Ken Rockwell

[Acsom]

Ken Rockwell isn't in the photography business; he is in the Ken Rockwell business.

As long as you remember that, you'll be OK.

 

[RebootD]

At first he angered me and then I realized he just wants you to click on his paid links to stores so he can get money from them.

While I don't agree with him on *only buy nikon/canon lenses*(I love my Tammy 17-50 2.8 and don't regret it for a second so take that Ken!) I do agree on the photo gear BS that a lot of us play into.

I started with a D50 and only moved up to the D300 when I needed things like sync/more manual controls/better body. When the D400 comes out will I hop on it? Nope! Until my D300 dies or doesn't have something I need I hope to carry it around for years to come. I still have my D50 I use for P&S days.

That is really what Ken is about (after making money off his site) and the rest is just entertainment.

 

[rouxeny]

I've always thought that there were some interesting points on his site. Clearly, the idea that the person is more significant than the camera in terms of taking a good picture is very valid. I think that's pretty much inarguable. I think some of his comments about RAW vs JPEG are also correct. Taking a good picture is always better than trying to "fix" one, although I have to admit I'm as guilty as anybody. I am also appalled by how large my RAW files are, and wonder how much larger they'll get. Plus, I worry that RAW, like MP3, JPEG, or my old school papers written on MultiMate, will eventually be rendered obsolescent and unreadable. For a person not interested in doing any post-processing, RAW is obviously overkill.

Regardless, I've always figured it's better to take pretty much everything on the internet with a big, hypertension inducing, grain of salt.

 

[RebootD]

Plus he also is the guy who two years ago proclaimed the D40 + 18-200 VRII was the 'only camera setup you will ever need! EVER!" and now he is on a 'RealRaw' kick and going back to film so yeah a HUGE grain of salt!

 

[Acsom]

I think some of his comments about RAW vs JPEG are also correct.

No statement proclaiming one over the other can be "correct"; there is no correct answer, there is only a choice for each user to make. To come down on one side or the other as a pundit is to ignore the wide range of users, and the wide range of solutions available to them. RAW works for me, jpeg works for you, and our photographs look great. The simple act of recommending a solution for all users makes his opinion not worth considering, other than as entertainment.

HOWEVER. I have gotten some good information from Ken. I had a battery grip for my old Canon F1N, that I had no idea how to use; a search turned up a tutorial on his site. I wrote him an email thanking him for posting it, and received back a very nice, "You're welcome."

 

[madmaxmedia]

He provides somewhat good info for the beginner, but don't hang on every word of his. He's a douche. He's cocky. He thinks he knows it all. Quite frankly, his photos suck. His shots aren't anything interesting, they all look like a point & shoot, and they are all over saturated with color. He's overly biased towards Nikon DSLR's. Someone needs to tell him that it's no longer 1997, and that website are more dynamic, using Flash technology and such things these days.

In many of his reviews he mentions switching the color/saturation of cameras to vivid mode. A little too much for me to do full-time...

I appreciate his reviews and articles but take them with a grain of salt. I basically regard them as something I might find from some random blog on the internet- it's good to get another POV but certainly wouldn't make a buying decision based solely on it.

I don't read his site enough to have an opinion of his humor, demeanor, or photography.