[stevebrot]

His site is entirely subjective opinion (sometimes not even based on actually using the gear in question). That in itself is not a problem, the problem is that some people take it as reliable information, and Ken capitalized on that.

Yep...He does post example photos, but overall his reviews and articles are his impressions and opinions. He is most famous on this forum for dissing recent model Pentax cameras without having ever seen one. He is universally famous for being a Nikon (and to a lesser extent, Canon) fanboy. That is not a bad thing if you are a Nikon shooter or are considering purchase of current or vintage Nikon gear. I actually based a purchase decision on his review of the Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye (I bought the lens and have had few regrets*).


Steve


* My only regrets are related to the first copy I received being defective mechanically resulting it permanent damage to the aperture coupling on a much-beloved Ricoh XR7.

[pathdoc]

Being Australian, it has always been my understanding that the bunyip simply ate you.

I was actually talking about possible meanings of "legend" where it relates to true human greatness - some are legends in their own lifetimes, others only in their own minds and those of deluded followers.

[pres589]

The author writes "Seriously Nikon, what the hell kind of zoom range is that?" and I'm sitting here thinking, well, 43mm is supposed to be exactly normal on full frame, and then doubled for the long end. Right? It kind of seems obvious if not quite smart.

Nice article overall and well written.

[northcoastgreg]

I'm not clear what people have against Ken.

Rockwell represents something of an over-reaction to those hobbyists and reviewers who place way too much emphasis on gear. I suppose that can seem somewhat refreshing --- but I do believe Rockwell has gone too far in the opposite direction. Indeed, sometimes his views can seem so dubious that its difficult not to believe he's a satirical rogue running a parody site. He once claimed that the 10 with arrows around it on Nikon lenses means that the lens has to be thrown out after ten years. That's funny as a joke --- except many people, especially novice photographers just starting out, take this stuff seriously. And that's really were the trouble is, because much of Rockwell's advice is not that good, particularly for amateur photographers trying to step up their game. While it may be true that gearheads and camera companies exaggerate the importance of expensive gear, responding to this by going to the opposite extreme sends an even worse message. Many photographers, when just starting out, don't want to spend money on lenses, don't want to shoot and process raw files, and don't want to use a tripod. Rockwell comes along and says that's just fine. He recommends buying a superzoom, shooting jpg, and foregoing a tripod ("I don't need no stinkin' tripod"). What he says about RAW files is typical of his attitude:

Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn’t look any better than JPG even when you can open the files.

Again we have the snarky, satirical attitude laced with hyperbole/misinformation.

Now for those who just want to play at photography and don't have any high ambitions, Rockwell's advice might be okay. But for those attempting to take their photography to the next level, Rockwell's advice just won't do. If you want to compete with the elite photographers, especially in landscape and nature photography, you're probably going to have shoot with something better than a superzoom; you're going to have to shoot in raw; and a tripod is probably going to be necessary (at least some of the time) as well.

In short, he provides questionable advice, his site is full of hyperbole and misinformation, and it can be hard to take him seriously. (See here for a critical take-down of Rockwell from commercial architecture photographer Michael Muraz.)

[UncleVanya]

Wow - my own exposure to Ken is purely (almost purely) as a technical reference site for primarily Nikon lens history and specs. I had no idea what a polarizing force he was.

I have shot JPG only but switched to RAW when my processing power permitted it. The main benefit for me is recovery of shadows and white balance tweaking. I found I could post process JPG's fairly well to do what I wanted but RAW gives me a slight edge for the shots that push boundaries. I would not have a problem with a pro who shot only JPG - assuming they controlled their lighting (maybe a studio shooter) and they had the talent to do it right almost all the time. But I get the point that Michael is making.

Ken's point about file sizes makes no sense when talking JPG - a 6MP jpg is smaller than an 11MP file but the delta isn't huge compared to modern speed buses and drives. A workflow management tool could batch downsample the 11MP to 6MP easily.

I see the concerns clearly now. I frankly never had read any of that junk from him - so I missed the reason people piled on when he was mentioned.

[MikeD]

Yeah, that one raised my eyebrows a little. Still, the article author seems to have a record of professional work under his belt, so even if he's a Rockwell fanboy* for some reason I think his article is not without merit. I was actually surprised when I saw this article wasn't by Yannick Khong or Ken "Angry Photographer" Wheeler, as he appears to be singing from their basic song-sheet.


* = Where Rockwell's professional output (such as it may be) goes I do not know, though it seems every time I look at his website he's photographed the hell out of yet another overseas family holiday. So for a man who feeds his growing family off his website (his own claim), you have to admit he's doing pretty well. Some of his holiday shots make me want to go to those places, so for all the knocking he gets, he's at least not an absolutely and consistently terrible photographer.

Mr. Rockwell being a legend can be taken more than one way. Pee Wee Herman is a legend in some regards