Ken Rockwell is an idiot: Your camera DOES matter.

[adolan20]

"Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him."


Haha that's my favorite one!

 

[goodoneian]

i like reading ken rockwells stuff since he has "reviews" on almost every nikon lens, but i never really take any of it to heart.

 

[lostprophet]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+4]About Me and My Site[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Caveat Lector![/SIZE] (reader beware!) [/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]just a shame some people never seem to understand the above
[/FONT]​

About KenRockwell.com

 

[Garbz]

i like reading ken rockwells stuff since he has "reviews" on almost every nikon lens, but i never really take any of it to heart.

This is good. You are one of us It's the people who take his word as gospel and preach it on that should be banned from the internet, and unfortunately he's usually the number 1 google hit.

 

[dcclark]

This is good. You are one of us It's the people who take his word as gospel and preach it on that should be banned from the internet, and unfortunately he's usually the number 1 google hit.

Then again, there are those of us who read his stuff, think about it, and realize that there's a kernel (or more) of really good ideas in there. Then we internalize it and use it to make good photos. It's equally ridiculous to claim that Ken is God or to claim that his advice is 100% worthless -- as with most things in life.

 

[Garbz]

Oh some of it is good. But some pages on his site a truly 100% worthless. I'm just upset because the people who can't sort the cheese from the chalk often take some really silly ideas of his site.

 

[Mike_E]

And after an interminable time listening to the griping you are reminded of a kid that's just found out about Santa Clause.

 

[Battou]

I don't like all this Ken Rockwell this Ken Rockwell that BS but....

Someone with an EXIF reader want to tell everyone what this was shot with
Straight out of the camera no processing

Bigger here

I already know what it was shot with but it sounds better comming from someone else. But I personally would be hard pressed to improve on that in any aria other than noise.

Additionally (My sister) the woman who took it is not a photographer in any respect, She would not know Photoshop from MSpaint.

Yes, I have permission to use it, if yall where wondering.

Conversely I don't believe a P-Shooter can do everything an SLR can do.

Seriously, People need to be less relyant on other people. Ken Rockwell this Ken Rockwell that...Bull, When someone sais "I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly." that means get up away from the computer and figure it out on your own.

 

[JerryPH]

That is the danger. How is a newbie who knows little to nothing, able to differentiate between his (rare) good and (rampant) BS? They cannot, and then they go around spouting this BS as exactly that... gospel.

Bottom line... KR, as a source of info, is completely unreliable. They only people that have a chance of separating the wheat from the chaff are the ones that know what is BS on his site, and what is not... and therefore don't really need him in the first place.

I believe that he does more damage to the newbies than good. Too bad for him, and twice as "too bad" for the newbies.

Battou, your EXIF data:
# Image Description = IM000444.JPG
# Camera Make = Hewlett-Packard
# Camera Model = Photosmart M305
# Picture Orientation = normal (1)
# X-Resolution = 72/1 = 72
# Y-Resolution = 72/1 = 72
# X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
# Software/Firmware Version = .06_NL
# Last Modified Date/Time = 2005:08:14 13:41:35
# Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)
# Copyright Owner = Copyright 2003-2004

But... it really doesn't matter who says what your EXIF shows, the picture, when compared to this ... as an example, shows things that no P&S will ever be able to do. There is a reason we pay for the fast glass and fast cameras. If there was no reason, we'd all be either chucking vast amounts of money out the window, or all be shooting with $50 cameras.

This is one terrible vicious circle that keeps going around and around. If people think that they can do as well with P&S cameras as a good dSLR, go right on believing it. I totally agree with you that people need to stop relying on KR as any form or reliable source. That place, for a newbie... is so wrong on many levels.

 

[Battou]

Battou, it doesn't matter what yours was shot with... becuase when compared to this ... as an example, shows things that no P&S will ever be able to do. There is a reason we pay for the fast glass and fast cameras. If there was no reason, we'd all be either chucking vast amounts of money out the window, or all be shooting with $50 cameras.

Well, I guess we dun figured that out on our own didn't we

 

[JerryPH]

Well, I guess we dun figured that out on our own didn't we

We shoor dun did mah frend.

 

[Battou]

We shoor dun did mah frend.

You cought me replying again too :lmao:

 

[LWW]

I went to his site to check this article out. Since there's no link in the OP I assume it is this --- > Your Camera Doesn't Matter article?

If so, I'm not sure what it is that you take issue with?

LWW

 

[DScience]

Please if you're going to test the validity of something then do it more scientifically. Identical frames, identical exposures, tripod.

It's interesting how you dis this guy and try and say he should be 'valid' when Ken, in his test, used a tripod for the expensive camera and not for the P&S. So, in essence Ken was not anymore scientific than the guy who posted this thread.

 

[chip]

If your camera does not matter, I wonder why should anybody read Ken Rockwell's many camera reviews? I means who cares which one to use or buy when the camera does not matter anyhow.


If your camera does not matter, I wonder why does Ken Rockwell own more fancy cameras than most people? He may claim that he's only buying the cameras to review for us. Why doesn't he sell them as soon as he's done with his reviews?


If your camera does not matter, I wonder why he kept raving about his new $7000 Leica M9 body only when he could have bought a "true raw" 35mm disposal camera from WalMart for $7 with a lens?


I think this guy is full of it. I read his articles with a grain of salt.