with that last issue (even without Rockwell's Adorama kickback). It's likely true that an item will have been tried a few times at a local shop, but it also will usually have been carefully handled, and you'll be pretty sure it's working right, and sometimes it's pretty obvious the thing has never been out of the box. The amount of use most gear gets from a shop is probably about what you'll put on it in the first week.
One other issue, which I think Steve Perry has brought up here, and which I've found to be the case, is that local shops will sometimes have items in stock that are backordered on line. When the 200-500 lens was nearly impossible to get from the major mailorder outfits, my nearest camera store had it on the shelf. I still buy some stuff from the retailers, but there are few enough local shops and when they have what I need, I can try it out, and buy it there.
IIRC its the first KR thread I've seen on this forum, and I've been here almost two years now.
Yes KR has a lot of good advice, too, like:
- use prime lenses. They are cheap, lightweight, compact, bright, and offer more image quality. Just "zoom with the feet" and prime lenses are at least as flexible as zooms. Obviously zooming with the feet isnt always possible.
- think before you shoot
- the only reason why people put so much emphasis on lens sharpness is because sharpness is so easy to measure.
TX-Photog wrote:
I am on the fence with him. He has some good content on older glass for example which is helpful. I recently saw a video he did and claimed you should always buy from Adorama and not your local camera store because that item will have been passed around to people before you buy it. As soon as he said all that his credibility dropped for me. I can't stand anyone who promotes an opinion when that opinion clearly has a financial motivation behind it.
That seems a bit dodgy from a legal perspective, to make a false statement that will take custom away from local shops.
M. Currie wrote:
I must agree with that last issue (even without Rockwell's Adorama kickback). It's likely true that an item will have been tried a few times at a local shop, but it also will usually have been carefully handled, and you'll be pretty sure it's working right, and sometimes it's pretty obvious the thing has never been out of the box. The amount of use most gear gets from a shop is probably about what you'll put on it in the first week.
One other issue, which I think Steve Perry has brought up here, and which I've found to be the case, is that local shops will sometimes have items in stock that are backordered on line. When the 200-500 lens was nearly impossible to get from the major mailorder outfits, my nearest camera store had it on the shelf. I still buy some stuff from the retailers, but there are few enough local shops and when they have what I need, I can try it out, and buy it there.
Local shops will often have an item that is backordered forever at the majors. To hear KR tell it, if you buy local you are getting gray market, or fiddled with gear. It's a shameless attempt to sway people into using his affiliate links based on a 100% falsehood. Lying to people to line your pockets is not OK.
Just one thing I would add here, if people are not already aware of it. Nikon USA has prices fixed pretty firmly, with the result that prices at brick and mortar shops are usually almost identical to those at the reputable discounters like B&H or Adorama. Nikon discounts are applied at the stores too. The mail orders might drop the price a couple of bucks or throw in something to sweeten the deal, but the price of the merchandise is usually the same or nearly so. You can count the small difference as being a pretty good tradeoff for being able to try something out and make sure your sample is a good one.
Of course that's not a condemnation of the other places. My nearest Nikon dealing photo store is an hour and a half away. If I'm not planning to get up there for other reasons, the advantages diminish. I use B&H sometimes too.
Glad to see a mixture of responses to this thread. I think the "book" on Ken Rockwell is generally too harsh.
I think he's coallated some useful reference material, as others have said. And some of his review commentary is fairly useful. My complaint about him is that you have to read between the lines at times to tell which lenses he's actually used and which he's telling you what he's "heard." And yes, it seems clear to me he's trolling Leica fanbois (from me, that's a compliment not a criticism ).
Also I like some of his photography *shrug.* The saturation thing doesn't always work but heck for Christmas lights? The photo OP "borrowed" (I agree with those telling you not to do that, btw) is great IMHO. The guy evangelizes Velvia [original], what were you expecting?
M. Currie wrote:
Just one thing I would add here, if people are not already aware of it. Nikon USA has prices fixed pretty firmly, with the result that prices at brick and mortar shops are usually almost identical to those at the reputable discounters like B&H or Adorama. Nikon discounts are applied at the stores too. The mail orders might drop the price a couple of bucks or throw in something to sweeten the deal, but the price of the merchandise is usually the same or nearly so. You can count the small difference as being a pretty good tradeoff for being able to try something out and make sure your sample is a good one.
Of course that's not a condemnation of the other places. My nearest Nikon dealing photo store is an hour and a half away. If I'm not planning to get up there for other reasons, the advantages diminish. I use B&H sometimes too. ...Show more →
Many ignored their locals to buy big ticket items "tax free" from the NY retailers. Now that those purchases are no longer tax free, hopefully those people still have a local to patronize. Many don't.
I had a convention the first week of November and really wanted the new 24mm S lens for my Z. Tried my local and they didn't even have any on order. Got on the waiting list the day it opened, but B&N had more on backorder than they had coming, so I looked elsewhere. Found a retailer in NJ that had it. Would have preferred to buy local, and would have if they had their act together.
Sauseschritt wrote:
IIRC its the first KR thread I've seen on this forum, and I've been here almost two years now.
Yes KR has a lot of good advice, too, like:
- use prime lenses. They are cheap, lightweight, compact, bright, and offer more image quality. Just "zoom with the feet" and prime lenses are at least as flexible as zooms. Obviously zooming with the feet isnt always possible.
- think before you shoot
- the only reason why people put so much emphasis on lens sharpness is because sharpness is so easy to measure.
But all that is mixed with the bad advice.
most of those gems of wisdom really don't fly to well in reality over quite a few years. the only prime lenses I owned since 2003 was the sigma 150 macro and 300 Nikon tele. the 150 I still have and I replaced the 300 with the sigma 120-300 S lens. from 14 to 200 its zooms. I shoot at too many focal lengths too be swapping out. and as you said zoom with your feet can be indelicate and possibly hazardous.
Max Power wrote:
Many ignored their locals to buy big ticket items "tax free" from the NY retailers. Now that those purchases are no longer tax free, hopefully those people still have a local to patronize. Many don't.
I had a convention the first week of November and really wanted the new 24mm S lens for my Z. Tried my local and they didn't even have any on order. Got on the waiting list the day it opened, but B&N had more on backorder than they had coming, so I looked elsewhere. Found a retailer in NJ that had it. Would have preferred to buy local, and would have if they had their act together. ...Show more →
for many more localized shops holding stock of gear that they may only sell one or two a year at most is financially problematic. pricing structure from distributer to shop varies substantially by purchase dollars.
sjms wrote:
for many more localized shops holding stock of gear that they may only sell one or two a year at most is financially problematic. pricing structure from distributer to shop varies substantially by purchase dollars.
True......but my local has 4 stores in my metro and I have never called them on any gear where they have not had it in stock. They were just slow on the trigger on this one, where they should be quick. They could get a lot of B&H's business by being "right now". I actually got my lens from Unique Camera in your neck of the woods.
).