[mattb123]

I've been reading up lately and stumbled on this Rockwell bit on the D from 2010.
I'm sure it's been posted before but I had to laugh when I read it. I don't care about many of those features either but they won't make me hate a camera for having them. Oh, and there is no live view on the D.

The 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.

[bertwert]

Ken Rockwell makes me laugh at the stupidity...

---

From his K-3ii review (opening paragraph):

The Pentax K3 II is a sturdy little camera, but sadly Pentax took out the built-in flash and put a GPS there instead. Without a built-in flash, image quality will suffer, especially outdoors since you won't have any fill-flash (critical to good outdoor people pictures) unless you bring a separate shoe-mount flash. Boo.

You can tell he really does want built-in flash, I guess a Nikon D4s or Canon 5DSr are no good as they have no built-in flash...

From his DA 50 f1.8 review:

The Pentax 50mm f/1.8 IS is well made, but it's all plastic except for the glass and electronics.

IS - WTH?

From his D-FA 100mm f2.8 macro review:

There's no outside mounting index dot; you have to squint and look for the red dot hidden on the mount. It's obvious here in this close-up and well-lit studio shot, but usually invisible in the field.

Or if you normally use Pentax you know it is right in the middle of the nameplate... like very other lens.

[mrNewt]

People are actually reading that guy's stuff? LOL
Every link towards that site I treat it as a "clickbait". This guy and the froknow guy... I avoid them like plague!

[Kolor-Pikker]

For someone who never fails to criticize armchair experts, it's kind of hilarious to see the same person judging a camera based on just it's specs.

People are actually reading that guys stuff? LOL
Every link towards that site I treat it as a "clickbait". This guy and the froknow guy... I avoid them like plague!

Ken has been a bit of a running gag in the photographic community for a while now, he only poses danger to new photographers who might take him seriously.

His personal opinions aside, he has a fairly comprehensive collection of specs and data for a lot of cameras, lenses and accessories, many of which are no longer in production, so as a reference he can actually be of some use. How many lens review sites bother checking for things like sun stars or coma?

[pathdoc]

the intelligent usability of simpler cameras designed for pros who know what they're doing.

Perhaps he'd prefer a Spotmatic? But oh dear, that's got INBUILT METERING and AUTO STOP-DOWN! Better give him an Asahiflex, then.

This guy and the froknow guy... I avoid them like plague!

Heh. Froknow guy did a lengthy explosive YouTube rant entitled "Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography!" After a good read of Rockwell's site I would agree that his utterances need to be taken with a hefty grain of salt, but 'dangerous to photography' is taking things a bit far.

[mrNewt]

His personal opinions aside, he has a fairly comprehensive collection of specs and data for a lot of cameras, lenses and accessories, many of which are no longer in production, so as a reference he can actually be of some use. How many lens review sites bother checking for things like sun stars or coma?

The problem is that you cannot put his personal opinions aside since his personal opinion goes in almost anything he says... is hard to believe or take as true any kind of specs he might have about any kind of gear. So rather than have a chance and get the wrong info, I much prefer to just steer clear and try and find my information somewhere else.
Anyway, that is just my personal opinion about the guy... some love and even defend him...

[DeadJohn]

K.R. is ignorant and arrogant. Please don't click the link; that increases his page views and he makes more money.

[boriscleto]

Please don't click the link; that increases his page views and he makes more money.

But he has a growing family!

[mrNewt]

Heh. Froknow guy did a lengthy explosive YouTube rant entitled "Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography!" After a good read of Rockwell's site I would agree that his utterances need to be taken with a hefty grain of salt, but 'dangerous to photography' is taking things a bit far.

Froknow is a little smarter than Ken, I will give him that... but nothing more lol.
Actually I take that back, he is not smarter, but at least he is actually a photographer and making money out of it.

Oh and there is one more guy... that "angryphotographer" or something like that!?... Man, that is another character...

But he has a growing family!

Lol I remember reading that long time ago...

[mattb123]

K.R. is ignorant and arrogant. Please don't click the link; that increases his page views and he makes more money.

I think it's ok if you use AdBlock.

I agree there's a lot of good info on his site and Google drops me there regularly when I'm trying to figure something out. The biggest problem I have is how he injects his views into everything as facts. Or presents facts that are actually not true (live view on 645d for example). That can make finding the actual facts in all of this a challenge.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but presenting them as fact can be misleading and downright egocentric.

[pathdoc]

that "angryphotographer" or something like that!?... Man, that is another character...

He's not exactly a fan of Mr Froknows either. He at least seems to know what he's talking about, even if his take on optics is... rather individual and peculiar.

[dansamy]

I remember running across K.R. early in my search. Oh good Lord. It didn't take me long to dismiss his craziness for the lunacy it is.

[mrNewt]

He's not exactly a fan of Mr Froknows either. He at least seems to know what he's talking about, even if his take on optics is... rather individual and peculiar.

That guy is not a fan of anything, but his opinion . Everything he is saying IS LAW... and angry law!

Bottom line, none of them is stupid per say. They at least have the basics, is just that they tend to be very opinionated and arrogant about their views. Personally I would not consider them reviewers... I see them more as an entertainment act.

Ken is actually a smart cookie in a way. He even mentioned that the website for him is a business. So he posts a lot of stuff just to be there even if sometimes he never actually held that specific camera/lens, but he still posts a review about it... more content, more clicks... etc... business in the end. And that's why he is a clickbait lol.

The angry photographer has more knowledge but he is way too arrogant and annoying. Sometimes he is goofing up way too much and the personal attacks he makes on others are usually not well founded.

Froknow is like the clown of them 3 (less knowledgeable and amusing). But at least he always shoots raw and he NEVER CROPS... XD.

[luftfluss]

Rockwell?

You Tube

You Tube