Ken Rockwell is Wrong

Yamanobori · 05-06-2012, 09:23 AM - **1 Like**

I need a new business card.

Todd Adamson · 05-06-2012, 09:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by larkis

As far as Ken Rockwell, I think he runs a joke/spoof site.

That is in large part true, though the money he makes from it is no joke, and he does occasionally weave in good info and serious reviews. He seriously cracks me up, though. I've recently been looking into RF cameras, and came across this gem on his site:

"I welcome the day when Kyocera comes back from out of nowhere and astonishes us with the Contax G3 Digital full-frame camera. My LEICA M9 would hit the big blue donations bin at Goodwill so fast that it would be deafening."

larkis · 05-06-2012, 09:34 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

That is in large part true, though the money he makes from it is no joke, and he does occasionally weave in good info and serious reviews. He seriously cracks me up, though. I've recently been looking into RF cameras, and came across this gem on his site:

"I welcome the day when Kyocera comes back from out of nowhere and astonishes us with the Contax G3 Digital full-frame camera. My LEICA M9 would hit the big blue donations bin at Goodwill so fast that it would be deafening."

Yea, humour can pay very well. His is an interesting blend of fact and bullshit which has many newcomers confused.

Blue · 05-06-2012, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by ismaelg

You are doing EXACTLY what he wants you to do. Free publicity so he gets a lot of traffic so he can wow sponsors so he can make money.
He generates money, you generate an ulcer.
He is a GENIUS

This isn't the kind of publicity that is going to send people over to hit the donations button .

If he had a "kick butt" button, he would be on to something.

Blue · 05-06-2012, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by larkis

. . .

As far as Ken Rockwell, I think he runs a joke/spoof site. No one serious would write some of the articles he writes. He is clearly a fan of a few pieces of gear and if a new camera does not follow that format he disregards it as "crap".

Funny you should mention that . . .

http://ricerockwell.blogspot.com/

Originally posted by LaurenOE

If Ken said those things about the 645D, then most definitely an idiot.

He said those things over 2 years ago. However, this is the part that is laughable. Apparently he thinks the average Hobbyist drops $9500 on a body.

Quote:

he bad news is that it's designed to appeal to hobbyists, meaning garbage features like 77-segment metering, wimpy, slow SD card media, stupid picture modes, live view, electronic level, 11-point AF — and gag me — multiple exposures and in-camera HDR, which have replaced the intelligent usability of simpler cameras designed for pros who know what they're doing.

phonoline · 05-06-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

And your proof? You don't need interchangeable backs for fashion. You don't need LS lenses. I thought "professional" landscape photographers used MFDB with Alpa and Arca Swiss cameras. The 645D is not my first MFD camera--I am not a beginner. I don't understand when high-class fashion is done with 35mm DSLRs, it isn't done with the 645D.

So, like Ken, apart from your personal opinion, do you have proof for your assertions?

Uh, okay, the 645D is not a pro cam, got that. Well, then we are back on one level here, cool. Interchangeable backs are for sure more future-proof than the 645D system is. Keep the cam, change the back - a tad more flexible, don't you think. As far as 35mm-fashion photographers are concerned who usually work with Canon or Nikon, some with Sony: those cams are just faster and more flexible than the 645D. Of course you can use the 645D in the studio but it is less flexible than any new generation Hasselblad, Mamiya or Phase One cam or back. Or an Arca Swiss if you will.
I don't need a proof for that, just ask around. Ask any high class beauty and fashion photographer, and I mean HIGH CLASS, not some of those you linked to (no offense). Those guys have a work flow you can never or hardly establish with a 645D.

atlnq9 · 05-06-2012, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by phonoline

Uh, okay, the 645D is not a pro cam

What is the definition of a professional?

Quote:

A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee.

Show of hands, how many people who own a 645D make money using it?
Ok, now show of hands, how many people bought a 645D to send pictures to aunt Betty?

Ken never should make comments like he did about the camera never having used it. As to pointless buttons there are only two I don't use (green button and the jpeg color scheme button). Better than the Nikon D3x I rented which I beg you to go around telling people is an amateur camera. Ken isn't even that stupid. Two out of twenty five buttons with no use to me, not too bad.

What is it with people that think that professional photographers only shoot high end fashion? I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about fashion. I don't think I will ever use mine in a studio. Doubt I will ever take a picture of a bride, refused to photograph my sister's wedding... I'll never take a portrait of a kid; can't stand the screaming, crying, pooping things. I photograph adventure, landscape, and travel... And it doesn't earn my complete living but it pays for all my equipment and trips, engineering pays too well to give up as a full time job.

Last edited by atlnq9; 05-06-2012 at 12:06 PM.

phonoline · 05-06-2012, 01:00 PM

I was being sarcastic. Of course I think the 645D is a pro cam.

Quote:

professional photographers only shoot high end fashion?

who said that?

Quote:

I don't think I will ever use mine in a studio. Doubt I will ever take a picture of a bride, refused to photograph my sister's wedding... I'll never take a portrait of a kid; can't stand the screaming, crying, pooping things. I photograph adventure, landscape, and travel... And it doesn't earn my complete living but it pays for all my equipment and trips, engineering pays too well to give up as a full time job.

Well, there u go. That's the purpose of the 645D.

tuco · 05-06-2012, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by atlnq9

So all you are really doing is showing that the Pentax is more advanced than the Hassy at a cheaper price.

In fairness to the Hassy, it really doesn't need multi-segment focus points with its True Focus system. You lock focus on a point with its single segment and when you recompose it automagically calculates what the focus distance is at the new aimed position. That gives it virtually an infinite amount of equivalent focus segments. So arguably, the Hassy has the more advanced focus system. However, I'd think the Hassy's system would be a disadvantage for focus stacking with say landscapes.

GibbyTheMole · 05-06-2012, 05:59 PM

I just love the title of the thread... It reminds me of the Al Franken book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot". Both titles are true. Ken once posted a bad review of a Pentax DSLR (don't remember which one) that he never used, never shot with, never held, and never even seen! That's the hallmark of an idiot right there...

Silent Street · 05-06-2012, 08:15 PM

Any reason why you are using a digital camera? Some of you digi fanbois just do not get the point.
Here's my riposte: IDIOTS use digital cameras. Thanks to Rockwell for pointing out all the God-forsaken stuff we DO NOT need. People lacking solid foundation skills in analogue photography will always gravitate to feature-laden digital cameras. Please, just get over it when people are stating the blinding obvious in ridiculous features.

**Ash** · 05-06-2012, 09:00 PM

Silent Street, your post isn't helpful nor enlightening. Cameras are simply tools to get the job done. Film or digital - it matters little. Asserting that the post-analog photographer doesn't appreciate the fundamentals of photography is both ignorant and indignant. Even the most advanced camera is little more than a $10 toy in the hands of a novice with no skill. This is a constant message in the forum. But saying statements such as yours brings you no credibility. Features beyond ease of exposure setting manipulations (e.g. TAv mode, which is no gimmick), responsiveness of AF (for fast-moving subjects) and sensor fidelity (a great quality digital 'film') are OK but essentially superfluous. They can still be desirable though. And the joys of shooting full frame may not be absolutely necessary, but highly preferable...

That's my opinion.

adelorenzo · 05-06-2012, 10:04 PM - **1 Like**

OK, everyone here calling him an idiot should think about reading his about page:

About KenRockwell.com

...this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact..."

...if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)...

I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

etc. etc.

I don't know where you guys have been on the internet but Ken Rockwell has been around for a long time. Personally I don't agree with everything he believes about photography but I have learned from his site. For example his information on the 645N is some of the better information I've found.

Pentax 645N

Blue · 05-06-2012, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by adelorenzo

OK, everyone here calling him an idiot should think about reading his about page:

About KenRockwell.com

...this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact..."

...if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)...

I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

etc. etc.

I don't know where you guys have been on the internet but Ken Rockwell has been around for a long time. Personally I don't agree with everything he believes about photography but I have learned from his site. For example his information on the 645N is some of the better information I've found.

Pentax 645N

Perhaps he should require everyone to read that disclaimer before making a donation.

selar · 05-06-2012, 10:26 PM

Good Lord, we must all be extremely bored to make a 3 page long thread about a (self confessed?) idiot!

05-06-2012, 05:31 PM	#39
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by atlnq9 So all you are really doing is showing that the Pentax is more advanced than the Hassy at a cheaper price. In fairness to the Hassy, it really doesn't need multi-segment focus points with its True Focus system. You lock focus on a point with its single segment and when you recompose it automagically calculates what the focus distance is at the new aimed position. That gives it virtually an infinite amount of equivalent focus segments. So arguably, the Hassy has the more advanced focus system. However, I'd think the Hassy's system would be a disadvantage for focus stacking with say landscapes. Last edited by tuco; 05-06-2012 at 09:37 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ken Rockwell The film evangelist	Lambda_drive	Photographic Industry and Professionals	42	12-04-2011 01:24 PM
Taking on Ken Rockwell (another animation)	eddie1960	General Talk	17	07-13-2011 06:46 PM
Ken Rockwell Facts	sebberry	General Talk	15	02-24-2010 12:16 AM
New Pentax gear reviews by Ken Rockwell	Erik	Pentax News and Rumors	50	02-09-2009 02:28 AM
Let's hope Ken Rockwell is right for once...	JMS	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-04-2008 03:17 PM

05-06-2012, 09:23 AM - 1 Like	#31
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	I need a new business card.

05-06-2012, 09:24 AM - 1 Like	#32
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by larkis As far as Ken Rockwell, I think he runs a joke/spoof site. That is in large part true, though the money he makes from it is no joke, and he does occasionally weave in good info and serious reviews. He seriously cracks me up, though. I've recently been looking into RF cameras, and came across this gem on his site: "I welcome the day when Kyocera comes back from out of nowhere and astonishes us with the Contax G3 Digital full-frame camera. My LEICA M9 would hit the big blue donations bin at Goodwill so fast that it would be deafening."

05-06-2012, 09:34 AM - 1 Like	#33
larkis Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 130	Originally posted by Todd Adamson That is in large part true, though the money he makes from it is no joke, and he does occasionally weave in good info and serious reviews. He seriously cracks me up, though. I've recently been looking into RF cameras, and came across this gem on his site: "I welcome the day when Kyocera comes back from out of nowhere and astonishes us with the Contax G3 Digital full-frame camera. My LEICA M9 would hit the big blue donations bin at Goodwill so fast that it would be deafening." Yea, humour can pay very well. His is an interesting blend of fact and bullshit which has many newcomers confused.

05-06-2012, 09:38 AM	#34
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by ismaelg You are doing EXACTLY what he wants you to do. Free publicity so he gets a lot of traffic so he can wow sponsors so he can make money. He generates money, you generate an ulcer. He is a GENIUS This isn't the kind of publicity that is going to send people over to hit the donations button . If he had a "kick butt" button, he would be on to something.

05-06-2012, 09:45 AM	#35
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by larkis . . . As far as Ken Rockwell, I think he runs a joke/spoof site. No one serious would write some of the articles he writes. He is clearly a fan of a few pieces of gear and if a new camera does not follow that format he disregards it as "crap". Funny you should mention that . . . http://ricerockwell.blogspot.com/ Originally posted by LaurenOE If Ken said those things about the 645D, then most definitely an idiot. He said those things over 2 years ago. However, this is the part that is laughable. Apparently he thinks the average Hobbyist drops $9500 on a body. Quote: he bad news is that it's designed to appeal to hobbyists, meaning garbage features like 77-segment metering, wimpy, slow SD card media, stupid picture modes, live view, electronic level, 11-point AF — and gag me — multiple exposures and in-camera HDR, which have replaced the intelligent usability of simpler cameras designed for pros who know what they're doing.

05-06-2012, 10:23 AM	#36
phonoline Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Hamburg Posts: 267	Originally posted by Yamanobori And your proof? You don't need interchangeable backs for fashion. You don't need LS lenses. I thought "professional" landscape photographers used MFDB with Alpa and Arca Swiss cameras. The 645D is not my first MFD camera--I am not a beginner. I don't understand when high-class fashion is done with 35mm DSLRs, it isn't done with the 645D. So, like Ken, apart from your personal opinion, do you have proof for your assertions? Uh, okay, the 645D is not a pro cam, got that. Well, then we are back on one level here, cool. Interchangeable backs are for sure more future-proof than the 645D system is. Keep the cam, change the back - a tad more flexible, don't you think. As far as 35mm-fashion photographers are concerned who usually work with Canon or Nikon, some with Sony: those cams are just faster and more flexible than the 645D. Of course you can use the 645D in the studio but it is less flexible than any new generation Hasselblad, Mamiya or Phase One cam or back. Or an Arca Swiss if you will. I don't need a proof for that, just ask around. Ask any high class beauty and fashion photographer, and I mean HIGH CLASS, not some of those you linked to (no offense). Those guys have a work flow you can never or hardly establish with a 645D.

05-06-2012, 11:39 AM	#37
atlnq9 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Arizona Photos: Albums Posts: 330 Original Poster	Originally posted by phonoline Uh, okay, the 645D is not a pro cam What is the definition of a professional? Quote: A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee. Show of hands, how many people who own a 645D make money using it? Ok, now show of hands, how many people bought a 645D to send pictures to aunt Betty? Ken never should make comments like he did about the camera never having used it. As to pointless buttons there are only two I don't use (green button and the jpeg color scheme button). Better than the Nikon D3x I rented which I beg you to go around telling people is an amateur camera. Ken isn't even that stupid. Two out of twenty five buttons with no use to me, not too bad. What is it with people that think that professional photographers only shoot high end fashion? I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about fashion. I don't think I will ever use mine in a studio. Doubt I will ever take a picture of a bride, refused to photograph my sister's wedding... I'll never take a portrait of a kid; can't stand the screaming, crying, pooping things. I photograph adventure, landscape, and travel... And it doesn't earn my complete living but it pays for all my equipment and trips, engineering pays too well to give up as a full time job. Last edited by atlnq9; 05-06-2012 at 12:06 PM.

05-06-2012, 01:00 PM	#38
phonoline Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Hamburg Posts: 267	I was being sarcastic. Of course I think the 645D is a pro cam. Quote: professional photographers only shoot high end fashion? who said that? Quote: I don't think I will ever use mine in a studio. Doubt I will ever take a picture of a bride, refused to photograph my sister's wedding... I'll never take a portrait of a kid; can't stand the screaming, crying, pooping things. I photograph adventure, landscape, and travel... And it doesn't earn my complete living but it pays for all my equipment and trips, engineering pays too well to give up as a full time job. Well, there u go. That's the purpose of the 645D.

05-06-2012, 05:59 PM	#40
GibbyTheMole Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Iowa Photos: Albums Posts: 2,275	I just love the title of the thread... It reminds me of the Al Franken book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot". Both titles are true. Ken once posted a bad review of a Pentax DSLR (don't remember which one) that he never used, never shot with, never held, and never even seen! That's the hallmark of an idiot right there...

05-06-2012, 08:15 PM	#41
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Any reason why you are using a digital camera? Some of you digi fanbois just do not get the point. Here's my riposte: IDIOTS use digital cameras. Thanks to Rockwell for pointing out all the God-forsaken stuff we DO NOT need. People lacking solid foundation skills in analogue photography will always gravitate to feature-laden digital cameras. Please, just get over it when people are stating the blinding obvious in ridiculous features.

05-06-2012, 09:00 PM	#42
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Silent Street, your post isn't helpful nor enlightening. Cameras are simply tools to get the job done. Film or digital - it matters little. Asserting that the post-analog photographer doesn't appreciate the fundamentals of photography is both ignorant and indignant. Even the most advanced camera is little more than a $10 toy in the hands of a novice with no skill. This is a constant message in the forum. But saying statements such as yours brings you no credibility. Features beyond ease of exposure setting manipulations (e.g. TAv mode, which is no gimmick), responsiveness of AF (for fast-moving subjects) and sensor fidelity (a great quality digital 'film') are OK but essentially superfluous. They can still be desirable though. And the joys of shooting full frame may not be absolutely necessary, but highly preferable... That's my opinion.

05-06-2012, 10:04 PM - 1 Like	#43
adelorenzo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Whitehorse, Yukon Posts: 171	OK, everyone here calling him an idiot should think about reading his about page: About KenRockwell.com ...this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact..." ...if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)... I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page. etc. etc. I don't know where you guys have been on the internet but Ken Rockwell has been around for a long time. Personally I don't agree with everything he believes about photography but I have learned from his site. For example his information on the 645N is some of the better information I've found. Pentax 645N

05-06-2012, 10:06 PM	#44
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by adelorenzo OK, everyone here calling him an idiot should think about reading his about page: About KenRockwell.com ...this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact..." ...if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)... I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page. etc. etc. I don't know where you guys have been on the internet but Ken Rockwell has been around for a long time. Personally I don't agree with everything he believes about photography but I have learned from his site. For example his information on the 645N is some of the better information I've found. Pentax 645N Perhaps he should require everyone to read that disclaimer before making a donation.

05-06-2012, 10:26 PM	#45
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Good Lord, we must all be extremely bored to make a 3 page long thread about a (self confessed?) idiot!