[starbase218]

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.

Hmm, maybe it did seem that way, didn't it? But really I was just trying to find out if there was an actual point to be made. Maybe I should have let that go.

Anyway, my take on him is that he probably was having issues when he wrote the 645D review. I don't like reading it, so I don't. But some of what he says makes sense to me, like the miniscule APS-C AF in a medium format camera. And sometimes I do like to read other stuff that he wrote.

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.

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?

He also said in that article he shot like, what, 1000 photos per week or something?

[mikeSF]

...



He also said in that article he shot like, what, 1000 photos per week or something?

geez, any keepers?

[stevebrot]

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.

The reason for the grin is that Ken Rockwell is a big fan of the 645N film camera* which was a significant improvement over the original 645. The obvious step up from the 645D in his way of thinking would be a 645DN. From my point of view, his fail on the 645D review was that he had never seen, handled, or shot with the camera and was not in a position to make an intelligent comment. Not that it makes much difference, since true pro gear like the 645D is not in his target readership. BTW...He has a strong dislike for all things Hasselblad and Leica...also not in his target readership.

To balance things out, Ken has a continuing interest in promoting film photography and is a Pentax champion in that realm.


Steve

* I have long had an itch to own a 645N. It is quite simply the most pleasant medium format camera I have ever used. Pity that the 645 format is not that big a step up from 35mm.

[stevebrot]

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:

Consider the date of the review and the state of AF at the time. Consider too the state of AF on medium format in general in 2010 or even now. Case in point might be the Mamiya 645 DF+ with three (count 'em...3!) AF points! To be fair, Ken Rockwell soundly panned the DF+'s predecessor (Mamiya 645 DF) too.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 07-29-2015 at 04:17 PM.

[monochrome]

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.

Hmmmmm . . . . .

it might be boriscleto™ time.

[stevebrot]

He also said in that article he shot like, what, 1000 photos per week or something?

geez, any keepers?

Of course! He and RiceHigh share the same gallery space.


Steve

[starbase218]

Consider the date of the review and the state of AF at the time.

2010? The Canon 7D was released in 2009 and that still has pretty good AF. Also not sure what the spread of AF points has to do with the state of AF in 2010.

Consider too the state of AF on medium format in general in 2010 or even now. Case in point might be the Mamiya 645 DF+ with three (count 'em...3!) AF points! To be fair, Ken Rockwell soundly panned the DF+'s predecessor (Mamiya 645 DF) too.

Don't know the layout of that camera. Do know that Hasselblad has Trufocus, which effectively means you don't need any more points if you can focus-and-recompose.

[stevebrot]

2010? The Canon 7D was released in 2009 and that still has pretty good AF.

Ummm...11 points was not unusual in 2010. But that number/distribution by itself or the goodness of the 7D AF were not the source of Rockwell's complaint. His rant was centered on the plethora of features present. This was new and unique in the world of medium format at the time. He found it offensive that a serious medium format digital camera would match features with an APS-C camera (the K-7*) that he felt was consumer-level similar to the Canon Rebel. Why would a serious tool feature more than one (1) AF point? After all, the $43K Hasselblad only had one. What's more, the AF on the Hassy would have incredibly slow and not too accurate, but no big deal since AF is traditionally a novelty in the medium format space. AF can be useful, but if you want to do that kind of shooting, you use a 35mm FF or APS-C camera. The number and spread of the 645D focus points were a non-issue both then and now. If you doubt, I suggest posting an inquiry regarding the 645D AF points and how well they work for general shooting on the medium format section of this site. I suspect you will be greeted by a chorus of "huh?".

Having said all that, I will state in Rockwell's favor regarding the 645D article, it was a news item, not a review. Not in his favor is proclaiming judgment regarding usability/suitability of features on a camera he had never used. He panned a game-changing camera based on product photos and the spec sheet and a few fantasies.

If you are interested in a serious review to contrast with Rockwell's news article, I would suggest Nick Devlin's on Luminous Landscape. That should give you some perspective on both the camera and Rockwell's review. Rockwell was out of his depth even commenting.

https://luminous-landscape.com/pentax-645d-a-first-review/


Steve

* Rockwell had zero experience with the K-7 as well. If he had experience with that camera, he would have known there were no scene modes on the 645D as well and that neither is a Rebel XT-whatever.

[starbase218]

Ummm...11 points was not unusual in 2010.

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.

But that number/distribution by itself or the goodness of the 7D AF were not the source of Rockwell's complaint. His rant was centered on the plethora of features present. This was new and unique in the world of medium format at the time. He found it offensive that a serious medium format digital camera would match features with an APS-C camera (the K-7*) that he felt was consumer-level similar to the Canon Rebel. Why would a serious tool feature more than one (1) AF point? After all, the $43K Hasselblad only had one. What's more, the AF on the Hassy would have incredibly slow and not too accurate, but no big deal since AF is traditionally a novelty in the medium format space. AF can be useful, but if you want to do that kind of shooting, you use a 35mm FF or APS-C camera. The number and spread of the 645D focus points were a non-issue both then and now. If you doubt, I suggest posting an inquiry regarding the 645D AF points and how well they work for general shooting on the medium format section of this site. I suspect you will be greeted by a chorus of "huh?".

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.

Having said all that, I will state in Rockwell's favor regarding the 645D article, it was a news item, not a review.

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.

Not in his favor is proclaiming judgment regarding usability/suitability of features on a camera he had never used. He panned a game-changing camera based on product photos and the spec sheet and a few fantasies.

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.

If you are interested in a serious review to contrast with Rockwell's news article, I would suggest Nick Devlin's on Luminous Landscape. That should give you some perspective on both the camera and Rockwell's review. Rockwell was out of his depth even commenting.

I'm not, but thanks.

[Bunch]

So Starbase is Ken Rockwell, right?

[starbase218]

So Starbase is Ken Rockwell, right?

Thanks for implying I have (or have had) issues.

[Fat Albert]

This has nothing to do with the number of AF points on the 645D and everything to do with Rockwell's style of mixing fact with fantasy, and not specifying which is which. That's fine for experienced photographers who want a laugh, and toxic for noobs looking for good advice.

I have a problem with that. The fact that you don't speaks volumes.

[starbase218]

This has nothing to do with the number of AF points on the 645D

You got that right.

and everything to do with Rockwell's style of mixing fact with fantasy, and not specifying which is which. That's fine for experienced photographers who want a laugh, and toxic for noobs looking for good advice.

I have a problem with that. The fact that you don't speaks volumes.

Yes it does. 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? I won't encourage other people to read the 645D review, because I don't like it myself.

[tlong423]

He has a strong dislike for all things Hasselblad and Leica...

FWIW, I think a lot of his Leica stuff is pretty useful and accurate* Similarly, I think some of his stuff on Pentax's older film-era gear is helpful. I think anyone would readily agree that the 645D review was a bad thing and reads more like a childish, misdirected rant.

I understand where a lot of people here are coming from -- that the guy could lead "newbies" into a bad direction, but really the same could be said for any site. I would agree with starbase218 that there is both good and bad to be found there by the discriminating (and patient) reader.

---------------------------------
* when read through the usual Ken Rockwell hyperbole filter

[starbase218]

* when read through the usual Ken Rockwell hyperbole filter

True, you have to know how to read his stuff.