I think he is trying to start his own youtube channel since there's where the money is nowadays. He is too old school...and his youtube stuff is kind of boring... I mean..you notice he uses the same subject (his kids, and the palm trees) for his lens and camera reviews. Could you imagine he is doing the same thing with his youtube clips It gets boring pretty quickly.
SouthwestS2K wrote:
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:
I like Ken Rockwell's site. I've been shoot photos long enough to be able to sort some, which you need to do, but, welcome to planet earth, you have to be able to sort.
I like Ken Rockwell's site. I've been shoot photos long enough to be able to sort some, which you need to do, but, welcome to planet earth, you have to be able to sort.
He is very knowledgeable.
He's just another view and opinion. I've read some of his views on older lenses and agree with them. Everyone needs to use their own heads when deciding what's right for them. I feel the more varied views of the equipment, the more varied opinions. Ken is just one of many inputs that can be used in your decision process.
If one does not agree with Ken...then just don't use him as input to your decision process...but why bash his views. Maybe we should see some reviews of equipment along with their own photos of cats from some of these bashers.
Statements like this don't really come across as particularly knowledgeable:
S: Subliminally suggests sexual satisfaction. The "S" designation has no other purpose than subliminal seduction; Nikon and electronics and automobile and every kind of marketer have been using letters like "S" and "X" in model numbers since the 1940s for this same reason. Nikon called their first 1946 rangefinder lens mount the "S" mount, then went whole-hog to the "F" SLR mount in 1959, used "S" again when they updated their AI lenses to AI-"S" in 1983, created AF-"S" SWM lenses in 1998 and here it is again.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Statements like this don't really come across as particularly knowledgeable:
S: Subliminally suggests sexual satisfaction. The "S" designation has no other purpose than subliminal seduction; Nikon and electronics and automobile and every kind of marketer have been using letters like "S" and "X" in model numbers since the 1940s for this same reason. Nikon called their first 1946 rangefinder lens mount the "S" mount, then went whole-hog to the "F" SLR mount in 1959, used "S" again when they updated their AI lenses to AI-"S" in 1983, created AF-"S" SWM lenses in 1998 and here it is again.
I think Ken is bang on with the logos and names for new cameras and lenses. It's a huge marketing campaign aimed right at you.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
Statements like this don't really come across as particularly knowledgeable:
S: Subliminally suggests sexual satisfaction. The "S" designation has no other purpose than subliminal seduction; Nikon and electronics and automobile and every kind of marketer have been using letters like "S" and "X" in model numbers since the 1940s for this same reason. Nikon called their first 1946 rangefinder lens mount the "S" mount, then went whole-hog to the "F" SLR mount in 1959, used "S" again when they updated their AI lenses to AI-"S" in 1983, created AF-"S" SWM lenses in 1998 and here it is again.
Lol he is pretty entertaining too. And he may have a point, actually. If you take everything on his site super seriously you probably shouldn't look at it.
sjms wrote:
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.
Sad to hear you dont use prime lenses, that doesnt invalidate any of the points that support using them though.
Sauseschritt wrote:
All the best lenses are prime lenses.
Yes, years ago primes were the best.
Nowadays the biggest difference is the faster constant aperture and ,sometimes, the typical 'identity' of a prime, which may or may not be wanted by 'a' photog.
Take the 135 F/2 DC, some love it for its soft OOF renderering and bokeh, others detest it.
With modern digital cameras capable to shoot at high ISOs the faster aperture is less important than ever. Offcourse the DOF and bokeh are affected, but that's for a lot of photogs a non issue.
The partially old truth primes are best is obsolete.
Today most photogs prefer versatility and being able to get that shot over 'identity'. (which explains the succes of zoomlenses)
sjms wrote:
remember, there are 2 parts to an image. quality and content.
I heartily agree.
It's not only about MTF, microcontrast, loca, ca, flare aso, it's about getting that friggin image.
TooManyShots wrote:
I think he is trying to start his own youtube channel since there's where the money is nowadays. He is too old school...and his youtube stuff is kind of boring... I mean..you notice he uses the same subject (his kids, and the palm trees) for his lens and camera reviews. Could you imagine he is doing the same thing with his youtube clips It gets boring pretty quickly.
hahaha I had no idea he talks WAY too fast. Like something's chasing him. He should seriously consider getting into rap music.
I love KR. He's the only lens reviewer who puts an effort into showing the sun-stars they can produce. Sure, his website looks like a hack-job from 1995, but it works.
Joseph. wrote:
hahaha I had no idea he talks WAY too fast. Like something's chasing him. He should seriously consider getting into rap music.
Maybe it’s my age but I don’t get on with most YouTube camera/lens reviews, the presentational style gets in the way of the message, and they are usually too long winded. Give me text anytime. Ken’s one claim to fame is to have coined the rather unpleasant word ‘measurebation’.
It’s a shame as there is some amazing content on YouTube. Videos from a psychologist have helped me understand my boss’s behaviour.
Sauseschritt wrote:
I have no clue what you're talking about. Nobody here has complained how the site looks.
I don't think he was stating that anyone had complained about it, just that it DOES look like a 1990s hack-job, which I 100% agree with. Though I much prefer that to most current website designs with piles of needless complexity.
I pretty much always go to Ken for the basics about gear - his reviews go waaaaaay back so he has reviews on gear that not manner others will have.
I have to agree that his site is very structured an organized so it's easy to navigate.
Youtube is a mad house. There are some really great people on there who get trashed by newbies in the comments and some crazy people with a big fanbase who just mouth off about who knows what all (but it's entertaining!)
Anyway, Ken appears to be a real deal guy who has been around a very long time and I like him and respect his longevity. If people don't like what he has to say or the look of his work or site, it's probably really easy to just not go there.
If all a newish person to photography read were sites like this they would be convinced they had to have all the latest generations of equipment to take pictures. I really like KR’s input for that reason. He speaks to the average person who just wants to take pictures but wants to utilize the benefits of different lenses. KR communicates you can shoot great images with D series lenses and not have to sink a mortgage into glass or bodies to be a good “photographer”.
That's why every piece of equipment he reviews he would praise them to no end......The best...the greatest..etc etc...It that's what you want to hear, great....
TooManyShots wrote:
That's why every piece of equipment he reviews he would praise them to no end......The best...the greatest..etc etc...It that's what you want to hear, great....
Right...except he didn’t use those words regarding the gear I was talking about.
I’ve always thought of his site as a bit of a farce. I base this on his about page statements that have been there for years.
“ This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact... I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax...A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke...I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here...”
It gets boring pretty quickly. 
