[butangmucat]

Well I have been using his site as a source of information and I do found many of the pages useful. However for many other pages, I found a bit too biased somehow. Just want to know how you consider his site?

Sincerely

[spinno]

interesting.
As you say some good stuff on there but also some utter balderdash. In one breath he says how wonderful a particular feature on a camera is then in the next breath he's saying it's a waste being able to do whatever the feature enables the user to do. Sometimes his logic defies logic

[ChristianRock]

A legend in his own mind...

[BigMackCam]

He's a photography "shock jock".

There's quite a lot of genuinely useful information to be found on his website, and his delivery can be quite entertaining. Unfortunately, it's mixed up with even greater quantities of misinformation and hugely biased opinions. He writes authoritatively, as if he knows exactly what he's talking about on every subject he tackles - when, unfortunately, he frequently doesn't. But, as I said, he can be quite entertaining, and I suspect he's a nice guy to meet in person.

A lot of what he says is intended to be controversial and divisive, generating a lot of traffic and donations as a result - enough to make a decent living from it. That, in itself, is pretty impressive... I have a certain amount of respect for anyone who can do that.

So long as you carefully pick through whatever you read from him, and validate (or invalidate) it from several other sources (a practice I would always recommend for any website and/or blogger), he does have some interesting subject matter - just don't accept any of it at face value

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 11-20-2016 at 11:05 AM.

[bertwert]

Is Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography or is Chuck Norris the Ken Rockwell of martial arts?

[boriscleto]

Is he a "Professional Photographer" or not? He gives both answers...

[Kunzite]

Going to Ken Rockwell's site looking for information is similar to going to circus in order to educate yourself.

[dms]

I find his site very informative.
And it is easy enough to ignore/or laugh at him/or with him, when he makes outrageous remarks.
-- Although I don't use medium format, I think his review of Pentax 645n seems quite reasonable (at http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/645/645n.htm )
-- As an another example I purchased (and he is spot on) Fish-eye Hemi software (plug in) based on his review and used his suggestions (at Fisheye-Hemi )

[todd]

Just don't neglect to support his ever growing bank account I mean family....

[LensBeginner]

Well I have been using his site as a source of information and I do found many of the pages useful. However for many other pages, I found a bit too biased somehow. Just want to know how you consider his site?

Sincerely

MWAHAHAHA!!!!
...
Hahahaha!!!
...
Ha...
...
ha...
...
nope, not funny!

[SpecialK]

He posted that he did not like "fiddling" with images and therefore shot only jpgs. Of course, you "fiddle" to get a jpg, or should, so I view him as no source of useful info.

[BigMackCam]

He posted that he did not like "fiddling" with images and therefore shot only jpgs. Of course, you "fiddle" to get a jpg, or should, so I view him as no source of useful info.

Yes, JPEGs all the way - and shot in "P"rofessional mode, apparently...

[ChristianRock]

I find his site very informative.
And it is easy enough to ignore/or laugh at him/or with him, when he makes outrageous remarks.
-- Although I don't use medium format, I think his review of Pentax 645n seems quite reasonable (at Pentax 645N )
-- As an another example I purchased (and he is spot on) Fish-eye Hemi software (plug in) based on his review and used his suggestions (at Fisheye-Hemi )

Have you seen his "review" of the 645D? He basically refused to review it because it had too many bells and whistles. He ignored the 645Z completely. Nowadays whenever he mentions Pentax it's just to make some disparaging remarks, like that the boxes suck.

[virusn3t]

All in all, when i begin to see cameras (and lenses) that name (dont wanna write his name for search engines) came very often, i believing he was a trustfull source, biased me toward Canon and Nikon, (the toy-like low end of cameras not the good Mid-High ones), and i was at one out of stock moment to be a Nikonian, when i search for diferent sources i step toward the Pentax K30, a great price/specs camera and i became a Pentax shooter; Now, knowing a little more than i knew the first day, i realize how stupid are some of their "reviews" (like the one of the K1) and how hollow are his recomendations.

The only one thing who i learn from Ken, is to trust more on the users reviews and toughts rather on the one of the "pros" (any kind pro), a huge comunuty of amateurs like me usually test their cameras in a wider range of situations and compatibilities of gear, than pros, pros usually only test the camera on their field and proved gear (or loaned high end gear)....

His product photography tips on low budget were helpfull for me in the beginning to be fair.

[boriscleto]

he toy-like low end of cameras not the good Mid-High ones

And Ken Rockwell once said the D40 was the greatest camera ever made...