Ken Rockwell was right: your camera *doesn't* matter!

[stsinner]

Sometimes you just don't want that good of a picture. HD video and photo has RUINED the porn industry! Yuck!

 

[epp_b]

 

[skieur]

Within certain limitations and with some qualifications there is probably a grain of truth and accuracy in what he is saying.

After all, I doubt that anyone here could, from a selection of landscapes and snapshots determine which 10 megapixel point and shoot took which shot or for that matter which DSLR at 12 megapixels took which shots if the prints were all 5 by 7. Putting top lenses on some DSLRs and kit lenses on others would probably make a difference as well in the comparisons.

So, there are differences between point and shoot cameras and compacts and between compacts and DSLRs but the individual differences within the categories show up more in features, flexibility and ease of use, rather than in image quality. Full frame DSLRs are probably a category on their own. Yes there are differences but they do not show up in a lot of amateur or enthusiast shooting particularly by those with limited experience.

skieur

 

[panocho]

Excuse me if I'm speaking nonsense, but I think I remember Rockwell's writting about cameras don't matter and, if my memory doesn't fail, it was about film cameras. That doesn't eliminate the discussion at all, but it does make some important difference: the huge differences of sensors and pixels don't count there, since the film you're using is the same in both cameras. So that would be like having the D700's sensor on a disposable P&S!

Then the "only" difference that remains is that which has to do with controlling the camera vs letting the camera decide everything, maybe ramdomly. And -again, trusting my memory- in this regard Rockwell minimized that difference by referring to shoots in which one can somehow "control" a P&S camera: well lit situations, without a particular need for a controlled DOF, without action, etc

So the point could look somehow tricky but there was a serious point, seems to me: as some have written above, stop worrying about the gear and start shooting. Nice pictures will come out of a lot of a nice subject, a beatiful light... and a lot practising, not out of upgrading equipment.

And finally, as for the irony in that coming from a fetish camera gear man, it does contain a lot of irony, but on the other hand it can also be viewed as a way to balance the fetishism. And I am NOT trying to speak in favour of Rockwell in any way. As a matter of fact, I am not particularly fond of the guy... to express it nicely

 

[Garbz]

Excuse me if I'm speaking nonsense, but I think I remember Rockwell's writting about cameras don't matter and, if my memory doesn't fail, it was about film cameras.

He did make one comparison I remember between DSLR and a point and shoot. But in the typical Ken Rockwell style he completely pisses all logic and reason against the wall and says the noticeably worse picture taken in the most ideal and easily photographable scene (a tree in high noon ISO100 tiny aperture lighting conditions) is actually good enough and people don't need a DSLR. But I expected no more from the man who fellates the worst lens he owns.

KR fans may fall over themsevles looking for the article, forgive me if I am wrong it was like 2 years since saw it ever so briefly

 

[ANDS!]

I've never seen ROCKWELL say someone doesn't NEED a dSLR. He will regularly piss on dSLR's (because, like MATT DRUDGE, the best kind of stories/websites to visit are those where you vehemently disagree with whats being said), but the man DOES use them and goes ape**** over the D40.

The problem with KR haters is that they only look at the man from one side, while completely jettisoning his statements coming from the other side. Inevitably the whole "well he doesn't pay for his gear so he doesn't deserve to have an opinion" or the "omg have you see his pics. . .lolz!", which in my book greatly reduces the veracity of anyone arguing against the fellow. Argue what he's actually saying, not just the portion you've allowed yourselves to see.

 

[JerryPH]

That's twice now that you've mentioned my comment about his not getting free equipment from Nikon and not in a loaner sense. I was nice and let it go the first time... not this time. Ken Rockwell HIMSELF had an entry on his own site stating this... so I would not want to be the one spreading BS rumors when I saw this on his own site by his own admission.

Second. I do not hate KR becuase he gets free equipment. I could sincerely not care less. I am not a hater, but I am not a fan of someone that mixes facts with his personal opinion and spreads both as gospel. There is so much BS peddled on his site as fact that THIS is why the man is considered the court jester of the online photography community.

Now, I will say it again... note the number of people that support him and the number of people that openly laugh at him. Correlate those numbers to the experience level of the supporters and what you call "haters" and you will see that people who have fallen for his dangerous mix of good info and BS are those of lower experience and those that have gained enough experience to see through his BS are the ones laughing.

I've said it before... he may be a pretty darn good photographer, but I use a HUGE shaker of salt any time I visit that site... and I haven't in close to a year now... it did not take me long to see through the difference between fact and fiction on his site and I don't patronize the site of someone that calls his own site "a joke" and then asks for donations.

Pfft... thats what I think of Rockwell.

 

[TUX424]

KR seems to have a problem with sigma, he writes off every sigma ever made a crap. Now i have shot on a few sigma and they are quilty peices of glass sure the texture is sorta stange on them but who really cares. (KR seems to care alot about little tiny things like that) Now im not one of those people that follow every thing that he says but he does have somethings that i like to read. One thing that i like about his site is the vast array of old nikon lens that he reviews, i just like to look back on the days decades before me. But alot of things that KR has to say are true. I dont love him but i dont hate him.

 

[JerryPH]

Some Sigma are pure crap... while some Sigma are superior to even Nikkor gold ring lenses at 1/3rd the price. If this is true, it would be typical KR propaganda... lol. One cannot generalize about an entire company's quality in one sentence, it should be done on a case by case basis.

 

[panocho]

One thing that i like about his site is the vast array of old nikon lens that he reviews, i just like to look back on the days decades before me.

Just a side note, in case you don't know; ignore it if you do: if you want to check reviews of older Nikon lenses, there are some other sites, like this one, for instance:

Lens Evaluations

Personally, I find one like this MUCH more realiable and worth reading than Rockwell's "reviews". I do agree in the Sigma-fobia issue, by the way. And I also agree with what JerryPH said about being mostly beginners those who like his site, mainly because beginners tend to search for, as Jerry puts it, "a gospel" that gives easy, fast and simple guidelines. That, I think, is far from being a really useful help. I would never trust a reviewer who starts a review saying things like "buy it" or "ignore it, get this one instead". But I guess there are a lot of those who just need reading those phrases to instantly click on the links he himself provides and spend their money without the minimum criterion. Not to speak of the numerous contradictions his opinions seem to envolve. All this, of course, regardless of the possibility that now and then one can find something useful.

Anyway, the man has us here discussing about him! And I'm sure many places elsewhere, as well. That's precisely what he wants and what he aims for when he writes what he writes!

 

[panocho]

That's twice now that you've mentioned my comment about his not getting free equipment from Nikon and not in a loaner sense. I was nice and let it go the first time... not this time. Ken Rockwell HIMSELF had an entry on his own site stating this... so I would not want to be the one spreading BS rumors when I saw this on his own site by his own admission.

Congratulations to Rockwell! He got what he wants: I've just visited his site.

I've done it because it sounded to me that he frequently claimed on his articles that he didn't get anything for free from Nikon. So I found this in the "about me" page:

"I don't get anything from Nikon. They don't even give me the time of day! No loaners (except for the left handed F100 I got before this site went on-air), no special help, no advance information, no hats or even pens. Nothing. Nada. Squat. They don't even send me press releases on time. I always hear about new things from you folks first!" (See: About KenRockwell.com , "How Much Does Nikon Pay Me?" section)

So now I'm very curious if you could provide a link for where he says the opposite. That would be the definitive contradiction, wouldn't it?

 

[Garbz]

If I was as openly hated as him then I would write a page like that on my site too.

Evidence or no evidence, many people believe it and it does fit nicely given what he says about all his cheap gear vs his expensive gear.

 

[JerryPH]

So now I'm very curious if you could provide a link for where he says the opposite. That would be the definitive contradiction, wouldn't it?

As I said, I've not visited his site in about a year. I have no intention of perusing through it either. It was there when I was new and a "KR fan" and about 1-2 months into my D200. That was about the time I started seeing inconsistencies and other things that showed to me what the place really was... useless to me, and slowly stopped visiting and did not visit since. The line, if I recall went something like "it doesn't matter that I haven't paid for a camera since (whatever, I cannot recall)...". It was clear how that statement was meant.

I recall thinking how stupid it was to write on his site, becuase I already started to notice how unpopular he was. As I learned more and started to discern his opinion from fact, I saw it was not a good place to go and I just dropped the garbage off on the curb and moved on.

 

[Patrick]

So, which advanced functions and settings did this guy use? Heck, I've heard he never even figured out how to put batteries in that camera.

Skill can make up for a lack of equipment. Sometimes to an extreme degree.

I agree

 

[Patrick]

You know Jerry, I've come and gone from this forum many times since 2003 and since then there is always one. Some just don't get it.
The proof is right in Ansel Adams gallery of masterpieces. A wooden camera, tripod and some Kodak tri-x. uncoated lens, no AF. I don't believe he even had 3-D matrix metering (LOL) and I bet he couldn't even get 2 shots off a minute. No light meter.
WWII turned out some of the most moving images ever captured. All manual camera (issued one at that) and some developed in the dead of night using their helmet.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, hell I learn more everyday. But how on earth can you say the camera makes the Image not to photographer with the masters we've seen in the past?

It's good to be enthusiastic. But open your mind and for a minute think about your stance on such a subject. Just because you don't personally care for KR doesn't mean he's always wrong either.