Ken Rockwell is an idiot: Your camera DOES matter.

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by anubis404, Apr 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anubis404

    anubis404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    After viewing Ken Rockwells test of a P&S compared to a 5DmII and a 17-40 F4 in disbelief, I thought I'd do a little test of my own. KR's test pictures look very similar in sharpness, contrast, etc. Mine don't.

    Nikon D70s with Sigma 18-50 F2.8 is the first, the second is with a Casio Exilim 6mp PS. Both with the same exact settings except for F stop (D70s at F3.3, Casio at F3.1)


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Need I say more?
     
  2. OregonAmy

    OregonAmy New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City MO
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    I'm not sure you'll get a lot of argument here. It seems pretty clear that Equipment + User makes a big difference; both contribute to the quality of photographs.
     
  3. adolan20

    adolan20 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Yeah I never did enjoy that article he had about it. Most people on here take some of his advice and ignore the rest. After reading that article, it made me think why does he have a D3 then? Why doesn't he just use a $25 camera as he suggested it took better pictures than his D3. It didn't make sense. Oh and the camera actually doesn't matter it depends on the person behind it:mrgreen:. Plus, the Casio doesn't have the metering capabilities that your D70s has.
     
  4. elemental

    elemental Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    I can't even say I'd recommend any of his advice, and I'll be a Nikon shooter as of tomorrow. I suspect even the things I agree with just because some of his other statements are so ridiculous. Even if Kanye came up with some great solutions to solve America's deep class, race, gender, and sexual orientation issues, it would be impossible for me to get the look on Mike Myers' face out of my mind ("George Bush does not care about black people"). That's how I feel about Ken Rockwell and photography. Ta=hat said, some of his out west shots are gorgeous.
     
  5. adolan20

    adolan20 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Yeah I enjoy his lens reviews and some of his camera reviews but other than that I'm not too fond of any of his articles. But, he did say in an article that I shouldn't waste my money on the D80. As you can see I clearly didn't listen:mrgreen:
     
  6. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    well.... the 1st one is underexposed, the second over exposed....

    why don't you try a little harder?......

    1st by matching the frames so they are identical

    2nd by matching the exposure

    then throw them both out there without labels...
     
  7. Mike_E

    Mike_E Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Upper West Side of Mississippi (you have no i
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +271 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Why do you take the guy seriously when he plainly states that he's joking?
     
  8. nikonpreap

    nikonpreap New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
     
  9. anubis404

    anubis404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    I'm not debating artistic value, I'm debating image quality.

    Both were on manual, both at 1/1000, F3.1 or 3.3.
     
  10. anubis404

    anubis404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Minute differences in the exposure and framing do not invalidate my point. The differences are obvious.
     
  11. dcclark

    dcclark New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houghton, MI
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Well, I'll make the rather obvious statement that the point of his article is not that any two random cameras with the same settings will produce the same photos. It's that, in the hands of a user who knows what they're doing, two different cameras can both produce equally excellent (or poor) images.

    Taking two cameras, fixing the settings, and saying "look, the photos are not equal" says nothing useful at all. If you are experienced enough to understand how both cameras take photos -- how they tend to over or under expose, etc. -- you can make both photos look just fine.

    But more importantly, it's entirely up to YOU as to how well-composed, lit, arranged, etc. the photo is. No camera can do that, and that's the real point of that article. You just took two equally uninteresting sample photos using an expensive and a cheap camera. Did you need a $3000 camera to do that?

    So while I'm not saying Ken is a god or anything, I am saying that you seem to be misinterpreting the point of that article entirely.
     
  12. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit

    umm.... okay then...:raisedbrow:
     
  13. anubis404

    anubis404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    You are so quick to accuse me of misinterpretation when you yourself fail to interpret my post. An intelligent monkey could've discerned that I am not debating the importance of the role of a photographer. I, like Ken, took and expensive camera and a cheap camera, fixed the settings, and took an uninteresting photo. A third grade science teacher could've taught you the importance of conducting a controlled experiment. So before you run in here screaming "No!! its da photographer that matterz!", maybe you should get your facts straight. If debunking Ken's picture test offended you in some way, then I apologize.
     
  14. dcclark

    dcclark New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houghton, MI
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    My apologies, I assumed you were specifically referring to Your Camera Doesn't Matter, based on your posts and the title of the thread.

    That said, the article you referred to clearly states that he adjusted the settings on each camera to give better results -- i.e., exactly what I said. The article I linked to, rather, makes the point that the photographer is more important than the camera -- this is just on example of why that is true.

    Please, no need to call names -- that's quite unnecessary.
     
  15. anubis404

    anubis404 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Then I should've been more specific. I optimized the point and shoot's settings for the occasion, just not the shutter speed and aperture. The LCD was very dim, and I didn't quite hit the exposure on the head. The point of this whole thread was to raise an eyebrow or two to the credibility of Ken's test.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
ken rockwell
,
ken rockwell hdr
,
ken rockwell idiot
,

ken rockwell is an idiot

,
ken rockwell is an idiot - bing
,
nikon 24-50mm ken rockwell
,
nikon f301 ken rockwell
,
rockwell
,
sigma 17-70 review ken rockwell
,
sigma ken rockwell