[starbase218]

The problem is that when people like Ken Rockwell spread lies and misinformation, they're hurting companies and most importantly, the people that work in them.

If indeed true (my question about where he is dishonest still stands), then he has a problem with those companies, long before he has a problem with me.

[ChristianRock]

Ok so you are alright with people hurting others by lies and misinformation, as long as they're not hurting you personally. I see.

[starbase218]

Ok so you are alright with people hurting others by lies and misinformation, as long as they're not hurting you personally. I see.

I'm not saying I'm ok with it. But if those people/companies don't have a problem with it, why should I?

Also, the question still stands: where does he tell an actual, factual lie? We're once again wasting time if we haven't established that.

Besides, what are we talking about here? The camera industry. You get to choose what you worry about. But, emm, you know there are people in Africa dying, right? To name a thing.

[Fat Albert]

I'm not saying I'm ok with it. But if those people/companies don't have a problem with it, why should I?

Also, the question still stands: where does he tell an actual, factual lie? We're once again wasting time if we haven't established that.

How can one review a camera that they've never even held, much less shoot for a period of time?

Pentax 645D

I don't need to see him say "x is actually y" to know that someone with such prominent visibility, who spouts opinions and half-truths as if they were facts, is someone who has fundamental problems with integrity and ethics, to paraphrase bdery. The chutzpah he displays by holding his hat out at the beginning and end of every page is pretty remarkable as well.

Thanks to Ken Rockwell, I almost didn't choose Pentax. My opinion of him was once such that I actually thought that if he didn't think it was any good, it wasn't. Now think of all the impressionable noobs out there who are trying to decide on a new DSLR and turn to the internet for advice. They find his site, think, "Hey, he seems like he's got his act together," and they follow his recommendations.

My question to you: why are you so hellbent on protecting him under the guise of "freedom of speech"? Nobody faults him for his preferences--it's when they're broadcast as gospel that I begin to take issue.

Besides, what are we talking about here? The camera industry. You get to choose what you worry about. But, emm, you know there are people in Africa dying, right? To name a thing.

Absolutely true. And yet, here you are.

---

Last edited by Fat Albert; 07-28-2015 at 12:35 PM.

[ChristianRock]

Ok great, so I can lie and cheat and do whatever I want, because, you know, there's children dying in Africa, and whatever I do isn't nearly as bad, right?

[starbase218]

How can one review a camera that they've never even held, much less shoot for a period of time?

Pentax 645D

I don't need to see him say "x is actually y" to know that someone with such prominent visibility, who spouts opinions and half-truths as if they were facts, is someone who has fundamental problems with integrity and ethics, to paraphrase bdery.

I sincerely disagree with what he's saying there. Doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says. That is your assumption.

Besides, I actually do agree somewhat with this:

Pentax should call this the Pentax 433 not to be misleading.

Absolutely true. And yet, here you are.

Oh no. No, you don't.

I just wanted to put some perspective on things. Someone may have told a lie on the internet. Anything more is what you make of it. I don't understand why that is reason to discuss it for so long.

Besides, I'm here because I always want to do the right thing. It's a character thing. Doesn't always work though.

You know what? In fact I'm going to give myself a break and continue to watch "Fringe" on Netflix I just paused.

[mikeSF]

...

Also, the question still stands: where does he tell an actual, factual lie? We're once again wasting time if we haven't established that.

ok, i'll play.
On that very link that was last posted: Pentax 645D

Ken rants that the 645D has been dummied down with LIVE VIEW and "stupid picture modes".
He is incorrect on both claims.

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 continues to rant: "On the Pentax 645D, it looks like everything you actually need to do is only available via menus and stupid multi-function scroll wheels. "
He is wrong again as most basic control functions (exposure, bracketing, mirror up, AF point selection, playback, focus, AE-L, etc) may be tweaked with ones eyes closed using only exterior buttons, wheels, or knobs, not menus. And try as I might, I cannot even find a multifunction scroll wheel on the 645D.

Then he inaccurately predicts a followup model: "Hopefully the Pentax 645DN will improve on this original Pentax 645D in 2012."
He obviously doesn't know Pentax very well, lol.

Lastly he says,"If I get my hands on one I'll let you know, but..."
I am guessing since he never corrected his mis-information in 5 years time, that he never got ahold of one. Or, he is simply an irresponsible or sloppy blogger.


...and yes, I have actually met someone who purchased a camera (fujifilm X100) largely based on the KR review of it, so there are people who take that crap seriously.

---

Last edited by mikeSF; 07-28-2015 at 12:55 PM.

[Canuck_west]

I'm a wimp, because Ken said so.
He said all tripod users are wimps, I use a tripod, ergo I'm a wimp. Thanks Ken.
Anyone wanting to dispute his claim as to whether a Nikon 7200, a Canon 7DII, and a Pentax K3, go to the DPReview image comparison page. Download the raw files, and take a look.
Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

[Ratcheteer]

I'm a wimp, because Ken said so.
He said all tripod users are wimps, I use a tripod, ergo I'm a wimp. Thanks Ken.

omg you use a tripod, you must has arms of steel

[bdery]

The problem is that when people like Ken Rockwell spread lies and misinformation, they're hurting companies and most importantly, the people that work in them.

I was going to answer exactly that.

I'm not saying I'm ok with it. But if those people/companies don't have a problem with it, why should I?

How can you say that those people don't have a problem with it?

...

I do not get the Star Trek reference...

[Rondec]

I sincerely disagree with what he's saying there. Doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says. That is your assumption.

Besides, I actually do agree somewhat with this:




Oh no. No, you don't.

I just wanted to put some perspective on things. Someone may have told a lie on the internet. Anything more is what you make of it. I don't understand why that is reason to discuss it for so long.

Besides, I'm here because I always want to do the right thing. It's a character thing. Doesn't always work though.

You know what? In fact I'm going to give myself a break and continue to watch "Fringe" on Netflix I just paused.

I don't know whether or not it matters what Ken Rockwell does. From a personal standpoint, it doesn't much, because I ceased paying attention to him long ago. I do hope that his windiness doesn't confuse newbies into buying gear that isn't really best for them, just because they think he sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

If you ask a question on this forum, yes, it will be biased towards Pentax, but you will get better information and more honesty than anything that he posts on his web site.

[starbase218]

Look, the problem I see is, if he can't say what he wants, then there is some kind of limitation as to freedom. Now, if that is based on factual lies, that's one thing. But if it's not, that means it applies to everyone, including me, doesn't it? So then I also cannot say what I want, because someone else might be offended by it? It's a slippery slope.

If that's not what you are saying, then what is it?

I cannot prevent my words offending anyone in the world. In fact I'm sure they offend someone. All I can do is stay true to myself, and trust that most people will know better than to immediately get angry if they find something I say offensive.

I'm not saying I agree with him. I said that before. From reading parts of his 645D review, I get the feeling he was angry or otherwise very pissed when he wrote it. Or that maybe he has ADHD or some other problem he needs to solve. Some other things he wrote, I actually found very down-to-earth, and I think that's something I appreciate when it comes to cameras. E.g. something like this article. That kind of down-to-earthness is what I mean.

I did look up some information about what he says about the 645D. He says the 11-point AF is useless. After seeing this image, I have to say I don't see the use of all those points in the center either:


It's an 11-point APS-C AF sensor on a medium format camera, and only the center 9 points are cross-type. If you find that useful, please say so. Doesn't mean he has to use the language he does, and in fact I stopped reading because of that language. I'm guessing he might have had issues when he wrote that.

Does that mean he's deliberately being dishonest? No. Does that mean he should not post this stuff online? Also no, although he might do himself a favor by taking it offline.

I don't understand why I have to explain why I'm "defending" him. In fact I don't think I am. I guess I'm separating the guy from the articles. Some articles might be good, some might be bad, but that doesn't mean he is "good" or "bad".

[Rondec]

Look, the problem I see is, if he can't say what he wants, then there is some kind of limitation as to freedom. Now, if that is based on factual lies, that's one thing. But if it's not, that means it applies to everyone, including me, doesn't it? So then I also cannot say what I want, because someone else might be offended by it? It's a slippery slope.

If that's not what you are saying, then what is it?

I cannot prevent my words offending anyone in the world. In fact I'm sure they offend someone. All I can do is stay true to myself, and trust that most people will know better than to immediately get angry if they find something I say offensive.

I'm not saying I agree with him. I said that before. From reading parts of his 645D review, I get the feeling he was angry or otherwise very pissed when he wrote it. Or that maybe he has ADHD or some other problem he needs to solve. Some other things he wrote, I actually found very down-to-earth, and I think that's something I appreciate when it comes to cameras. E.g. something like this article. That kind of down-to-earthness is what I mean.

I did look up some information about what he says about the 645D. He says the 11-point AF is useless. After seeing this image, I have to say I don't see the use of all those points in the center either:


It's an 11-point APS-C AF sensor on a medium format camera, and only the center 9 points are cross-type. If you find that useful, please say so. Doesn't mean he has to use the language he does, and in fact I stopped reading because of that language. I'm guessing he might have had issues when he wrote that.

Does that mean he's deliberately being dishonest? No. Does that mean he should not post this stuff online? Also no, although he might do himself a favor by taking it offline.

I don't understand why I have to explain why I'm "defending" him. In fact I don't think I am. I guess I'm separating the guy from the articles. Some articles might be good, some might be bad, but that doesn't mean he is "good" or "bad".

I don't want to limit KR's right to say whatever he wants. I am fine with that. But I have a right to identify factual problems and bias in things he says and I would say that because of the multiplicity of them, I am not willing to read anything he has written.

KR is deliberately inflammatory and lives in the realm of hyperbole specifically so that people will click on his site. That's fine, but don't expect me to be appreciative of anything he writes. I'm not willing to wallow in the mud just on the off chance I might find a diamond.

[starbase218]

How can you say that those people don't have a problem with it?

They could just think "o, him again" and don't pay any more attention to it.

---------- Post added 07-29-2015 at 07:36 PM ----------

He wrote this too btw: The 2 Kinds of Photographers.

[ChristianRock]

Starbase, I think you're attacking a strawman here... nobody wants to censor him. But when someone of his reach writes or says something idiotic, people can comment on it. What is the problem with that? The ironic part of this conversation is that while you're accusing others of trying to censure him, what you're doing in fact is trying to censor his detractors.

He wrote this too btw: The 2 Kinds of Photographers.

Those who take pictures and those who write about it. He does seem to spend a lot of time writing about it doesn't he?