Ken Rockwell

[Abstract]

That's pretty nasty. i did not know that. Maybe i should be even more careful of his comparisons next time.

But he raved about his Canon 5D and said it was the best. He's not always about the Nikons, or he wasn't until Nikon released the D300 and D3. Yes, Ken loves his Nikons, as he has been using them for a long time, but he does admit when Canon does things better than Nikon.


His lens reviews are useless though. He reviews lenses he has never even tried. He'll even admit it. He just blindly believes that every Canon and Nikon lens will be fantastic, and will rate a lens based on it's MTF and specs. Sometimes he has tried the lens, and sometimes he hasn't. It's really embarrassing.

 

[ajpl]

Anyone who thinks Krockwell is OK should take note of this paragraph from his about page.

"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. "

The site is a wind up and he talks a lot of krock that is deliberately controversial and full of utter nonsense, to increase visitors and earn money through advertising/links.
One day he slags off RAW and how few shots you get on a memory card and the next he is promoting the 'Ultimate RAW' file. The Ultimate Raw file is apparently film, with only 10 or 36 shots on a roll.
Sadly all too many people believe he offers good advice. Not the case, as he offers lots of contradictory nonsense and argues against his own point of view most of the time.

 

[OreoCookie]

KenRockwell do give some good advice and tips but do yourself a favor and ignore his personal opinions cause he tend to be very biased and anything that he dont like is considered stupid, pointless and etc. etc. etc.

Not entirely true, he owns a 5D (perhaps also a 5D Mark II now) and Canon lenses. He hold this camera in very high regard, but he's clear that he prefers Nikon's UI. Although this is pretty obvious from his texts. There's no need to make him worse than he actually is.

If he's biased against some companies, it's the manufacturers he doesn't even mention, say Olympus or Sony. I also don't like his lens reviews most of the time, unless it's clear he has touched the lens. While for technical bits, I consult `scientific sources', his impressions of built quality and the feel of a lens, for instance, are rather accurate.

He's pretty plain about his style, so you get what he tells you to expect.

 

[ThunderRobot]

The site is a wind up

Which is fine if it's promoted as a satarical site in the way of The Onion or NewsBiscuit. But it takes a bit of digging to work that out.

Unfortunately he represents himself as a pro-photographer giving pro-photo tips which can cause confusion to many trying to learn the hobby.

 

[Milessio]

OceanView:
He's an idiot.
He makes controversy so that people will get upset.
He even admits it on his website

I'm sure that he writes the controversal pieces to make people THINK, not just to upset people or as a wind-up. If you don't agree with him & have a good reason why, then go your way, but don't just unthinkingly follow everybody else.

Also, if his site was only about making money, why does he recommend the lowly D40 & Canon SD880? Most people here recommend spending much more (which must please Nikon & Canon)!

 

[JNB]

I'll rely on Ken's advice photographically as much as I will Cramer's financially.

They're overstuffed egos in the entertainment business, albeit with a modicum of knowledge in their respective fields, and with a willingness to come off sounding like the Sham Wow guy.

 

[dinostars]

Which is fine if it's promoted as a satarical site in the way of The Onion or NewsBiscuit. But it takes a bit of digging to work that out.

Unfortunately he represents himself as a pro-photographer giving pro-photo tips which can cause confusion to many trying to learn the hobby.

wat? That doesn't really explain the "reader beware" section, which is the very top of his about me page.

 

[ThunderRobot]

wat? That doesn't really explain the "reader beware" section, which is the very top of his about me page.

Which is fine if you go into the about page. I suspect the majority of people who end up on his page get there via google. They most likely arrive, not on the home page or the about page, but on one of the tutorial or workshop pages which are packed with the kind of keywords a visitor would search for.

At that point a user is more likely to browse within the section they are already (and the subject matter which interested them enough to prompt the search in the first place) than go to an 'about' page.

There's a multitude of ways to show a site is satirical. With the exception of a couple of paragraphs in the about page, making up a tiny minority of his overall site, Rockwell employs none of them. He does give the impression of someone who is giving genuine advice and should be taken seriously however.

 

[Abraxsis]

Ken Rockwell talks a lot of sense IMO. Fretting about photo gear is playing the game the manufacturers want you to play. They want you to be paranoid and spendthrift. So some of Ken's messages can be a welcome antidote to this techno-nonsense.

While I agree, there are instances where this is a negative. Especially when he suggests the D40 over other more versatile cameras. Even going so far as to say that the D40 is a "nearly identical" version of the D80. This is so far off base that it is laughable. The D80 was built off the D200 platform, which is far superior. He even goes on to counter this original statement in the review. The whole thing is a laundry list of contradictions. I have included a link to the page for those wanting to read the source. Perhaps I read it differently that it was intended, but the above is what I get out of it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm

 

[wheelhot]

Not entirely true, he owns a 5D (perhaps also a 5D Mark II now) and Canon lenses. He hold this camera in very high regard, but he's clear that he prefers Nikon's UI. Although this is pretty obvious from his texts. There's no need to make him worse than he actually is.

Yea, he owns both Nikon and Canon but its obvious he prefers his Nikon, in fact reading some of his rants about the Canon system is laughable, but he did place a note that he exaggerates stuffs and such so for any real product comparison should go for scientific test sites such as dpreview or such.

So if you go to his site to learn some stuffs, its okay cause some of his photography tips is okay. When he starts comparing camera bodies, hit the close button and search other sites for some real reviews. Scientific tests is usually the best but it takes time, heck DPReview haven in finish with the 5D Mark II yet review yet (now only in preview). But just remember, juz cause scientific test proves that Camera A is better then Camera B, doesn't mean that in real life use this fact is 100% correct, sometimes in real life condition, you just cant see the difference where in scientific tests show a major flaw in the camera and such.
Reviews are great to know what to expect from a product but dont let it hypnotize your mind into the product. There are many others out there that might be as good or even better just sadly didn't get the spotlight it needed.

As for me, I read 2 kind of reviews, scientifically test reviews (cause it tends to be unbiased) and user reviews so I get judgement on what to expect, what not to expect, the product flaws (so I can check it out in real life to see if it bothers me or not).

 

[OreoCookie]

Yea, he owns both Nikon and Canon but its obvious he prefers his Nikon, in fact reading some of his rants about the Canon system is laughable, but he did place a note that he exaggerates stuffs and such so for any real product comparison should go for scientific test sites such as dpreview or such.

Not all factors can be put into science, e. g. whether or not you like a certain user concept. I'm not saying he's a prime source of information for me, but I think most of you are way too harsh with him here, especially considering the disclaimers he has put up.

Again, I find the glaring omission of some of the other players much more critique-worthy than his treatment of Canon.

 

[wheelhot]

Not all factors can be put into science, e. g. whether or not you like a certain user concept. I'm not saying he's a prime source of information for me, but I think most of you are way too harsh with him here, especially considering the disclaimers he has put up.

Well I guess you are correct that some of us get a bit harsh on him but I don't think he cares though cause all this controversial is giving his site traffic

 

[gnd]

Ken Rockwell Facts

Some people might find this amusing
Ken Rockwell Facts

 

[numbersyx]

A lot of people go mad over him, and, IMO they're missing the point. It's not a super-serious site all the time and some of the stuff on there is kind of bunk, but in general it's an entertaining read that does more good than harm. If only in the sense that you can sit there going 'oh, no, no, no... Ken, KEN!'

Keep your brain ticking and you can pick up the good bits while chucking the bad. It really is the photographer, as he says. He's also pretty clear that he knows he's a mediocre photographer at best (artistically), but he still has respect for real artists, even if he's not always sure who they are.

He's a hell of a laugh.

Edit: Forgot to say, what I really like is that he makes all his money from people buying gear off the back of his reviews and yes he spends half of his time saying 'it doesn't matter'. It's genius. Personally I'm getting back into the olympus trip - http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

Does he have some sort of agreement with the camera companies? Where's the evidence of this?

 

[carlgo]

I notice that people get the most upset when he doesn't endorse their favorite equipment. Or if he says the kit lens is just fine, when someone has just spent a fortune on a lens that weighs twice as much as the camera.

Criticizing his art is silly. Some people like dark and somber and others like lively and colorful.

Now he is recommending film because he is upset with trying to keep up with the latest in digital. It is interesting and makes you think.

And, he has an interesting auto page on his site.

 

[Apple Ink]

He makes all his intentions pretty clear in his 'about' page. He clearly say that all of it are his opinions and opinions alone!

I believe a lot of beginners fancy his style of writing! Probably because he isnt so harsh.... and probably because he says that an 18-55mm kit lens performs better than a $500 17-85 or 16-135 and suggests the kit over them in his opinion!

The problem is that these are his opinions.... unique to every single person! So be it a moral boosting venture or a complete disregard for technicalities and facts.... your choice how you look at it!

 

[iTiki]

I bought a Nikon D40 and based on his advise and have been very pleased with it. I bought the Nikkor 16-85 against his advise and have been very pleased with it. I look at KR as just one source for information, but so far agree with his opinions about 75% of the time. I visit his site (and others) daily and enjoy reading what's new.

 

[Abraxsis]

Some people might find this amusing
Ken Rockwell Facts

This is the funniest thing Ive read in awhile. The "like a" comment was especially creative. Kudos on giving me the belly laugh I needed right now.

 

[jag0009]

Anyone who thinks Krockwell is OK should take note of this paragraph from his about page.

"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. "

The site is a wind up and he talks a lot of krock that is deliberately controversial and full of utter nonsense, to increase visitors and earn money through advertising/links.
One day he slags off RAW and how few shots you get on a memory card and the next he is promoting the 'Ultimate RAW' file. The Ultimate Raw file is apparently film, with only 10 or 36 shots on a roll.
Sadly all too many people believe he offers good advice. Not the case, as he offers lots of contradictory nonsense and argues against his own point of view most of the time.

He probably made that statement about # of Raw images on a memory card when the 8gig/16gig cards were still bloody expensive.

One thing I agree with him and that is people who spend a fortune on expensive DSLR (D200, D700, D300 etc etc) and then buy cheap lenses.

 

[Cliff3]

He probably made that statement about # of Raw images on a memory card when the 8gig/16gig cards were still bloody expensive.

My very first CF card cost $200 and had a capacity of 10MB (in 1997). Heck, I was reviewing old B&H orders earlier this morning and noticed that I paid $115 for a 1GB 80x card a little less than 4 years ago. I ordered a couple of 4GB UDMA cards this week for $30 each after rebates (~150 lossless compressed 14-bit raw files per).

Rockwell was just ranting for the sake of ranting. That's his style.

 

[qveda]

If not Ken, then who?

I really enjoy Ken's site. A rich source of info and very well hyperlinked. As always with such sites and bogs, you take them as stimulation, and make your own decisions. His site is also very entertaining.

I've gotten more benefit and enjoyment from his site than most issues of the photo magazines - so I have paypal'd him donations a couple of times.

For those of you who are not fans, what similar sites do you like better ? (I've had difficulty finding others that I get as much overall value from )

 

[H2Ockey]

For those of you who are not fans, what similar sites do you like better ? (I've had difficulty finding others that I get as much overall value from )

eh, for starters i like

Thom Hogan
http://www.bythom.com
&
Digital Photography Review
http://www.dpreview.com

However, I don't like the layout of DPreview and Thom's site is blocked from work so I do often visit KtCNoPR (Ken "the Chuck Norris of Photography" Rockwell) when I'm wanting to quickly look up some specifications on lenses. I'll give him this, his site is very easy to navigate and he clips specifications on cameras and lenses right from the manufacturer so is pretty easy to find.

 

[localghost]

his website is a joke, a very old one at that (10 years to be exact).

the layout literally hurts my eyes, the pictures are average at best (if you can ignore those distastefully oversaturated colors).

i am really glad he’s writing so much nonsense, I would hate it if i had to visit this site to see what’s new.

for all the newbies following his advice – well, at least one thing that helps to keep the competition in the field at bay.

 

[numbersyx]

his website is a joke, a very old one at that (10 years to be exact).

the layout literally hurts my eyes, the pictures are average at best (if you can ignore those distastefully oversaturated colors).

i am really glad he’s writing so much nonsense, I would hate it if i had to visit this site to see what’s new.

for all the newbies following his advice – well, at least one thing that helps to keep the competition in the field at bay.

A tad unfair IMHO. He is opinionated and may say things that I don't agree with but he is interesting and entertaining...

 

[Cliff3]

eh, for starters i like

Thom Hogan
http://www.bythom.com
&
Digital Photography Review
http://www.dpreview.com

However, I don't like the layout of DPreview and Thom's site is blocked from work so I do often visit KtCNoPR (Ken "the Chuck Norris of Photography" Rockwell) when I'm wanting to quickly look up some specifications on lenses. I'll give him this, his site is very easy to navigate and he clips specifications on cameras and lenses right from the manufacturer so is pretty easy to find.

Hogan is a very good source for Nikon and general photography commentary. His body reviews and feature comparison tables are worth reading. He hasn't had time for formal lens reviews lately, which is good for his income and bad for us.

If it's Nikon lens specifications you're after, this site is the most comprehensive out there: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ - it's also linked to in the stickied links thread at the top of the forum. No commentary, just specification tables and a photo of each lens.

For Nikon-related lens reviews, Bjorn Rorslett's site is the one to visit: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html and it's also in the stickied links thread. He tends to be particular about which lenses he reviews, and the pace of his reviews is similarly slowing down.

I pretty much just lurk at dpreview, but I like looking at the galleries of some of the forum members over there. For example there's someone there with the handle bright angel who is based on Northern Arizona or Southern Utah who takes some really magnificent photos. There are a number of others - some of the work there is definitely worth emulating.