Ken Rockwell?

[Caty1113]

Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?

 

[Josh66]

Yes, it's all true. Even the parts about aliens.


He does have some semi-useful stuff on there, and it is entertaining to read - but take it all with a huge chunk of salt.

Read his 'About' section and you will see that the whole thing is a joke.

 

[Overread]

Also a fair amount of Ken's "serious" advice is rather biased toward his viewpoint on photography and his style of work/shooting. If that's in line with you it works - if not its miss leading. Generally its a site many advise beginners avoid because the advice is very weighted and its best read once you actually have some ability to sift the fact from the opinion.

 

[KmH]

Visit Ken's About Me and My Site page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. ....

 

[macpro88]

From his site:

"This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact.""


​Some of his stuff is useful and good to get to know the basics, but don't take everything literal...



EDIT: Ninja'd...

 

[sleist]

It all stuff designed to drive up site traffic. Controversial comments increase clicks. It's a mix of good information, bad information, and total BS. Unfortunately, some people don't know enough to know which is which. This is the biggest gripe people have with him. I love when he reviews stuff he hasn't actually used. Just know not to use him as the final word on anything and you'll be fine.

 

[ulrichsd]

Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?

I think he is trying to make the point that it is the photographer's imagination and abilities and not the equipment that makes a good photograph. For instance a 40 year 35mm camera system (<$250) in the hands of a professional will yield far better results than a D7000 in the hands of a beginner.

 

[DScience]

Just because he says that the info is of fictional value (opinion) doesn't mean he's useless. That's just his way of laying out a disclaimer. Anyway, I love Ken Rockwell. I agree with A LOT of what he posts about equipment. He's helped guide me to buy several purchases: Nikon 105mm f/1.8 AIS, Fujifilm X100, Nikon 24mm f/2.8D. Also, he put out an amazing manual for the D700 which I thought was extremely helpful.

If you are curious about older lenses (nikon and some canon) or even newer lenses, I would say check out what he has to say. But it's not like he's a god or anything who should be revered.

 

[Crollo]

He's just a guy who posts his own opinions on items, and he heavily uses sarcasm for his own humour. I think people who call him an idiot need to grow up, it's just entertainment.

 

[Overread]

I always find it amazing how he gets high rankings in Google all the time - when he's hardly more than one or two photos on his website. And how much people talk about him. Whatever he might be he's an expert in marketing himself!

 

[Buckster]

Here's the problem I have with Ken Rockwell:

Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?

Untold numbers of people who don't know any better are getting total crap for information from that idiot.

 

[Derrel]

I've been buying, using, and reading about Nikon lenses since the early 1980's...Ken Rockwell's opinions on most lenses are very good in terms of the opinions of a real-world, experienced Nikon lens user. He has some very spot-on points about how various Nikkors actually handle and shoot, warts and all. For the person looking for good information about the MANY,many discontinued lenses Nikon has made, or about Nikon camera/lens compatibility, Ken's charts and comments and reviews are, in my opinion, some of the best.

He does a lot of "family" photography of his kids and his travels, and so he does have a preference for convenience in terms of the modern DX Nikkor zoom lenses. BUT, and this is the thing--a LOT of the "new" Nikkor zoom lenses have one,two,or even three aspherical elements and one to three ED glass elements. What does that mean? It means that a LOT of the old so-called wisdom about how wide a zoom ratio can be before image performance goes to hell is now outdated B.S.. I see a lot of bad-mouthing and chit-talking about various Nikkor lenses from certain people over and over...like for example on the AF-S G 70-300mm VR Nikkor f/4.5~5.6...there are "some" people that keep saying it's not a good lens...well...the "old 70-300 G was a POS; the old 70-300 ED glass was "okay"; the new 70-300 AF-S VR is is QUITE decent! I bought one, cheap, $349,pawn shop...it's a surprisingly good lightweight, easy-to-carry tele-zoom.

Nikon 70-300mm VR

 

[unpopular]

he's just an old man who recently discovered the internets.

 

[sovietdoc]

Ken Rockwell? Who is that?

 

[DScience]

he's just an old man who recently discovered the internets.

What are you talking about? When did you start using the internet?

"I started this website in 1999 as a way to share the photos I took each weekend with my friends. I took one free class in how to use Dreamweaver back in 1999, and that's my only formal instruction in making websites."