Should I buy anymore DX lenses?

[Bifurcator]

I got two impressions from reading the several pages I read.

1) He knows what he's doing but isn't being paid to be politically correct and therefor could be both refreshingly honest and blunt all at the same time. And,

2) He's never heard of a spell checker.

 

[Joves]

He is always to be taken with a block of salt. Just read his views on RAW formats for a good laugh. He likens all RAW formats to fruti that becomes rotten and, unusable. Calling the D700 a misfit would be another reason I have no use for him, if that is indeed where you got that idea.

 

[Garbz]

Read his so called reviews on the 80-200 AF-S or some of the other products where he gives his oh so important opinion on an item he has never used. A lot of his stuff is good, but some of it is down right wrong, or gives the wrong impression. The only problem I have with him is a lot of newbies end up at his site first, and they aren't able to sort the excellent information he has from the crap he sometimes comes up with.

Plus I don't like his photos which means his opinions don't qualify for me

 

[Mav]

He is always to be taken with a block of salt. Just read his views on RAW formats for a good laugh.

I take people that say to take Ken like a grain of salt like a grain of salt themselves. Hasn't steered me wrong yet!

 

[Mav]

Read his so called reviews on the 80-200 AF-S or some of the other products where he gives his oh so important opinion on an item he has never used.

Another reason I take Ken bashers like a grain of salt is because they keep repeating the same WRONG information, such as he doesn't actually review lenses. Most people who bash Ken don't even read his site, and prove that from their own ignorance about what he even writes.

So the 80-200 AF-S, right?

I'm going to poke a lot of fun at [size=+3]my[/size] 80-200 AF-S here, but remember that this is probably the sharpest zoom Nikon has ever made and it works like a dream. Don't let my whining distract you. It is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, zoom or not, period. It consistently delivers fantastic results that continue to impress me even after using this lens for [size=+3]five years[/size]

Right so I suppose that proves that he "doesn't own" the lens!

Out of sheer curiosity and boredom one day, I went through every single Nikon lens review on his site and fully 90% of them were ACTUAL HANDS ON PHYSICAL REVIEWS which just goes to show that the people that say he doesn't even touch the stuff he reviews are idiots. How the heck can you make distortion measurements or sharpness evaluations without actually shooting with the thing? For the 10% he didn't actually do a hands-on review for, the vast majority are super-teles that he has little to no interest in, are extremely rare to find and even more rare to borrow, and he openly acknowledges that he hasn't done a hands-on review and is just commenting because readers ask.

A lot of his stuff is good, but some of it is down right wrong, or gives the wrong impression.

Who are you to say? Isn't it all personal and subjective depending on what your priorities are?

The only problem I have with him is a lot of newbies end up at his site first, and they aren't able to sort the excellent information he has from the crap he sometimes comes up with.

I could say the same exact thing about forums like these. In fact I've seen FAR WORSE advice being given out on forums than I ever have on Ken's site, but that's a personal and subjective matter as well.

Plus I don't like his photos which means his opinions don't qualify for me

Well I do, so if he's "wrong" for you he's still right for me.


By the way I pointed some of this out for you the last time where your claims were just plain flat wrong, but you're still repeating the same crap. Any particular reason for that, or have you just bought into the lie as being the truth and refuse to be corrected?

 

[Senor Hound]

With Nikon bringing out full frame on the D700 how long do you think it will take before full frame will dribble down to D300 series and eventually whatever the D80 will be called?

Do you think DX lenses will be obsolete within 10 years?

What do you think a D700 will be worth 2 years from now?

I am asking these questions for future lens planning purposes. If a D700 will be worth $1500 in a couple of years maybe I'll stop buying DX lenses.

Wow. Whatever you do, remember speculation is just that. A famous investor (Warren Buffet?) once said trading on speculation is insanity, and you bet on what is here and now. I know this isn't stock, but this advice, IMO, holds true for all things with value. Its just too difficult to predict future trends.

As far as the smaller sensor sizes being phased out, I would kind of hope not. I like the 1.5 multiplier as a lover of wildlife. IMO since some like the crop factor, it will be something that they still offer on some models (though I could be wrong) a few years from now. But if YOU personally plan on buying a D3 or D700, then the obvious answer is, "no," you shouldn't keep buying DX lenses.

I don't know if this helps or not. I know I'm not as sure of myself as others are, but I really wouldn't make any rash decisions based on the release of this one camera. I could be left flat-footed three years from now, but I have a strong feeling I won't be.

One of my reasons for feeling so, is that there probably wouldn't have been a similar camera (D300) released so close to this one, if the D300 was a predecessor and considered part of the same line. Also, no matter how advanced the photo sensor technology gets, it will always (I would think) be cheaper to make one with a 1.5 crop factor. They'd probably stay with this if for no reason other than to maximize profit.

 

[Garbz]

My mistake it's the AF-D version he doesn't own. Lovely review on that one. I love the quote "I am not sure if it suffers the ghosting problem of the AF-S version" why isn't he sure? Maybe because he hasn't used it?

Most of it is subjective, you are right. But that's not the problem. The problem is that many of his reviews and some of his articles are treated as gospel. Who am I to say otherwise? Someone who's tried his way when reading it and found it to be utterly wrong at times.

Yes but we can expect a certain amount of missinformation on a forum. Whereas a site like Ken's which seems to be geared to educate the visitors this is unacceptable in my eyes.

By the way I pointed out last time my claims were right so please quit trolling my posts. Like him if you want. I don't for reasons mentioned and your opinion of him won't change that.