The DxO measurements are a little suspect as they perform theoretical measurements of the DR, rather than real world tests. I would wait for real world tests to see if the D3x really does have that much extra DR compared to other cameras.
TweakMDS wrote:
II hope Ken accepts this critique and fixes his review by revealing ALL the testing parameters and not just stating additional tests showed the same results. This is just condescending and making a mockery of people who are interested in the actual differences and whichever one wins - by what margin it does that.
He is not a careful worker, sad to say, and if you look at other tests, you sometimes see what might be gaffs and/or flaws, or at least there is no check.
TweakMDS wrote:
The way this review is set up, Ken Rockwell appears to intentionally make the Canon 5DII look bad.
It wouldn't be the first time he's done that.
I hope Ken accepts this critique and fixes his review by revealing ALL the testing parameters and not just stating additional tests showed the same results. This is just condescending and making a mockery of people who are interested in the actual differences and whichever one wins - by what margin it does that.
Given his history, he wont redo the test. KR is too busy on his next crusade; his readers adore him for daring to be wrong, and he would be remiss to disappoint them.
Ken's alright! It's mostly people who are into loving the ownership of their own opinions that have a problem with him. He's generally very accurate and more accurate and informative than sites like DPReview. DPR offers more manufacture specs but their "review factor" is in the closet compared to Ken. DPR also makes quite a few mistakes and never ever changes or corrects them. Ken says why he likes or dislikes feature X and button Y instead of just acknowledging the existence and placement of it. Generally speaking that's the general difference to me.
Anyway, I'm cool with Ken and I like reading and considering what he has to say. It's not like he's saying he's writing the word of God or anything and that you have to accept his opinions and critiques as unequivocal written in stone, fact.
As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. Why would I consider an opinion or counter-opinion from a person with such limited facilities? Unfortunately there are many many forum users and self-proclaimed experts blogging who fall into this category. It seems to be true of all topics on the net though. This is a bummer as it just makes the signal to noise ratio more of an obstacle for those truly interested in learning and assessment.
Ken is a exaggerating, bad methodically and trollish character.
Stating that anyone that dislikes Ken Rockwell has to have "very limited intellect" proves that you aither a) are victim of said mental state or b) are a troll.
This is what I'm talking about when I say limited intellect and it does actually apply. I'm not trying to call anyone names or point fingers here so I hope it isn't taken that way. A person with a healthy intellect will consider as much reasonable evidence, opinion, etc. as possible when forming theory or trying to make a decision. People of limited intellect restrict themselves to black & white, right or wrong instead of understanding and considering both sides or many sides of an issue and comprehending it's intended context. To quote the very article you linked to in the "Duhhhh!!!" section:
"Firstly, just because I was arguing that good and appropriate equipment is important when doing many types of photography doesn't mean that the inverse is untrue; in other words, that talent isn't necessary. This is a simple logical fallacy that is taught in any reading comprehension course, yet which some seem to have assumed to be the case."
You are the one making blanket statements, obvious flame baits and claim that everyone that does not share your opinion is of less than healthy intellect.. You have pretty much disqualified yourself from any rational, mature and constructive discourse. I suspect that you would not know "any rationale" if someone threw it at you...
But is a D3x better than TWO 5DII's as that evens up the price? I own all nikon lenses so for me I am pretty married to nikon. I would hope for the price difference the nikon would be better. I am just happy the two makers are goin at it and we get some great cameras from the competition. Also Ken is just a photographer and any of us that voice as many opinions as he does to as large a audience, would find some disagreement. A test I may do and find fine, a true pixel peeper would trash for sure. But I made a living as a pro for many years and still have a opinion even if it is often wronge
Bifurcator wrote:
As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.
I don't go around insulting people in these forums as being idiots, so in that regard we are different. Other than that, I'm a complete opposite of you in this regard as I consider anyone that cites KR as being not worthy of paying attention to as far as photographic advice is concerned.
KR is a clown, and he knows it. He even warns people (in the fine print of his website) not to take him seriously. It's the people who do take him seriously and propagate his nonsense that contribute to the widespread misinformation available in photographic forums.
I recall once reading a KR article and he called me a "bonehead" because I shot sporting events in RAW. I emailed him about this and his reply back was "Just kidding." Okay, I get the joke; when others read what he wrote and then say "Tony is a bonehead because KR said so" then I realize the joke is on them and not me.
TonyBeach wrote:
I don't go around insulting people in these forums as being idiots, so in that regard we are different. Other than that, I'm a complete opposite of you in this regard as I consider anyone that cites KR as being not worthy of paying attention to as far as photographic advice is concerned.
KR is a clown, and he knows it. He even warns people (in the fine print of his website) not to take him seriously. It's the people who do take him seriously and propagate his nonsense that contribute to the widespread misinformation available in photographic forums.
I recall once reading a KR article and he called me a "bonehead" because I shot sporting events in RAW. I emailed him about this and his reply back was "Just kidding." Okay, I get the joke; when others read what he wrote and then say "Tony is a bonehead because KR said so" then I realize the joke is on them and not me. ...Show more →
My god you don't shoot sports in small low quality jpeg mode!? Where did you learn to shoot!
I think I understand what Bifurcator wanted to say (even though he went about it the wrong way and insulted people by calling them idiots).
I think what he wanted to say is that you should take KR articles for what they are - personal opinions written in a comic way.
Personally I have a problem with the fact that some shooters with less experience might believe what he says and loose time using the wrong technique or buying the wrong gear.
I know that nobody is to blame if they believe KR and don't do the necessary research to validate or invalidate what he says. But I think somebody as famous as he is should be a bit more responsible about what he writes.
dnenciu wrote:
I think what he wanted to say is that you should take KR articles for what they are - personal opinions written in a comic way.
Personally I have a problem with the fact that some shooters with less experience might believe what he says and loose time using the wrong technique or buying the wrong gear.
In my opinion a lot of what KR says is at best unbalanced and at worst misleading. And I agree with the above quotes, except that unfortunately I have never found the articles comic. Comical yes, amusing, no.
He has to have a strong personality, at least - he has turned two people that I definitely know as "non-trolls" to act as "trolls" unto eachother... (Bifurcator and ulrik)
I would guess his technical knowledge is more than appropriate - he knows more than he tells, and I would also guess that he chooses to totally ignore that and just blurt out what he feels - or thinks will get him more audience. The quote:
[If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.]
-says it all.
A small part of the "WHAT you shoot is more important than what you shoot it WITH" is indeed true though - in some respects - for most people - most of the time. Remember that his intended audience isn't working photographers. Lots on his site is pure BS, but he told you so.
Allegedly, KR has a number of patents to his name... He is an EE... So he is definitely not of "limited intellect".
His strength is that he can make money off his website. He has basically decided to say "f*ck it" to the world and make easy money. Guess he cracked or something. Doesn't make his website that useful though. The joke is on all of us.
Now I shall go and say many hail marys for posting in a KR-bash thread...
This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.
This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.
This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.
Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.
Marvincheong wrote:
kenrockwell is proving that......D3x is more superior that 5D mark2.
Some of the Canon camp cannot accept the reality.
They say 5D mark2 is the best camare in the dslr camp.
For me, I just like to take jpeg not Raw.
Maybe D3x is my friend later.
I can believe the D3x has slightly better JPEGS than the 5DII.....it`s fine with me and I`m sure it`s fine with Canon. Nikon is bragging that their 8,000 dollar camera has slightly better JPEGS than the 2,699 dollar 5DII......and Canon is supposed to be upset with this.........
Bifurcator wrote:
Ken's alright! It's mostly people who are into loving the ownership of their own opinions that have a problem with him. He's generally very accurate and more accurate and informative than sites like DPReview. DPR offers more manufacture specs but their "review factor" is in the closet compared to Ken. DPR also makes quite a few mistakes and never ever changes or corrects them. Ken says why he likes or dislikes feature X and button Y instead of just acknowledging the existence and placement of it. Generally speaking that's the general difference to me.
Anyway, I'm cool with Ken and I like reading and considering what he has to say. It's not like he's saying he's writing the word of God or anything and that you have to accept his opinions and critiques as unequivocal written in stone, fact.
As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. Why would I consider an opinion or counter-opinion from a person with such limited facilities? Unfortunately there are many many forum users and self-proclaimed experts blogging who fall into this category. It seems to be true of all topics on the net though. This is a bummer as it just makes the signal to noise ratio more of an obstacle for those truly interested in learning and assessment. ...Show more →
This place is really fun.....I have to come here more often
theSuede wrote:
He has to have a strong personality, at least - he has turned two people that I definitely know as "non-trolls" to act as "trolls" unto eachother... (Bifurcator and ulrik)
That made me laugh.. Thanks!
But some people are saying I used the word idiot. I didn't. I said "very limited intellect" and that really shouldn't be so insulting. I mean we all have "limited intellects" (unless you're a god or something) and only specifying a more severe degree just means that thinking things through thoroughly and logically from many points of view, isn't one of their passtimes or not very important to them. How many people does that describe here? Most I would say. It shouldn't be taken as an insult or put-down unless one is expecting to be perceived as a great thinker just from commenting on a slightly ingenuous blog.
The two terms are quite different! A person with a "very limited intellect" misses dry humor, is generally mundane, assumes too much (like that idiot is meant when limited intellect was used), and is probably uninteresting at parties. An "idiot" drives the wrong way on the freeway, ignores even assumption, lights bottle-rockets from his butt-crack, and is probably very amusing at parties. Two very different things!
dnenciu wrote:
I think I understand what Bifurcator wanted to say (even though he went about it the wrong way and insulted people by calling them idiots).
I think what he wanted to say is that you should take KR articles for what they are - personal opinions written in a comic way.
See!?!, not everyone here has a "very limited intellect"! dnenciu almost gets it.
Hendrik wrote:
I like KR, he has a refreshing view on photography and many things he writes is true, especially if you read between the lines. Of course he’s not the only source for reviews if I need them, but many other reviewers are not completely unbiased and I suspect often some influence from the industry.
For example, someone mentioned the Nikkor 24-70mm. Some early reviewers praised this lens into heaven and not one of these reviewers mentioned its bad characteristics. I’m talking about a very pronounced field curvature. Even the samples available showed this behavior, but no one talked about it. After many complains and discussions on various forums, some reviewers included this field curvature issue into their review.
I don’t say KR is unbiased, I don’t know, but he has the nerve to kick against some evangelic beliefs. ...Show more →
Bifurcator wrote:
But some people are saying I used the word idiot. I didn't. I said "very limited intellect" and that really shouldn't be so insulting. I mean we all have "limited intellects" (unless you're a god or something) and only specifying a more severe degree just means that thinking things through thoroughly and logically from many points of view, isn't one of their passtimes or not very important to them. How many people does that describe here? Most I would say. It shouldn't be taken as an insult or put-down unless one is expecting to be perceived as a great thinker just from commenting on a slightly ingenuous blog.
The two terms are quite different! A person with a "very limited intellect" misses dry humor, is generally mundane, assumes too much (like that idiot is meant when limited intellect was used), and is probably uninteresting at parties. An "idiot" drives the wrong way on the freeway, ignores even assumption, lights bottle-rockets from his butt-crack, and is probably very amusing at parties. Two very different things!...Show more →
Some people like to dissemble by parsing. When you capitalize VERY in front of limited intellect, you are clearly saying more than average limited intellect -- you are in fact suggesting someone is an idiot or perhaps just a blockhead.
What I find particularly amusing though is that your description of an idiot looks a lot like what KR does on his blog. After all, Stephen Colbert is no fool, but he tells his guests before they go on that he is a "professional idiot".
