This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009D3x better than 5DII
p.8 #1D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
Why do you hate him so much?
I don't hate him; I dismiss him. His tests are flawed and far too many people take them seriously. One thing is for sure; when KR wants to make a camera look bad, he accomplishes that in spades.
I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!
As do I; which is why I immediately raise a red flag (generally, in my own mind) when anyone takes KR seriously and subsequently cites him as a credible source.
Why do you hate him so much?
I don't hate him; I dismiss him. His tests are flawed and far too many people take them seriously. One thing is for sure; when KR wants to make a camera look bad, he accomplishes that in spades.
I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!
As do I; which is why I immediately raise a red flag (generally, in my own mind) when anyone takes KR seriously and subsequently cites him as a credible source.
Jan 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM
p.8 #2D3x better than 5DII
You're talking into a black hole, Tony.......... Probably the same guy in that dpr thread that insisted that the d300 was garbage compared to the d90. 
Jan 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
p.8 #3D3x better than 5DII
TonyBeach wrote:
I don't hate him; I dismiss him. His tests are flawed and far too many people take them seriously. One thing is for sure; when KR wants to make a camera look bad, he accomplishes that in spades.
As do I; which is why I immediately raise a red flag (generally, in my own mind) when anyone takes KR seriously and subsequently cites him as a credible source.
I got no problems with that.
Bifurcator wrote
Why do you hate him so much?Earlier quote
I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!I got no problems with that.
Jan 23, 2009 at 10:42 PM
p.8 #4D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
[snip cos it's tedious]
I do indeed accept that. And I really have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that what I said means anything even remotely similar to "a person with an opinion I do not like is of very low intellect". How you get there from "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. " is beyond me. I have clarified what I meant over and over and over and over again yet...Show more →
This has got tedious. You say the following:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.
[snip cos it's tedious]
I do indeed accept that. And I really have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that what I said means anything even remotely similar to "a person with an opinion I do not like is of very low intellect". How you get there from "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. " is beyond me. I have clarified what I meant over and over and over and over again yet...Show more →
This has got tedious. You say the following:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.
Jan 24, 2009 at 03:21 AM
p.8 #5D3x better than 5DII
I got both the D3X and the 1Ds MarkIII (and intend to keep both). And, of course, I have made detailed comparisons. Conclusion: Regarding ergonomic and focus the winner is clearly the D3X, but the winner with respect to image quality and low noice (ISO 100-400) goes to the 1Ds MarkIII. Regarding resolution, the difference is too small to matter.
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but are sad to conclude (money wise) that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.
Edited on Jan 25, 2009 at 06:08 PM · View previous versions
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but are sad to conclude (money wise) that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.
Edited on Jan 25, 2009 at 06:08 PM · View previous versions
Jan 25, 2009 at 06:04 PM
p.8 #6D3x better than 5DII
Stono wrote:
I got both the D3X and the 1Ds MarkIII (and intend to keep both). And, of course, I have made detailed comparisons. Conclusion: Regarding ergonomic and focus the winner is clearly the D3X, but the winner with respect to image quality and low noice (ISO 100-400) goes to the 1Ds MarkIII. Regarding resolution, the difference is too small to matter.
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but the sad to conclude (money wise) is that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.
Pics?
I got both the D3X and the 1Ds MarkIII (and intend to keep both). And, of course, I have made detailed comparisons. Conclusion: Regarding ergonomic and focus the winner is clearly the D3X, but the winner with respect to image quality and low noice (ISO 100-400) goes to the 1Ds MarkIII. Regarding resolution, the difference is too small to matter.
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but the sad to conclude (money wise) is that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.
Pics?
Jan 25, 2009 at 06:07 PM
p.8 #7D3x better than 5DII
They're both terrific camera's in the right hands. In my opinion Ken does not possess the depth or skill to recommend a camera to anyone but an absolute novice. I'm brand agnostic. I own Canon, Hassy and Mamiya. They all serve a purpose for what I shoot, and all of my camera's have their pros and cons. A good photographer understands how to utilize these strengths and weaknesses to his advantage. So a claim for any camera to being superior is rather simplistic, if not outright absurd.
I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.
I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.
Jan 25, 2009 at 07:10 PM
p.8 #8D3x better than 5DII
Deezie wrote
I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.
Hey Deezie, watch out or you'll be put on a list.
I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.
Hey Deezie, watch out or you'll be put on a list.
Jan 25, 2009 at 09:52 PM
p.8 #9D3x better than 5DII
LeifG wrote:
This has got tedious. You say the following:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey....Show more →
How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and attack the author then IN MY OPINION you (or whoever does such a thing) has "a VERY low intellect". I feel and believe that people who personally attack others in forums and etc. FOR ANY REASON have an under-developed intellect. If you read back through this thread you will see people personally attacking Ken. When I wrote what I wrote those people blew a fuse because they were busted and weren't adult enough to apologize. Then they immediately turned it on me for expressing a fairly common sense moral principal - which convicted them. They took the conviction upon themselves. I stated a generality: People who personally attack others are often operating from a VERY low intellect; which they took personally I guess because they felt guilty of personally attacking others; Ken in this case.
The 50 messages attacking me PERSONALLY which followed just vindicated my feeling or belief in the axiom that people who attack others are weak minded and/or of a VERY low intellect.
I'm not abusing anyone. Not you, not Ken, not anyone. Whenever I read someone dogging him, [for] his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.
Make sense yet?
This has got tedious. You say the following:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey....Show more →
How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and attack the author then IN MY OPINION you (or whoever does such a thing) has "a VERY low intellect". I feel and believe that people who personally attack others in forums and etc. FOR ANY REASON have an under-developed intellect. If you read back through this thread you will see people personally attacking Ken. When I wrote what I wrote those people blew a fuse because they were busted and weren't adult enough to apologize. Then they immediately turned it on me for expressing a fairly common sense moral principal - which convicted them. They took the conviction upon themselves. I stated a generality: People who personally attack others are often operating from a VERY low intellect; which they took personally I guess because they felt guilty of personally attacking others; Ken in this case.
The 50 messages attacking me PERSONALLY which followed just vindicated my feeling or belief in the axiom that people who attack others are weak minded and/or of a VERY low intellect.
I'm not abusing anyone. Not you, not Ken, not anyone. Whenever I read someone dogging him, [for] his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.
Make sense yet?
Jan 25, 2009 at 11:16 PM
p.8 #10D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and...Show more →
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".
He's reputation and website are well known and some people without the necessary background/experience take him seriously and are guided the wrong way.
Just because I don't know much about baking cakes doesn't make me of limited intellect and if I go on a renowned website where they give recipes that sound plausible but turn out to be cr@p and I loose the money for the ingredients I wouldn't be happy about it especially if those ingredients cost thousands of $$$.
The problem I have with his reviews is that the site seems extremely professional and for somebody without a lot of photo experience is very hard to realize that his writing is extremely biased and sometimes plainly wrong probably on purpose to make it fun to read.
I do realize that people should do more do diligence and not believe everything they read but misleading people is not something that I find right.
LeifG wrote
This has got tedious. You say the following:"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and...Show more →
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".
He's reputation and website are well known and some people without the necessary background/experience take him seriously and are guided the wrong way.
Just because I don't know much about baking cakes doesn't make me of limited intellect and if I go on a renowned website where they give recipes that sound plausible but turn out to be cr@p and I loose the money for the ingredients I wouldn't be happy about it especially if those ingredients cost thousands of $$$.
The problem I have with his reviews is that the site seems extremely professional and for somebody without a lot of photo experience is very hard to realize that his writing is extremely biased and sometimes plainly wrong probably on purpose to make it fun to read.
I do realize that people should do more do diligence and not believe everything they read but misleading people is not something that I find right.
Jan 25, 2009 at 11:43 PM
p.8 #11D3x better than 5DII
dnenciu wrote:
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".
No, but attacking him on a personal level, name calling, etc. does! And that's what I said - nothing about expertise or skill levels. And it's MY opinion.
Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".
No, but attacking him on a personal level, name calling, etc. does! And that's what I said - nothing about expertise or skill levels. And it's MY opinion.
Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
Jan 26, 2009 at 02:38 AM
p.8 #12D3x better than 5DII
to quote Sam: Maurice for President!
anyone that takes the time to type out a well thought out argument deserves the title of the "guy who was right about this argument.
anyone that takes the time to type out a well thought out argument deserves the title of the "guy who was right about this argument.
Jan 26, 2009 at 03:09 AM
p.8 #13D3x better than 5DII
stono? what? so you disagree with DxO mark, with the general FM population on the d3x low ISO besting canon, and MOST OF ALL, me, a 1dIII 5dII 1dsII shooter that thinks DxO mark is flawed. I apoligize to call you out, but don't make your FIRST POST FALSE. it never looks good.
Jan 26, 2009 at 03:16 AM
p.8 #14D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and...Show more →
I think you could have avoided argument by expressing yourself more clearly, rather than using a term which seems not to be in general use. I have searched online dictionaries and I find two meanings of 'dogging':
1) "relentless and indefatigable in pursuit or as if in pursuit"
2) "The sexual practice of having sex in public places, especially parks, deliberately taking the chance of being watched."
However, your post above indicates that you think it can mean "criticise", in which case you say yet again that anyone who criticises Ken is of "VERY low intellect". But then you go on to say something like:
"Criticising Ken's writing is fine, but anyone who verbally abuses Ken, such as calling him an idiot, is IMO of VERY low intellect".
Many might agree with the above. I don't, though it is a reasonable point of view. But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
LeifG wrote
This has got tedious. You say the following:"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. "
Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?
As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.
Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and...Show more →
I think you could have avoided argument by expressing yourself more clearly, rather than using a term which seems not to be in general use. I have searched online dictionaries and I find two meanings of 'dogging':
1) "relentless and indefatigable in pursuit or as if in pursuit"
2) "The sexual practice of having sex in public places, especially parks, deliberately taking the chance of being watched."
However, your post above indicates that you think it can mean "criticise", in which case you say yet again that anyone who criticises Ken is of "VERY low intellect". But then you go on to say something like:
"Criticising Ken's writing is fine, but anyone who verbally abuses Ken, such as calling him an idiot, is IMO of VERY low intellect".
Many might agree with the above. I don't, though it is a reasonable point of view. But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
Jan 26, 2009 at 07:11 AM
p.8 #15D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
No, but attacking him on a personal level, name calling, etc. does! And that's what I said - nothing about expertise or skill levels. And it's MY opinion.
Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
No. You are either using the term dogging in a manner that is not widely understood, or you are inventing your own new meaning. It helps to write clearly.
dnenciu wrote
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
No. You are either using the term dogging in a manner that is not widely understood, or you are inventing your own new meaning. It helps to write clearly.
Jan 26, 2009 at 07:13 AM
p.8 #16D3x better than 5DII
Bifurcator wrote:
No, but attacking him on a personal level, name calling, etc. does! And that's what I said - nothing about expertise or skill levels. And it's MY opinion.
Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
I agree with you on that one and looking back at my initial post I might have come across as a personal attack, but it really gets me worked up when people promote KR and quote him as a reliable source.
dnenciu wrote
Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".Am I really dealing with people who can not read or what?
I agree with you on that one and looking back at my initial post I might have come across as a personal attack, but it really gets me worked up when people promote KR and quote him as a reliable source.
Jan 26, 2009 at 09:34 AM
p.8 #17D3x better than 5DII
LeifG wrote:
But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
"Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
"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."
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud.
But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
"Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
"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."
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud.
Jan 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM
p.8 #18D3x better than 5DII
TonyBeach wrote:
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ..."Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud....Show more →
Tony: it's not for me to tell you what to do, but if you are interested I see nothing wrong with the above quotes. But if you call him a clown, you cannot object to someone else insulting you. If they insult you first, best not to respond in kind.
LeifG wrote
But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud....Show more →
Tony: it's not for me to tell you what to do, but if you are interested I see nothing wrong with the above quotes. But if you call him a clown, you cannot object to someone else insulting you. If they insult you first, best not to respond in kind.
Jan 26, 2009 at 11:52 AM
p.8 #19D3x better than 5DII
LeifG wrote:
I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ..."Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
"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."
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud.Tony: it's not for me to tell you what to do, but if you are interested I see nothing wrong with the above quotes. But if you call him a clown, you cannot object to someone else insulting you. If they insult you first, best not to respond in kind.
Personally I don't think calling somebody a clown is demeaning especially if that is what he does. There is nothing wrong with entertaining others as long as they don't take you seriously.
TonyBeach wrote
LeifG wrote
But I do agree that Tony Beach and others would do better to restrict their criticism of Ken to his writings, rather than engage in personal attacks.I took a look at your web site as suggested by someone else, and there is some truly whacko stuff on it. Roll on armageddon ...
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
"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."
There is nothing personal in those criticisms; certainly not as personal as calling other people "boneheads". If later on I call him a clown, well so be it, because that's what he is. I'm no more insulting of KR than he is of those that disagree with him, and when his fans come to his defense by heaping insults on his detractors, they contribute to dragging photography forums down into the mud.
Personally I don't think calling somebody a clown is demeaning especially if that is what he does. There is nothing wrong with entertaining others as long as they don't take you seriously.
Jan 26, 2009 at 11:58 AM
p.8 #20D3x better than 5DII
this thread has gone haywire. Folks this is the internet and it is tough to have a "Miss Manners" around here. KR knows he is provocative , he banks on it actually. Do people have strong opinions about him , yes it is because he has either by design or coincidence has used those feelings to drive traffic to his little corner of the web and that means $$$$$ In the end he is laughing all the way to the bank. Personally i think it is by design, he pretty much says the same thing in various ways on his site. For anyone to get bent out of shape either in attacking him or being an apologist for him is circumspect as both tend to miss the point. He is a product of the internet , he is dependent on it and he knows how to leverage it very well. So to call him a clown or a genius is fine since neither will really be totally correct and both serve his ends very well.
thankfully i have my tin foil hat on so the black helo's cannot see me and the remote viewers thoughts are scrambled as well
thankfully i have my tin foil hat on so the black helo's cannot see me and the remote viewers thoughts are scrambled as well
Jan 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM