[krypticide]

I found Ken to be quite helpful when I was just starting out, especially the fact that he emphasizes photographer over equipment. He pisses off pixel peepers of course and writes in an inflammatory manner, but like any person/site/article I learn from, I pick the good and leave the bad.

[Wheatfield]

And since you guys bumped this thread anyway, might as well tell you that today he's posted a review of the Pentax 645 as well!

Well, he's only a few decades late on that one....

[volosong]

Re: the M50/1.7

The 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 were less common, while the 50mm f/2 and 40mm f/2.8 were cheaper alternatives.

He lost me here. The pancake was quite a bit more expensive than the 50/1.7, else everybody would have purchased the 40. I'll have to check my receipt (still have it), but I thought the lens was available in 1976, not 1977 as he (and Bojidar) states.

[audiobomber]

Ken Rockwell = Nikon shill

I don't see why he deserves praise for relentlessly recommending the Nikon D40, when the K100DS was a direct competitor and a better body in every way.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 02-05-2009 at 09:23 PM.

[SpecialK]

KR is a knucklehead.

This is my post on a diferent forum...

Ken has a habit of painting (very loudly and obnoxiously at times) with too broad a brush. For example, he goes on and on about how megapixels don't matter. And while there's some truth to that, he NEVER considers the fact that some people may do a significant amount of cropping and that others may want to print poster-size pics.

He also believes there is no advantage in using RAW, and thinks people who "fiddle" with images are stupid.

I'm sorry I had to go to his page to get this...
RAW vs JPG

Here are a few snips...

1. "Some fancier cameras save this raw data so you can use software to do the same thing the camera's hardware did, later. Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later.

Image quality is the same in JPG and raw. See my D200 Image Quality Setting Examples. See also my explanation of File Formats."

2a. "The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then >>>JPG can give better quality<<< since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you >>>>could miss making some images<<< entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the acess light to stop blinking."

Idiot. Volume does not equal quality.

2b. If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"

So now there is a difference in "look", but not "image quality"...

3. "I take a lot of flack from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in raw, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means raw is for you."

I don't like going overboard with processing, but Ken is offensive and out-of-date, despite or because of his (let me quote)...
"three decades of continuous full-time paid professional experience in digital imaging. In addition I was studying digital imaging for ten years before I got my engineering degree and started as a professional working with the guys with PhDs in mathematics who invented all this."

Probably hangs out with Al Gore and (a particularly goofy and clueless poster).

and finally....

"D40 is twice as sensitive to light as the D40x and D80. (The D40's ISO defaults to ISO 200 instead of the less sensitive ISO 100, making for sharper photos in any light.) "

- Ken Rockwell

[jsherman999]

KR is a knucklehead.

This is my post on a diferent forum...



He also believes there is no advantage in using RAW, and thinks people who "fiddle" with images are stupid.

I'm sorry I had to go to his page to get this...
RAW vs JPG

Here are a few snips...

1. "Some fancier cameras save this raw data so you can use software to do the same thing the camera's hardware did, later. Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later.

Image quality is the same in JPG and raw. See my D200 Image Quality Setting Examples. See also my explanation of File Formats."

2a. "The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then >>>JPG can give better quality<<< since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you >>>>could miss making some images<<< entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the acess light to stop blinking."

Idiot. Volume does not equal quality.

2b. If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"

So now there is a difference in "look", but not "image quality"...

3. "I take a lot of flack from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in raw, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means raw is for you."

I don't like going overboard with processing, but Ken is offensive and out-of-date, despite or because of his (let me quote)...
"three decades of continuous full-time paid professional experience in digital imaging. In addition I was studying digital imaging for ten years before I got my engineering degree and started as a professional working with the guys with PhDs in mathematics who invented all this."

Probably hangs out with Al Gore and (a particularly goofy and clueless poster).

and finally....

"D40 is twice as sensitive to light as the D40x and D80. (The D40's ISO defaults to ISO 200 instead of the less sensitive ISO 100, making for sharper photos in any light.) "

- Ken Rockwell

Ken is a bit out of date in that you can build a complete RAW workflow with scripting that's very fast, and with today's processors, it's not the time-sink it once was. Also, storage is cheaper now, both SD and HD.

But I tend to agree with Ken's main point here, but not quite for the same reason - the JPEG engine on the K20D has made me forget about RAW, unless I'm shooting in a very tricky lighting situation (Both tungsten + natural light at dusk, etc)

With my Nikon D80, I shoot RAW more often - the sensor/jpeg engine combo isn't as sophisticated as the K20D, especially with highlights. I also shot RAW more with my K-M.

But Ken has accidentally become right about something - RAW vs. JPEG - at least as it applies to the K20D.


.

[whatever7]

The guy whored out the Nikon 18-200mm like there was no tomorrow. Ture be told probably because there were more poeple used his Amazon link to buy this lens more than anything else. Urh!

[Erik]

"D40 is twice as sensitive to light as the D40x and D80. (The D40's ISO defaults to ISO 200 instead of the less sensitive ISO 100, making for sharper photos in any light.) "

- Ken Rockwell

This is true. It is the reason, for instance, that K200D has a base ISO of 100 while the K100D has 200. Higher pixel density = lower base sensitivity. What that means is that all other things being equal (which they are in reality not) the K200D will be noisier at ISO 200 because it has to amplify the signal 2x, and in doing that it also inevitably amplifies the noise.

[Erik]

On another note; yesterday while doing some research I read how he called the Nikon system the most compatible system on the planet. I HAVE TO LAUGH. I bought a couple of cheap Nikon film SLR's yesterday to give to a very good friend of mine who already has a digital Nikon system and it's completely impossible to figure out what lenses work with what. What I have figured out is that any manual focus lenses won't even meter on most modern AF Nikon SLR's.

What. The. Hell.

I'm thinking Pentax has spoiled me. Is this how other systems work? Having to read pages of compatibility tables before you figure out whether you can use an F-mount lens on an F-mount body?

[Vylen]

funny that, cause when i recently got my K20D and started looking around for older lenses, i bookmarked one of the compatabilitiy tables for K-mount lenses thinking i'd need it.... which obviously isnt the case - everything works...

[Albert Siegel]

Cheap-shotting the messenger and not talking about the message again, huh Al?

You don't like Rockewell or his work, that's fine, but why not keep the bile to yourself and confine your post to the validity of what he said in this particular instance, instead of firing off snarky comments about him as an individual?

Brian

You seem to like "cheap-shotting" me even when you're wrong and have no idea what's going on. Anyway, you answered your own question there. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

It's clear you're lost. I guess you have a difficult time understanding things and just like to have the final word so you can feel like you made some sort of point. You have my sympathy.

[71Matador250]

Ken Rockwell is NOT amused!...

[john5100]

I think some of this is a little unfair. I like the fact that he speaks out against high priced cameras for more reasonable budgets. Here is what he said about:

Pentax 50mm f1.7
"Like almost all 50mm standard lenses, it is extremely sharp.
Even better, it's a very handsome lens. It just looks right. Call me crazy, but remember that photography is a visual art. If you can't appreciate good industrial design, you're toast."

And what he said about the Pentax 100mm F4
"It is very well thought out. See the numbers on the front of the focus ring? Those are the reproduction ratios. These are much easier to read on their own scale than having them mixed in with the focus scale, as Nikon and Canon do. This makes this lens much easier to read than any of the other macro lenses.

Optics are just about perfect. If you can't make a sharp shot with this lens, you can't make a sharp shot."

He is a Nikon guy...so, I'm a pentax guy...

[Ratmagiclady]

Ken Rockwell = Nikon shill

I don't see why he deserves praise for relentlessly recommending the Nikon D40, when the K100DS was a direct competitor and a better body in every way.

Eh, I see him, more as a currently-repentant Nikon *victim.* I always appreciate a critic willing to make his biases *plain,* though he never did as well at this as he probably thought.

I've seen him claim he preferred one medium format rangefinder over another, because the preferred one, yes, had integral viewfinder support, whereas the one he panned by comparison, required an external viewfinder... for a kind of lens his preferred version simply could not fit at all. Apparently, he preferred a camera over another for the sole reason that the otherwise better one could take a lens that needed an external viewfinder, on account of being *wide.*

But, he's learning about rangefinders, now. And film.

After many years of saying, 'You don't need a fast lens, unless you're some wierdo not getting paid big bucks to pay what Nikon says a fast lens should cost!'


Well, he's on his way.

I mean, this is probably a sincere dude. Whose homepage image of himself.... Involves a flipped image, of him using a decidedly-handed piece of gear. I appreciate his input, often, but he actually kind of did a review of a lens I happened to have bought... Started analyzing the CA of an example that.... previous-results had shown wasn't consistent left-to-right.


It's like, OK. If it's not consistent left-to-right, it's *bent.* Purple fringing is off the table till you get a cherry one. Unless you think they're all that way.

I mean, I have one of these lenses. The serial number is five million and change. If that many of these lenses are in play, I can't tell what I have in comparison to the design and presumably-competent execution if the reviewer is looking at one that's off in key ways.

[Mister Guy]

I think some of this is a little unfair. I like the fact that he speaks out against high priced cameras for more reasonable budgets. Here is what he said about:

Pentax 50mm f1.7
"Like almost all 50mm standard lenses, it is extremely sharp.
Even better, it's a very handsome lens. It just looks right. Call me crazy, but remember that photography is a visual art. If you can't appreciate good industrial design, you're toast."

And what he said about the Pentax 100mm F4
"It is very well thought out. See the numbers on the front of the focus ring? Those are the reproduction ratios. These are much easier to read on their own scale than having them mixed in with the focus scale, as Nikon and Canon do. This makes this lens much easier to read than any of the other macro lenses.

Optics are just about perfect. If you can't make a sharp shot with this lens, you can't make a sharp shot."

He is a Nikon guy...so, I'm a pentax guy...

I haven't really read his stuff, but I've read plenty of really opinionated stuff ABOUT his stuff. I did go over and read this particular review though, and had to agree with him about the SMC 50mm f1/7. I've had mine for years now, and it's the standard by which I measure all other lenses, particularly about the design part. I don't know that I've ever held another lens yet that just felt exactly, to me, like what a quality lens should feel like. I love the thing.