Any Major Differences Besides Price?

I think I just don't like his site - it looks cheapy..............


I agree... but on the other hand you visit there for opinion and technical data and not for the latest internet macromedia flash techniques...

He is mostly irrelevant to you as a Canon shooter. While he often praises Canon gear most of his articles are Nikon related.

Did you read the link? What do you think you are?

I think I'm half measurbator and half amateur...lol...
 
well I am no artist, pro, snapshooter or whore,

I must be an amateur
Amateurs almost always shoot Canon SLRs

Possibly I was once a rich amateur - 70-200mm in first year - though not any more since then ;)
An equipment masturabter (I prefer luster!) on some level yes since I do aim to get the best kit I can though unlike his assessment I do intent to use it!
Might be a bit of armchair in me too - well I don't have an armchair to sit on so that might be wrong ;)

reading his writing he does tend to be rather quick to assess and all sweeping with his statements!
 
because i'm looking at the d90 and swaying between it and the d300.. what is it that makes him a joke?

He's a hypocrite and an honest fanboy.

Up until one point, I think he had a post on his blog about how crop sensors were the future of DSLRs and that full frames were dinosaurs with no real place in the world. Then when Nikon announced the D3, he was all about FF sensor tech. Plus there's other contradictions and general crap rants through out his blog.

Maybe a person could take him seriously if he was objective and didn't act like a 16 year old half of the time.
 
Wow. I didn't realize all of that stuff about him. When I was trying to decide between the D80 and the D300, his site was ONE of the sites I looked at. That was for the main differences between the two, though. It was factually based and not just his opinion. The portion I read, that is.
 
i was looking at reviews and i dont know how reliable kenrockwell.com is or not but he seems to like the d90 much better then the d300 which is also something im looking into. hopefully someone that has good experience with both will do a comparison.

I would wait until the D90 has been out for a little while. Not many people, as of right now, will have much experience with BOTH.
 
He's a hypocrite and an honest fanboy.

Up until one point, I think he had a post on his blog about how crop sensors were the future of DSLRs and that full frames were dinosaurs with no real place in the world. Then when Nikon announced the D3, he was all about FF sensor tech. .

This is misleading.... Nikon themselves stated way back the future was gonna be DX... why do you think the 70-200 vignetted on a full frame?.... ooops...

for a while in the late 90's early 00's it did look like DX was gonna be the format of the future...

he has been at this a while.... he is certainly entitled to change his opinion from time to time.... i know i have.. that link I posted was written way back in 2000... things have changed a little since...

his sweeping statements and generalizations are his humor... you either like it or you don't..

I don't even know why you bother commenting on him VI... he's certainly not aiming at you to be his target audience.... it's kinda like putting down a clown for using silly jokes to entertain children...
 
Last edited:
I think DSLR's with video is going to become the standard... all DSLR's will have video at some point. I've seen some videos made with a D90, and they look pretty good. Shooting video with a good lens at f1.8 with the narrow DOF, or shooting with a super wide angle lens, I think it's very cool, even though I have no plans to become a videographer, besides, I already have a Sony Handycam. Anyway, I've been saving for a D300, but I think I may wait to see if the D300's replacement will have video.
 
ken rockwell is a joke.

I think I disrespectfully disagree. He's no more of a joke than any of us here. In fact he's MUCH less of a joke than most of us here IMHO as he's got the gonads, time, energy, and skill to put up a site with intelligent comments, considerations, opinions, and critique and most of us here do not!

If he makes a mistake or two no big deal. If he has a different opinion than you or I, then that's just what it is - a difference of opinion.
 
He's a hypocrite and an honest fanboy.

Up until one point, I think he had a post on his blog about how crop sensors were the future of DSLRs and that full frames were dinosaurs with no real place in the world. Then when Nikon announced the D3, he was all about FF sensor tech. Plus there's other contradictions and general crap rants through out his blog.

Sounds like a real human being! I like him already! Thank you!
 
yea i've got a while before i make my decision... I've got a wedding the end of november and it will be after this wedding that I get a new body.. i know chase jarvis speaks very highly of the D90 as a "amature pro" camera... we'll see what happens. heres chases review
http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2008/08/chase-jarvis-raw-advance-testing-nikon.html

So your dilemma is between the D90 and the D300?

What are the pros and cons of each in your mind?

To me the D90 is awesome for it's video but the D300 is much better (higher grade) as a pure dSLR but I haven't laid my hands on a D90 yet - so I'm just going by the spec sheets.
 
What are the pros and cons of each in your mind?

i know this wasnt directed at me but i feel some people here maybe able to help me.

d90 pros id be getting it brand new and it is a brand new camera with menu upgrades and the like.

d90 cons plastic

d300 pros AF, better metering (from what iv read), all metal and weather sealed.

d300 cons older model camera

i plan on taking mostly concert photos in dark situations and i do it from usually the front row so its hot and humid and id be getting bumped around alot and the d300 seems much better for that.

is the better auto focus, metering, and construction of the d300 worth getting a used camera instead of a new one?
 
i know this wasnt directed at me but i feel some people here maybe able to help me.

d90 pros id be getting it brand new and it is a brand new camera with menu upgrades and the like.

d90 cons plastic

d300 pros AF, better metering (from what iv read), all metal and weather sealed.

d300 cons older model camera

i plan on taking mostly concert photos in dark situations and i do it from usually the front row so its hot and humid and id be getting bumped around alot and the d300 seems much better for that.

is the better auto focus, metering, and construction of the d300 worth getting a used camera instead of a new one?

Who says you have to buy it used? Go out and buy yourself a brand new D300!:mrgreen:
Gosh, even when Nikon comes out with something better than the D300, you could always sell your D300 to fund the newer, "better" model.
OR you could get a D300, wait until the new model comes down in price a tad (probably 2 or so years when Nikon finally comes out with something even "NEWER" to top that), and THEN sell your D300.


I don't know...I just feel like if you keep chasing the "newer" models, you'll never know WHAT you're happy with.
I won't be getting rid of my D300 anytime soon, I know that. Even if something comes out with video (that matches the D300), at BEST, I MIGHT buy the D90 at that point. But probably not. I'll probably just buy a separate camcorder or whatever.


You'll still want a fast lens if you're going to be doing concert shooting.:mrgreen:
I would LOVE to shoot some concerts.
 
What is the D700? :D

Ha, well, I know there's the D700, but it's full frame, the D300 isn't. But, now that I think about it, if they come out with a "new" D300 with video or something like that, I guess that wouldn't really be comparable either.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top