[bertwert]

It's disappointing nearly 3000 people like that post....

[monochrome]

While I don't pay much attention to Ken as a photo guru or anything, I find the tendency here to generally only accept gushing praise from everyone online about Pentax a bit too prevalent, and not healthy.

Nay sayers like Ken have a place. They challenge dogma and groupthink sometimes.

In principle I don't disagree. DPReview tests the products, compares them and expresses an opinion. We might disagree with the opinion; we might think a ranking is biased, or geared against us; but a disinterested observer can usually find a reasonable justification for what they write.

This, on the other hand, is simply a drive-by shooting. I've tried to figure out the autism reference as somehow a reference to 'stubbornly clinging to our K-mounts and FA Limiteds' but there's nothing to hang that on.

There's no redeeming value here. Nothing. It is brazenly, boldly insulting and contributes nothing to any possible discussion. Lowest of the low kind of stuff.

[BigMackCam]

Is he just a crazy kook, or do his prejudices or preconceptions reflect a broader perception of Pentax that, somehow, the K-1 was not immediately able to address?

Kook

[sunny16]

As some others have pointed out, he literally uses negative comments (not just about Pentax) to drive people to his site to get the clicks up. This isn't a guess, it is really part of his strategy. The best thing to do if you dislike what he says is not go to his site. Let the first person (canary in the coal mine) bring the info and talk about it all you want on here, but don't indirectly support him by giving anything he does the time of day.

[bertwert]

He's changed it - still no more positive...
Here it is, please don't go to the site to give him money from ads:

NEW: Pentax K-1. Pentax' first try at a full-frame DSLR.

It's got 36MP at a sluggish 4.4 FPS with sensor stabilization and two SD slots for $1,800.

I'd pass; a 6D or D750 are superior cameras and parts of superior systems, unless you're counting pixels — but if you're counting pixels, I seriously doubt your photos ever amount to anything. Everything below 50 MP falls into the same bin in my book, and ergonomics and system thoroughness mean far more than pixel count per dollar.

Not that I have anything against Pentax; they've played fourth fiddle behind Canon, LEICA and Nikon ever since the 1970s. I love my Pentax Spot Meters (and Ansel Adams also swore by his), but I can do without Pentax' primitive DSLRs unless I was some Aspergers case hoping to use my ancient manual-focus Pentax lenses. Pentax' manual focus lenses are also inferior to Nikon's AI and AI-s and Canon's FD lenses. God bless Pentax for trying and not giving up as Minolta and Contax did, but I fail to see who would buy it other than some feeble Aspergian hope to recycle old lenses from my K1000. (For those of you who don't have to care for as many on-the-spectrum people as I do on a daily basis, those with Asperger's have great difficulty handling change. Many outsiders may miss my point: those with this disorder find it an insurmountable obstacle to dump their old lenses and get new ones instead.)

It's crazy to hold onto your 1970s manual focus lenses and attempt to build a modern digital system around what you already have. Crummy modern plastic autofocus lenses are worlds better optically than the solid metal classics of the 1970s and 1980s.

The Pentax is a paper tiger. It looks great on paper to those with less experience as to what really matters in a camera, but I have yet to see a Pentax DSLR that handles as well as a Nikon or Canon. I doubt they will magically have a brand new user interface that suddenly just works great. I've been shooting long and hard for over 40 years, and some things never change.

Then again, I do have a Pentax SMC 15mm f/3.5 full-frame ultra-ultra wide manual focus lens, so bring it on. Time to dust it off!



NEW: Pentax 15-30mm f/2.8. New full-frame ultrawide.

NEW: Pentax 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6. New slow midrange zoom.

[monochrome]

He's changed it - still no more positive...
Here it is, please don't go to the site to give him money from ads:

I already told you, no, he can't do that to himself.

[todd]

He is so proud of himself for knowing about Aspergers and being able to educate people about it. He hammers on the analogy to the point of disrespect, but ignores the fact that people with Aspergers actually know what they are talking about. I'd like to ship him a case of rotten ass burgers to sample.

[plooksta]

He does mention them in his review of the k3II. So he (apparently) makes his living from a camera review and general photography web site. So first of all, he's pandering to (mainly) gear fetishists, of whom he generally takes a dim view if you read carefully, rather than breathlessly searching for affirmation of your brand/model choice with saliva running down your chin. Disappointed? Go take some pictures, in public so everyone can see and admire (or envy) your brand/model purchasing wisdom. With luck, you might even become a better photographer.

I'm not looking for brand affirmation. I use several brands of camera, Pentax included. I had heretofore found his reviews useful. Disappointed that this is not the case for the K-1. Although I doubt I would buy a K-1 as it suits my needs less than other less pricey options. I do publish photos publicly for all to see if they care to. This post was about a K-1 review not a K-3 ii review (which I am supposed to conflate in with it according to you?)
So wtf is your problem?

[SteveM]

I've found his articles to be pretty shallow and more based on consumerism than much else. He has his opinion which is fine, but there is no intent on being objective. He is either bashing something or gushing over it to the point I feel dirty after reading the article.

He is very much the politician of photography journalism. He praises the largest base of followers in hopes of building a larger base of readers so you are not going to see much praise for anything other than the big two. There isn't anything wrong with that, as long as you know what you're going to get from the site. If you've just bought a new Canon or Nikon and need a blow smoke article to justify your purchase and make you feel good, then his site fits the bill.

[dsmithhfx]

This post was about a K-1 review

Not really a review though, is it.

[stevebrot]

He is just another wannabe

Perhaps, though his longevity as a photo pundit would indicate otherwise. He has been doing it for a very long time and while he has his imitators, Rockwell is the original. As mentioned in other quotes, he tends to be dogmatic and shoots before taking careful aim. His advice is also often very suspect. He is biased in his recommendations to brands/models that are widely available and pretty much a sure shot for his readers.

That being said, I would balance the discussion by adding that Ken is an avid user of vintage gear and also a fan of vintage Pentax. I would also mention that I am grateful for his thorough review of the Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye; a lens that I have grown very fond of. It was his comparisons with a similar Nikkor lens that swung my purchase decision.

My main complaint is that his family has been in growth mode for well over a decade. I would suggest that he perhaps give "it" a rest.


Steve

(...ergonomic brilliance on an iPhone? )

[BigMackCam]

Well, after all the Ken Rockwell fun, I just e-mailed the lad:

Hi Ken

I'm writing about your news article on the Pentax K-1, in which you make the following comments:

"I can do without Pentax' primitive DSLRs unless I was some Aspergers case hoping to use my ancient manual-focus Pentax lenses"

...and...

"but I fail to see who would buy it other than some feeble Aspergian hope to recycle old lenses"

I disagree with your views on Pentax and the K-1, but absolutely support your right to hold and express your opinions. The reason I'm contacting you, however, is your Asperger's-related comments. I'm not easily offended or especially sensitive, but I think these comments are inappropriate and potentially hurtful to those affected directly or indirectly by autism. I hope I can appeal to you to reconsider just those two items of your news article.

Kind regds

Mike

[plooksta]

Not really a review though, is it.

No, you can't call it a review, since he hasn't even 'viewed' the item. This is what it is:

prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgment.’

[dsmithhfx]

No, you can't call it a review, since he hasn't even 'viewed' the item. This is what it is:

prejudice |ˈprejədəs|
noun
1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgment.’

OK, so we agree it's not a review...

[bertwert]

Well, after all the Ken Rockwell fun, I just e-mailed the lad:

Hi Ken

I'm writing about your news article on the Pentax K-1, in which you make the following comments:

"I can do without Pentax' primitive DSLRs unless I was some Aspergers case hoping to use my ancient manual-focus Pentax lenses"

...and...

"but I fail to see who would buy it other than some feeble Aspergian hope to recycle old lenses"

I disagree with your views on Pentax and the K-1, but absolutely support your right to hold and express your opinions. The reason I'm contacting you, however, is your Asperger's-related comments. I'm not easily offended or especially sensitive, but I think these comments are inappropriate and potentially hurtful to those affected directly or indirectly by autism. I hope I can appeal to you to reconsider just those two items of your news article.

Kind regds

Mike

Well said!