[Rondec]

Didn't you read my post? The uselessness has nothing to do with the number of AF points, but with the fact they are all clogged up in the center. At least that's what I think would make it useless to me. I'd rather have 3 AF points on 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the frame than 11 points that are so close together there's not point in switching to another point in the first place, and I know why: bigger sensors render a shallower DoF (non-equivalentists please let me be) so focus errors are more likely to happen when using focus-and-recompose, especially with wider angle lenses.



I think his main concern is not so much the number of features, but the control layout. Apparently he doesn't like things like multifunction scrollwheels (of which the 645D has two, they're also known as e-dials) on such a camera, instead preferring direct controls like on the 645N. But yeah, he is also oversimplifying things here.



Funny, I don't pay attention to such details at all. I mean, what if I told you you were the ugliest person I've ever seen, then added that I don't mean it personally, would that make it less of an insult? It wouldn't to me.



Well, at least that becomes clear when reading his review, doesn't it? It would be worse if he kept that to himself. At least now people can make up their own minds about what they think of his review or whatever you want to label it.



I'm not, but thanks.

It seems as though you have a problem with people identifying Ken Rockwell as (a) partial and (b) unfactual. Somehow you are looking for reasons that Ken would have the opinions that he espouses. The reality is pretty clear. He writes things that are deliberately inflammatory (and sometimes that he has no idea about) in order to generate clicks on his web site.

It is all well and good to try to find the thought process behind Ken's assertion that the 645D is a crappy camera, but there wasn't one. He just decided to rant about something he didn't know much about. Yes, the auto focus points are clustered in the center, but it was a time when most medium format cameras didn't have more than a couple. As to the whole control thing, Ken once again hasn't used many Pentax cameras or he would understand that the interface is really similar between the 645D and other Pentax SLRs and that it is actually very easy to change settings on the fly with it without menu diving, etc.

Ken can say whatever he wants, but I will defend the right of people on this forum to break it down and identify parts of his analysis as unfactual, innane, and uninformative. In a public sphere, we each have a responsibility to post things we can actually stand behind and defend.

[BrianR]

Later he says: "I see no aperture or shutter speed dials. All I see is another confusing array of meaningless buttons that aren't going to help..."
I am puzzled where he comes up with this remark since both dials (for shutter and aperture) are even visible on the thumbnail image,even if he did his only research simply by looking at the product photo.

He wasn't lying though! It's just evidence he's not very perceptive OR that he's a genius at stirring up controversy while saying things he could defend as true (how are you supposed to spot a black dial hidden on a black body?!? ).

Well, at least that becomes clear when reading his review, doesn't it? It would be worse if he kept that to himself. At least now people can make up their own minds about what they think of his review or whatever you want to label it.

Way, way back, he panned the *istD in a similar way but presented it as a review even though he had never laid a hand on it. The barrage of hate mail caused him to alter his 'review' and clarify that he was going solely on the paper specs. It was an utterly shoddy thing to do, and I don't think he's ever been forgiven.

[Fat Albert]

It says I'm not a guy that has a lot of problems. Tell me, what good would it do me to worry about this and see it as a problem, given that I can't change it?

One could say the same about all the people dying in Africa. How nihilistic.

BorisCleto'd™

[starbase218]

One could say the same about all the people dying in Africa. How nihilistic.

I'm with a sustainable bank at which I get a lower interest on my savings account than I'd get at a big bank, but that invests in e.g. microcredits for developing nations. They don't invest in weapons industry etc. They're called Triodos bank.

What do you do?

You claim to know things about me which you don't. I suggest you keep those thoughts to yourself.

[Fat Albert]

I'm with a sustainable bank at which I get a lower interest on my savings account than I'd get at a big bank, but that invests in e.g. microcredits for developing nations. They don't invest in weapons industry etc. They're called Triodos bank.

What do you do?

You claim to know things about me which you don't. I suggest you keep those thoughts to yourself.

Make sure you don't strain your shoulder from patting yourself on the back. Bye!

[starbase218]

Make sure you don't strain your shoulder from patting yourself on the back. Bye!

It's good to know I can't do anything right in your eyes. It means I can stop trying.

[ChristianRock]

In his K-3 II review he says he finds Canon/Nikon to be more refined. It's a pity he doesn't say what he finds more refined about them.

That is the whole problem. It sounds like fanboy stuff. Like a GM truck with that sticker on the rear glass that has Calvin pissing on the Ford logo.
Then it's parked next to a Ford truck that has a sticker of Calvin pissing on the GM logo.

Ken Rockwell always has a favorite. At the moment it seems to be swinging towards Canon. He will always have a soft spot for Nikon. And he will try and piss on whatever is not his favorite at the moment.

Didn't you read my post? The uselessness has nothing to do with the number of AF points, but with the fact they are all clogged up in the center.

Actually... his problem is that the 645D has TOO MANY AF points. He says:

Do you know how many AF sensors the $43,000 Hasselblad CF-39 has? One.Do you know how many metering zones it has? One at a time, and it also has fewer pixels (39MP vs. 40).

Pros must know something Pentax doesn't.

If he had ACTUALLY USED the camera, he would know that you can set the AF to center point only, like all Pentax cameras...

I won't get into how he was furious that the camera has an HDR setting (which he LOVES by the way in the D810 - read his review) and 40Mp instead of 39 like a pro medium format camera should (LOL - and he LOVES the new 50MP Canon...) but I'll stop here...

[mikeSF]

...
Apparently he doesn't like things like multifunction scrollwheels (of which the 645D has two, they're also known as e-dials) on such a camera, instead preferring direct controls like on the 645N. But yeah, he is also oversimplifying things here.

...

that's what you think he is complaining about? the e-dials? welcome to the 20th century Ken.

I interpret multifunction wheel to mean this, of which the 645D has none:

[ChristianRock]

Ken hates the scrolling wheels, unless they are made by Nikon or Canon, in which case they are fantastic.

[bdery]

It is now clear to me that we have been feeding a troll.

This has not happened to me in a long time, but thankfully the forum has an ignore button. Second time I ever use it.

[stevebrot]

Didn't you read my post?

Yes...

I think his main concern is not so much the number of features, but the control layout.

Did you read his article?

Funny, I don't pay attention to such details at all.

Ok...'nuff said...

I'm not, but thanks.

Ok...seems consistent.

To be straightforward and concise, I read the Rockwell article in 2010 when it first appeared. My impression at the time was that he set up a "straw man" in the form of a camera he had never seen as the basis for a rant against the general direction of camera design (more toy than tool). I remain of that opinion and to a certain extent am sympathetic with Rockwell's views on tools for serious work.* I just wish he had simply said those things in another article and restricted his "news" on the 645D to fact.

Speaking of fact, the reason why I suggested the Luminous Landscape review was because it covered the things that Rockwell railed against from the perspective of a working medium format pro. Rockwell comes off sounding like a bit of a fool in the comparison.


Steve

* I would personally love a manual focus digital SLR (35mm FF, please) with minimal features because that is how I actually use my K-3.

[stevebrot]

It is now clear to me that we have been feeding a troll.

Nah...starbase is not a troll. Of course, I have been wrong about these things in the past.


Steve

[Ratcheteer]

Nah...starbase is not a troll. Of course, I have been wrong about these things in the past.

hes more like the sacrificial lamb

[RahZee]

I think Pentax has one of the best interface, button placement, and Menu order.

Actually, Canon has the best interface, button placement, and menu order and navigation. But that's only valid for the new generation of cameras, meaning anything after 70D for APSC and anything after 6D for full frame.

he can't go all out and say this is the best APSC camera ever, because that would cause too much of a stir.

More like because it isn't the best APSC camera ever. Every brand has a similar camera with different features, it's all about what you think you need or what you enjoy most. I prefer the color dynamic and image quality over focus accuracy and speed. Canon 7D mk II has stellar performance in AF system, something that makes my K-3 II look like a camera from the last decade. Pentax has the advantage of in-camera SR, and almost catches up to that. Nikon has better image quality overall, if we leave out K-3 II's pixel shift technology, which in real shooting is useless, unless the subject is completely still. Pentax again has the advantage of being able to use spectacular glass, made 20 - 30 years ago, at unbeatable prices + SR!!

He should have mentioned TAv mode, WR, green button, sensor shift,.. but eh, he mentioned astrotracer and pixel shift, so that's something.

See, he's not that bad

For me personally, it was the handling that brought me to Pentax DSLR. When I held a Pentax and then a Canon, Nikon.. the Pentax felt better. More solid, better texture.. (this was back in the day, I'm not talking about the Canikon flagships, I'm sure those are great)

Correct.

---------- Post added 08-05-15 at 01:21 PM ----------

Rockwell has proven numerous times to have self contradicting ideas in the same review. It's not unusual. It is actually very hard to form a coherent, unbiased idea about a product in this field, especially when you are trying to review as many brands as you can, so you can please as many readers as possible.

Real testing takes a lot of time and resources, and no one does that for free, unless they do it superficially. And that's exactly what Rockwell's review on the K-3 II is: superficial.

A guy like Thom Hogan for instance, reviews Nikon cameras only, and very few third party lenses for Nikon. His opinions are clearly based on long hours of shooting in all environments and conditions. Rockwell lost that advantage and he's relying mostly on his shooting taste and experience to form opinions about cameras that he only sees or shoots for a brief time. Not very professional if you ask me, but the guy is trying to make a living.

He's been a Nikon fanatic for decades, until he discovered Canon's "50 shades of gray", then he started to write positive reviews on Canon cameras. He's still in love with film, which is something worthy of respect from my point of view, and he has some of the best reviews for quite a number of old film cameras. When it comes to film, if he didn't shoot a camera long enough, he won't write about it. Too bad he doesn't apply the same principle to DSLRs.

I quit film and got into digital thanks to him, so I give the guy credit for that. Later on, it turned out his review on the "best APSC camera in the world" at that time, the Nikon D7000, had a lot of flaws, as I have discovered myself after using the camera for almost two years. I moved to Canon full frame, again, based on his opinions, and I wasn't disappointed at all. I just didn't like the ergonomics that much on the 5D mk II, and the focusing issues were still there, in a much smaller percentage than Nikon. Canon 7D mk II made me say WOW!! about the focusing system, but the ISO performance and overall image quality made me sell it and aim for this new Pentax

We'll see how this K-3 II performs in the long run. I've invested in good glass and not stopping here. I trust Pentax for their product quality, so I'm planning to enjoy the learning curve and squeeze the last drop off the camera for the upcoming year or two.

[Bryce K]

It seems as though you have a problem with people identifying Ken Rockwell as (a) partial and (b) unfactual. Somehow you are looking for reasons that Ken would have the opinions that he espouses. The reality is pretty clear. He writes things that are deliberately inflammatory (and sometimes that he has no idea about) in order to generate clicks on his web site.

It is all well and good to try to find the thought process behind Ken's assertion that the 645D is a crappy camera, but there wasn't one. He just decided to rant about something he didn't know much about. Yes, the auto focus points are clustered in the center, but it was a time when most medium format cameras didn't have more than a couple. As to the whole control thing, Ken once again hasn't used many Pentax cameras or he would understand that the interface is really similar between the 645D and other Pentax SLRs and that it is actually very easy to change settings on the fly with it without menu diving, etc.

Ken can say whatever he wants, but I will defend the right of people on this forum to break it down and identify parts of his analysis as unfactual, innane, and uninformative. In a public sphere, we each have a responsibility to post things we can actually stand behind and defend.

amen to that