RH "a maverick" according to 1001Noisycameras.com

cateto · 10-29-2008, 04:41 AM

I just found this entry in www.1001noisycameras.com :

The Mavericks - 1001 Noisy Cameras

"October 29, 2008

The Mavericks

It is election season and one of the buzz words of the season is "maverick". So how about the photography and camera world? Let's spotlight some mavericks, mavericks for different reasons, but mavericks none-the-less!

We start with the super-maverick, Ken Rockwell. Every single iota Rockwell publishes is subject to intense debate. Posts like $5 film camera versus $5,000 dSLR are instant classics. A unique style, both in content and presentation create a unique identity for the Ken Rockwell website.

The next maverick is Thom Hogan. Thom is considered among the internet photographers as the #1 Nikon pundit, and every word he writes is read and analyzed by thousands of Nikonians. Further maverick points for not using a traditional publishing-industry approach to his e-books, and instead going direct to the photographers. And bonus maverick points for a "1.0" website, and *gasp* no RSS feed.

Next up, we have Rice High, with a maverick approach to brand loyalty, and the maverick style of Rice High is frequently drawing the ire of some Pentaxians.

There are hundreds (if not thousands) blogs about the photography business and the business of photography, but very few have the unique style and approach of Foto-Biz.com. A spartan but cutting style that gets straight to the point, as if each word costs dearly and has to be used judiciously.

Agree? Disagree? What other mavericks did we miss?"

I couldn't avoid to post to state what I think about this "Maverick". It's an absolute shame that he's cited along the names of Hogan or Rockwell.

Photo Tramp · 10-29-2008, 05:03 AM

It's a shame he is quoted period. But a troll is still a troll wether he is a member of a forum or not. We all know there are problems with all cameras, and we have discussed the problems with Pentax many times and have found either fixes or work arounds for those problems, but RH takes those problems to a new high fighting the brand. He has also done the same thing to Canon forum, but no one there takes any stock in what he saiys so he keeps bashing Pentax.

Knowing what I know about this guy I sure don' t take any stock in his writing, and his constant tearing down of Pentax. It's too bad potential buyers read his crap before they get a chance to talk to others who know better.

Marcus · 10-29-2008, 05:48 AM

Here is one of Rice High's quotes that pretty much sums up Pentax in a nutshell:

"Whilst Pentax is poor in metering accuracy and the AF is inaccurate and sluggish at low light, the image quality can be very good if both can be overriden either by chance, by bracketing or by experience. Furthermore, if some proper best Pentax glass are used, the results can be unmatching (provided that the camera does not make a joke in poor metering and/or AF, again)."

Which I understand to be absolutely TRUE.

zntgrg · 10-29-2008, 06:33 AM

Anyway we should recognize that RH comments are getting less and less arsh during this little Pentax renaissance...

Gooshin · 10-29-2008, 06:59 AM

Mel Gibson, was a maverick.

Camera nerds offering their point of view over teh intranetz, are not.

Plus i would much rather read RH's outbursts then Ken Rockwells utter bullshit.

i once read on his site, when talking about "fast glass" that "a large aperture is primarily for taking pictures in low light"

i guess playing with depth of field and bokeh has nothing to do with it, cuz you know, how sharp our images are at 1.4

and that ISO button is just for bling.

deejjjaaaa · 10-29-2008, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by cateto

It's an absolute shame

no, it is not... it is a part of the game... like babyface & heel in wrestling.

*Jonson PL* · 10-29-2008, 08:37 AM

Well, Kenn and Thom are making money on it.
I feel a bit sad for RH, even for him to be mentioned here, there are much more fascinating things to be interested in, than hysterical obsession with a brand. Maybe the problem is that he can’t take pictures.

Besides they list him as a maverick to be against brand loyalty, this would be kind of a mistake, as this is not a general notion from him, he has just one brand which he goes to great lengths to dismiss; can’t quite remember which one right now

It is likely that they haven’t done any research on it. I found another place that had listed his “findings”, if people wanted to find out more. I told them to have a more in-depth look on it, and they shortly after removed the link.

Originally Posted by Gooshin

Plus i would much rather read RH's outbursts then Ken Rockwells utter bullshit.

i once read on his site, when talking about "fast glass" that "a large aperture is primarily for taking pictures in low light"

i guess playing with depth of field and bokeh has nothing to do with it, cuz you know, how sharp our images are at 1.4 and that ISO button is just for bling.

I tend to agree; Ken R. is actually surrounded by an aura of credibility, and this can deceive. You don’t have to read much of RH, to find out that he has no idea what he is talking about.

Douglas_of_Sweden · 10-29-2008, 08:52 AM

From Wikipedi: "A maverick is an unbranded range animal, especially a motherless calf. It can also mean a person who thinks independently, a lone dissenter, a non-conformist or rebel."

It may be that RH can be defined in either or both these ways.

However, considering Pentax small market share, you are hardly a non-conformist if you prefer Canon to Pentax. Rather the opposite: I use Pentax, not Canon, I'm a non-conformist, a rebel, therefore I am a Maverick!?! We all are (except RH)!

Does that mean that Noicycameras consider RH in terms of Wikeipedias first definition?

**wlank** · 10-29-2008, 07:34 PM

Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory or irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

stevebrot · 10-29-2008, 08:03 PM

I vote for the notion of troll rather than maverick.

If RH posts on this forum, you can be pretty sure that his comment will be tangential and inflammatory. You can also be sure that his efforts to derail a thread will be successful and as a result will leave the OP's comment or request completely forgotten.

Steve

(Suspicious that there is more to Pentax than claims of poor exposure and inaccurate AF...)

stevebrot · 10-29-2008, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Gooshin

Plus i would much rather read RH's outbursts then Ken Rockwells utter bullshit.

i once read on his site, when talking about "fast glass" that "a large aperture is primarily for taking pictures in low light"

i guess playing with depth of field and bokeh has nothing to do with it, cuz you know, how sharp our images are at 1.4 and that ISO button is just for bling.

I tend to agree regarding Ken R.. Though I temper my attitude by noting that his articles represent conventional consumer wisdom. If you are a noobie and want a good camera, you can pretty safely follow his advice without breaking the bank. A more experienced or serious buyer will consider his comments along with other sources and will likely consider many more options than the "perfect" D40.

Steve

vinzer · 10-29-2008, 08:50 PM

Well, RH certainly has his moments both here and in his blog, but he's not all that bad. When I was googling for information on Hong Kong camera shops, there was a link to an old thread in these forums wherein he pointed out a good reference of shops to another forum member looking for the same information.

Perhaps he's just annoyed at the idea that Pentax does not market or make products like Canon does. Or something. Just a guess.

Tom Lusk · 10-30-2008, 06:01 AM

"Maybe the problem is that he can’t take pictures."

In response to some similar baiting a few weeks back, RH posted a link to a series of photos of Dragon Boat races.

And you know what? There were photos there that were better than 95% of what I've seen here and on DPR, even those taken by the "most respected" members of both sites.

Of course nobody acknowledged his photos. Just as nobody wants to acknowlege that many of his points regarding Pentax shortcomings are right on the money. I guess the truth hurts?

I cannot understand why his opinions are any less valid than ours.

cateto · 10-30-2008, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tom Lusk

"Maybe the problem is that he can’t take pictures."
Just as nobody wants to acknowlege that many of his points regarding Pentax shortcomings are right on the money. I guess the truth hurts?

The truth hurts when it's bad; and all brands I know have bad aspects that hurt.

Having said that, RH posts are usually of no value because of his absolute lack of objectivity. If he criticized when deserved and lauded when deserved, it would be all respectable. Yet he uses to stress the problems of Pentax while forgetting purposedly about its many positive sides.

Therefore RH opinions are less valuable than other people who use more objectivity, and thus have more credibility. In my book, RH has no credibility at all.

Gooshin · 10-30-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Blue

RH just doesn't get it. I posted a "humerus" pic in a thread I was sure he was likely to show up in. Not only did he show up, the pic blew his gaskets for some reason.

Could someone explain FF advantage ?

yeah because you just wasted bandwidth with a pointless cliche picture.