# Letter to Mr Rockwell in regards to his 5Dmkiii review



## @!ex (Apr 4, 2012)

I sent this to him. This guy seriously bugs me. How can you write a review on something you don't even read the manual or check all the options on? Crazy that he gets mentioned so often on forums all over the interwebs.

Here is a link to the comparison chart in his d800 review that I reference....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800.htm

Mr. Rockwell,
I have read both your reviews of the 5Dmkiii and the D800.

I just would like to inform you that some of your major concerns with the 5d that you harp on a LOT in the review are not in fact a reality. These so called problems are echoed with big red no's on the comparison chart that you made at the bottom of the d800 review.

1) problem: AF marks hide subject. Truth: it is fully customizable, in the 5th AF menu second item down "AF point display during focus", you can have the box on at all times, you can have all the AF boxes on all the time, you can have the AF box disappear once focus is achieved (best case scenario), or you can have it always gone.

2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes. Truth: Fully customizable. I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot. You can also set other buttons to perform this as well (if you actually use the DOF preview that much), IMHO it's actually much better than a physical toggle like on the older nikons and pentax because I would accidentally hit it and be in servo or vice versus all the time.

3) problem: no ability to select various AF points without multiple button presses. Truth: Can easily set this. Again, under button customization, if you go to the the options for the multi selector (the joystick) the other option beside default is direct AF point selection. If you set it this way you don't even need to hold the joystick down, just select away, no need to push the AF selector button first then hit the joystick (not that that is really hard, and I imagine they have this as the default so you don't accidentally move you AF point).

Just a thought, might be a good idea to read the manual and or check all the menus before writing a review on the web that tries to act informed, and sway people's purchasing opinions.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

wow you went pretty easy on him, I was expecting both barrels...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Heinlein summed it up: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 5, 2012)

I bet he sings better than he takes pictures 

+5 VIVID !!!!!

ET


----------



## jrista (Apr 5, 2012)

I think you went rather softball on him. He is a classic Nikonist...he knows Nikon cameras like the back of his hand, and shows little interest in fully learning Canon cameras just as well, and that bias shows through very well in his reviews. The guy generally ticks me off for his blatant and rather constant bias.


----------



## dturano (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm so angry i already opened and used my 5dmk3, i would have never got my camera if i saw this:

"World's best DSLR: 36MP FX, 4 FPS"


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

jrista said:


> The guy generally ticks me off for his blatant and rather constant bias.



not to mention him stating many things as absolute fact that are just plain wrong


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 5, 2012)

I wonder if he will actually change/update his review of the camera if he reads @!ex's letter about the focus system? I have seen him update reviews many times before.


----------



## jrista (Apr 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The guy generally ticks me off for his blatant and rather constant bias.
> ...



Yup. That too. I guess I kind of roll all that into "bias". "Bias and Lies, the fate of Ken Rockwell."


----------



## drjlo (Apr 5, 2012)

@!ex said:


> 2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes. Truth: Fully customizable. I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot.



Great minds think alike! Few days ago, I configured the DOF button to assign AI servo for those exact reasons. Kind of exhilerating to follow a moving object, hold down DOF (AI Servo) and squeeze off High Speed Burst. That's how I got this shot the other day:




DZ3C0198A by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## @!ex (Apr 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > 2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes. Truth: Fully customizable. I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot.
> ...



Great capture


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Heinlein summed it up: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."


Heh. nice quote... will have to remember that....

Only this time, the pig might sing later on and claim it invented singing...

to the OP: Well pointed out, and geeee you're civil....


----------



## Orion (Apr 5, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Crazy that he gets mentioned so often on forums all over the interwebs.



Oh, I don't think it's crazy at all that he gets mentioned since people like to give credence and attention where it is least deserving. . . for the sole reason that they cannot remain quiet about that little spec opf dust they notice on the window, for example. . . . they just need to talk and mention it . . just like you and your letter can;t resist the urge to give confirmation and loend SOME credence to this "reviewer." SOciety is blinded by certain veils that force them to waste thier time on frivilous things and make big deals about them when there is no need, since, as in this case we already know, there are many more factual and souond reviews, etc, on the net.

So, please don't mention how crazy all this is that he gets mentioned. . . . it's society gone ape S___ and is itself acting frivilous and becomes wasteful just as wasteful as that which they cannot stand. 

(not a knock on you, although it may sound like that. . . . just want to say what I see on the net and how society is shaping up . . or down, as the case may be) 



jrista said:


> I think you went rather softball on him. He is a classic Nikonist...he knows Nikon cameras like the back of his hand, and shows little interest in fully learning Canon cameras just as well, and that bias shows through very well in his reviews. The guy generally ticks me off for his blatant and rather constant bias.



By all means, then, let's keep on going over there and seeing what his next bias is . . . I think we know many, if not all, by now. . . . I hop somebody manages to save the world from him. That must be it!


----------



## Bosman (Apr 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > 2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes. Truth: Fully customizable. I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot.
> ...


I like that idea.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 5, 2012)

Sometimes i wonder whether to feed the troll or not.
Any publicity he gets is just going to result in more hits to his site, more ad revenue, link-click-purchases and whatnot.
Sometimes I wonder if he's like a radio shock-jock, the ones who spout such inflammatory (generally ignorant, sexist, and racist, whatever, we've got one in Australia called Kyle, there's a Brit called Russel, although they're far from the worst), the public get offended, create an uproar, the shock-jock apologises and backpedals, but all that happens is that he gets more exposure and ratings and listeners and ad revenue.
I see a lot of parallels between that and the site-marketing techniques of mr rockhammer.

But then, I did read that entire review end to end. Maybe it's the way I read it, but it doesn't sound like the camera comes off sounding bad. He, on the other hand, does. Half of that long review could have been replaced with the text "I didn't bother to read even a quarter of the manual, or spend more than 5 minutes trying, so i'm going to blame the camera, the sooner I get this review out the sooner i get my ad revenue so this is all you get."


Still, it's not the worst i've read. I read an article from a Medium Format Film shooter, trying out digital for the first time, there was a line like "I tried zooming and you have to press a button on the back and it's hard to get precisely where you want it". Uh, yeah, compare manual-focus 6x6 film and prime-lenses to a crappy P&S digital. Didn't put me off wanting an MF film setup, but if anything i just lost a bit of respect for the reviewer...


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 5, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Here is a link to the comparison chart in his d800 review that I reference....
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800.htm



I stopped reading at the first sample pic. Is it just me, or does using the world's best DSLR to take overly saturated images of a picnic table seem like a waste? Ken likey the saturation! I am impressed by how someone who harps on every last tech spec can take such mediocre images.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> mediocre images.



again far too generous


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 5, 2012)

[sarcasm]Please let us know if the esteemed Mr. Rockwell replies back and which words of wisdom he chose to bless you with.[/sarcasm]


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link to the comparison chart in his d800 review that I reference....
> ...




The uninformed camera buying public loves over saturated and over sharpened photos, and that who's reading his website. 

I think the majority of d800 and 5D3 cameras are bought by people who'll never take it out of green mode. They buy it because moar expensive is better, and they've read reviews that it's a great camera, I mean, just look at those colorful photos!


----------



## rolsskk (Apr 5, 2012)

No one is going to ask him about the new Nikon feature of "Auto Distrion Correction"? I got a good laugh out of that.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link to the comparison chart in his d800 review that I reference....
> ...



I still laugh whenever I see a camera review anywhere that includes a picture of the box the camera came in.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 5, 2012)

I have my 7D's DOF button programmed to AF mode adjust too! Ken is years behind.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 5, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The uninformed camera buying public loves over saturated and over sharpened photos, and that who's reading his website.
> I think the majority of d800 and 5D3 cameras are bought by people who'll never take it out of green mode. They buy it because moar expensive is better, and they've read reviews that it's a great camera, I mean, just look at those colorful photos!



Why does that answer remind me of this?


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 5, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > The uninformed camera buying public loves over saturated and over sharpened photos, and that who's reading his website.
> ...



That was a pretty funny read. I wasn't familiar with the term bogan, so I looked it up and there's an equally funny definition on Urban Dictionary. Thanks for the link ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

translation for americans Bogan = Redneck


----------



## @!ex (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link to the comparison chart in his d800 review that I reference....
> ...



I wish all reviewers were required to show their best pics upfront, because I wouldn't take spelling advice from someone who couldn't spell...


----------



## @!ex (Apr 5, 2012)

One last mini rant, KR has a whole page dedicated to the "real raw" which he claims is film, and which he also claims is more of a true RAW than digital RAWs. This is the most asinine thing I can imagine. Each film type has a color space imbedded in it, is made of tiny silver crystals that are different "pixel sizes" depending on ISO, and are more similar to a jpeg than a raw because the film chemistry imparts image qualities on the final product much like a JPEG's settings. In fact I would argue that film is much more like JPEG than RAW if anything. Dude makes no sense and his condescending conversational writing style seems like it might appeal to the same type of person that finds Sarah Palin to be an ideal presidential candidate. 

(as an aside I mostly shoot JPEG, but use RAW when I know I'm going to need a few critical PP adjustments or DR that JPEG can't handle)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm


----------



## kdsand (Apr 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Heinlein summed it up: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."



Ahh Heinlein 

Never pass up a meal!

Lets just go with an apple in his mouth and a nice roast.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 5, 2012)

Quick, bring back the negative karma....I'm about to support Ken Rockwell.

His site is entertaining. If he can manage to support himself from it, good on him. I don't think he's ever tried to portray himself as a professional photographer. He has his biases, likes and dislikes and he doesn't try to hide them. Sometimes its interesting to read his personal opinion, rather than a (supposedly) objective review.

He's been at it so long, that his site is very comprehensive. There are some interesting, funny, and perceptive pages. He might get some of the finer details wrong (such as his regular assertion that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon's), but its rare for him to be totally off track.

RealRaw! I love how he's coined the term and claiming that he's trademarked it. You've got to admit - it's funny. 

Sadly, I don't know if he's lost interest in his site. A couple of years ago, he was belting out some good content. Now it seems solely like a money making exercise. It's as though he's sold the site and someone new is just capitalising from the page visits.

Why do I like Ken Rockwell? It's because I'm a bogan. And I briefly lived in Logan, Queensland (the bogan capital of Australia). I was a proud "Logan Bogan".


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

I think you all need to take a chill pill. 

Mr Rockwell lives on controversy - literally. This post, and others like it, provoke people to visit his site, and he gets more advertising revenue. 

He likes to be controversial and extreme - it provokes debate, gets more hits.

The guy isn't stupid, and he doesn't pretend to be unbiased or accurate. His motivations are simple: generate traffic.

Once you realise that, comments like 'I never use a DSLR for anything now, I use a Leica M9' or some other daft thing become more understandable: he is all things to all men, and has an opinion on everything - even if its a stupid one.

Sending him letters is great, if it makes you happy. But don't expect him to change.

Cameras are just tools. Some are good for some things, some for others. There is no perfect camera, and there never will be - the laws of physics make that a certainty. Ken just plays that diversity to his advantage. You think this is any more ruthless than Apple, Google, Microsoft or Canon ? I think not.


----------



## BillyBean (Apr 5, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Sadly, I don't know if he's lost interest in his site. A couple of years ago, he was belting out some good content. Now it seems solely like a money making exercise. It's as though he's sold the site and someone new is just capitalising from the page visits.



Yep, seems off his game these days. I agree, though, he can be entertaining. Kinda like Dilbert - you have to take him with a pinch of salt.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

Ken Rockwell seems to me to have become the Sarah Palin of photography


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> It's because I'm a bogan. And I briefly lived in Logan, Queensland (the bogan capital of Australia). I was a proud "Logan Bogan".



we need pics of your mullet as proof STAT!


----------



## PeterJ (Apr 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > It's because I'm a bogan. And I briefly lived in Logan, Queensland (the bogan capital of Australia). I was a proud "Logan Bogan".
> ...


I heard a CR3 that Hillsilly is really Bloke Man, so no need for further proof myself:

Comedy Inc. - Bloke Man


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> The uninformed camera buying public loves over saturated and over sharpened photos...



FWIW, Canon clearly knows this, as is evident from the Standard Picture Style.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 5, 2012)

Good grief, those pictures on his site burned my retinas.

I love this lens suggestion:
"The best lens to use on full-frame is Nikon's newest 28-300mm VR."


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > 2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes. Truth: Fully customizable. I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot.
> ...



Too bad that Bee completely ruined your flower shot and shame the Canon lost focus on the flower like you intended.

... Oh? 

That was your point?



Very nice picture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Too bad that Bee completely ruined your flower shot and shame the Canon lost focus on the flower like you intended.



The bee's wings are blurry. Clearly, the AF system on this camera sucks. :


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad that Bee completely ruined your flower shot and shame the Canon lost focus on the flower like you intended.
> ...



My guess is that the IS is faulty ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



Time to buy a Sony then ;D


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 5, 2012)

To characterize Ken as a prejudiced Nikonian is untrue.
Go read his recent updates to his beloved D800.
Seems he's pissing and moaning about it and he cannot get anything in focus 

ET


----------



## Somnipotent (Apr 5, 2012)

Ken Rockwell is a tool. And holy cow is that camera ugly as sin.


----------



## jfretless (Apr 5, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Crazy that he gets mentioned so often on forums all over the interwebs.



Ken Rockwell wins again.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2012)

Anyone ever seen the videos on youtube where he wonders around B&H like a buffoon, claims that good sports photographers should not need super teles, delcares a EVIL camera has too many buttons and all other sorts of nonsense??

Enjoy:
Ken Rockwell Visits B&H


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 5, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Flather said:
> ...




Moneh is moneh, we like moar moneh.


----------



## nikkito (Apr 5, 2012)

Somnipotent said:


> Ken Rockwell is a tool. And holy cow is that camera ugly as sin.



Hell yeah it's ugly!!!


----------



## kdsand (Apr 5, 2012)

Oh my!
I feel the love.
It tickles!
;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 5, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Anyone ever seen the videos on youtube where he wonders around B&H like a buffoon, claims that good sports photographers should not need super teles, delcares a EVIL camera has too many buttons and all other sorts of nonsense??



The guy's even more annoying in person. I didn't know that was possible.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 5, 2012)

Great review!!! The guy is an idiot. Seriously. Ive lost a ton of respect for him over the last 2 years.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 6, 2012)

Oh come on.
He's just a little indecisive 

For Canon's he thinks the 24-70 or the 24-105 is the shit and that most Canon pros use the 24-70.
For the Nikon, he raves a bit about the 24-70, but then in his FX Dream Team, he gushes over the 50 F/1.4 G, saying things like "Pros don't use a midrange zoom".

ET


----------



## pwp (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm pretty much neutral on Ken Rockwell. He does thing differently in a fairly beige world. At least the guy gets a response!

But sheesh! If he offends, just don't read him!

Paul Wright


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> "Pros don't use a midrange zoom".



Comments like these are why no one can take him seriously. How the f**k can someone who's clearly a talentless tech head of an amateur feel qualified to speak on behalf of all pros, and make ignorant blanket statements at that? Is it the overly saturated snap shots of a picnic bench taken with "the world's best DSLR" that's supposed to earn him credibility? 

In that vid, he says how a 70-200mm zoom is sufficient for motorsports photography because that's what some NASCAR photographer told him. What a [email protected] That might apply to NASCAR, where the press can get very close to the action and the cars race in tight packs 10-20 cars deep. However, on a road course (F1 for example) where the cars get strung out, it's not uncommon to need 600mm of reach. 

I snapped this at Texas Motor Speedway with a 1DII and 70-300L at 236mm. Taking the crop factor into account nets 307mm, yet the cars still aren't framed that tightly. So much for Ken's theory. 






Photography wise, the only thing he's qualified to blog about his love of cranking the saturation slider to the right. Come on Ken, keep cranking on that slider! You can do it! 

If Ken can speak on behalf of all pro photographers, can I return the favor by speaking on behalf of all idiots ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Ive lost a ton of respect for him over the last 2 years.



I haven't lost any respect for him, whatsoever. It's a math thing - zero dividided by anything is still zero.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 6, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'm pretty much neutral on Ken Rockwell. He does thing differently in a fairly beige world. At least the guy gets a response!
> 
> But sheesh! If he offends, just don't read him!
> 
> Paul Wright



+1 I don't consider paint being dripped onto a canvas as art, so I don't read up on Jackson Pollock. 

Perhaps some folks should read his "About" page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

Excerpts:



> It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."





> I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.



In other words, don't take everything -- or anything -- he says seriously, lest the joke be on *you*.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 6, 2012)

Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 6, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'm pretty much neutral on Ken Rockwell. He does thing differently in a fairly beige world. At least the guy gets a response!
> 
> But sheesh! If he offends, just don't read him!



Point missed by you and his other apologists, and by a wide margin.

He _knows_ that his "opinions" influence people: but what those same people are unlikely to know about the f**ker (yes, I have a problem with him) is that - once, many moons ago - he was forced to admit that _he has made up (and probably still makes up) a significant number of his "reviews", without ever touching the equipment he so happily pontificates about. _

There's also a very specific personal dimension to my perspective here: back when I didn't know any better about this tool (Rockwell), and when I was still a Nikon shooter, I took at face value - and was so influenced by - his gushing praise of the Nikon D200, that I bought not one but two of the the things.

*The Nikon D200 was and is far and away the biggest piece of sh1t I've ever laid hands on*.

The point being that not only is he _supremely_ arrogant in his assumption that his photography (and let's be honest - _everything_ he does could be achieved with a P&S and Irfanview to whack the saturation right up) accurately reflects the demands and requirements of other photographic genres; but that when they're so confidently expressed, Rockwell's "opinions" come across as very authoritative, so _God help you_ if you read them without the filter of experience to interpret them through.

The man is the definitive example of the internet phenomenon of being able to spout any old crap, secure in the knowledge that there's bugger all anyone can do about it.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.



I try not to, but I like Canon Rumors, and people keep posting links to his website. Despite his idiocy, I do find amusement by how he's so convinced that he thinks he knows what he's talking about. 

Based on his obsession with taking overly saturated snap shots with expensive equipment, I figured that there must be some entertainment value in it that I'm overlooking. So, I decided to give it a go:






What do you think, guys, did I crank that saturation slider far enough to the right ?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 6, 2012)

Needs moar VIVID.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Needs moar VIVID.



Thanks for the feedback. How about the image overall? Is the subject, lighting, and composition uninspiring enough?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 6, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.
> ...




Muh eyes!! Muh eyes!!!


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 6, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.









In all fairness, as long as Ken has the right to vomit all over the Internet, we have the right to complain about him. It's only fair. It's also nothing like old women clucking about something superficial. He puts himself out there by giving advice and reviews that are blatantly wrong. I feel sorry for the people new to photography that read his literary diahria and just don't know better.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 6, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Somnipotent said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Rockwell is a tool. And holy cow is that camera ugly as sin.
> ...



nikkito, nice website and images.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 6, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.
> ...



There is a long list of things which you have the right to do, but should probably still avoid. I made no attempt to involve your rights in the discussion. Ken makes his living off his website and you guys are free to advertise it to your hearts content. I just think you should consider shopping at the dress barn for a nice blue house dress and consider a blue wig.

I like Ken's lens reviews, and back when I was a Nikon shooter, found them quite helpful, and even spoke to him on the phone a few times about the details. It has been about five years since, and I don't read it much anymore. I'd never have read his 5D3 or D800 review if not listed and linked here.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 6, 2012)

Complaining about complaining is kind of pointless. If you like him and his site, then that's great. We'll agree to disagree on Ken Rockwell.


----------



## @!ex (Apr 6, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.
> ...



This thread is officially awesome. Shit is getting slung around, people are dropping the term bogans (random), memes are being created. I should write letters to shit heads more often.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 6, 2012)

V8 M8,

then I find this gem in his review of the 50mm 1.2

"If you're a regular photographer like me, personally I rarely use middle focal lengths and prefer the convenience of a zoom."

I think he's bipolar 

ET


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 6, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever seen the videos on youtube where he wonders around B&H like a buffoon, claims that good sports photographers should not need super teles, delcares a EVIL camera has too many buttons and all other sorts of nonsense??
> ...



I made it 2 mins into that vid and couldn't take it anymore


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

I showed the vid to my goat and this is his reaction


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 6, 2012)

Nice shot, but it's a bit short on the saturation, mate. That pink collar needs to turn red.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 7, 2012)

With all the "5D3 vs D800" and "My 5D3 sucks" crap all over the place these days this is by far my favorite thread right now. Does that make me a terrible person?

I hope not.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 7, 2012)




----------



## drjlo (Apr 7, 2012)

No you didn't


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 7, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


>



he he he... fanny pack.


----------



## hoghavemercy (Apr 7, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


>



FUGLY!!, dude needs to change his ensemble, get some lotion on that elbow before you type How unbelievable Nikon fanboy you are..Help me Help you!!


----------



## MazV-L (Apr 7, 2012)

Teeth are yellower than his shirt


----------



## gecko (Apr 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > Needs moar VIVID.
> ...



The half lens cap is a little too radical on the composition front........


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 7, 2012)

*You guys entirely have the wrong idea.* You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else. Maybe you only use a little of what he says, maybe nothing, but maybe it gets you to think differently and see photography from a different viewpoint for a while. 

For example, last week I came across his articles about wide angle lenses and tripods. First on tripods, since then I've been really thinking - why do I carry a tripod around? Is it really necessary? Am I over using it, under using it? On wide angles - which I've always preferred - these are the first articles that I've found which talked the same reasons about why I like them. 

People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

gecko said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Melvin said:
> ...



;D  ;D  ;D  ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> *You guys entirely have the wrong idea.* You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else?



I have no problem with people that "see things differently," but Mr. Rockwell often "sees things differently" because he doesn't know what he's talking about. How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously? Apparently, someone who takes overly saturated snapshots of a picnic bench with a $3,000 camera is qualified to speak on behalf of all pros. 



> People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.



What he says isn't controversial. It's jut ill-informed and ignorant. So Ken's clearly an enthusiasts who just loves tinkering with photo gear, and has no skills to back it up. There's nothing wrong with that. However, I've never come across anyone who produces such underwhelming work that tries to speak so authoritatively on any subject matter.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?



Quite clearly amateurs use mid range zooms, therefore pros dont.

Not too sure what he means by mid range - I would say the 70-200 is a mid range - wow, pros dont use this


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?
> ...



Good point. Let's say a ridiculous blanket statement like "pros don't use mid-range zooms" was actually true. Who cares? Does that mean hobbyists shouldn't use them just because pros don't? Please. If you need a mid-range zoom, or any other type of lens for that matter, get it. Who cares what a pro uses? If I saw a pro carry around hemorrhoid medication in his camera bag, does that mean that I should too ? 

I've said this before, but I see lots of hobbyists that have nicer gear that pros. So maybe it's the pros that look at their gear enviously, and not the other way around ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> If I saw a pro carry around hemorrhoid medication in his camera bag, does that mean that I should too ?



Those are the pills with the red ring thing - oh no what have I been taking :-[ :-[ :-[

;D ;D


----------



## jamesdylangoldstein (Apr 7, 2012)

You are missing the point. For whatever reason, he wants things simple when it comes to photography. He doesn't want to spend more time or money on HDR, GPS, video, etc. He wants to take pictures. He doesn't want to have to reconfigure buttons or deal with multiple menus. The most informative video I've watched on photography is Jay Maisel's walk through NYC with Scott Kelby. I would say he echoes almost all of Rockwell's essential photography points. He doesn't want to change lenses, carry a tripod, use photoshop, or even crop the images. This is the type of pro Rockwell refers to. He explicitly does mention that wedding photographers use the 24-70. When he's talking about pros he's talking about people like Maisel and Gursky. Whether you like it or not, you're not going to see a Trey Ratcliffe print in the Met. You aren't going to see one by your favorite wedding photographer either.

And Rockwell is without a doubt the least biased site on the web. He reviews things honestly and like a photographer. If I had read his review of the Sony A55 before I read David Pogue's, I would have saved a lot of money. Most of these magazines and websites sugarcoat everything. Read about how upset he was at the D800. Just as upset as the Canon 5D III. His point about switching camera brands based on megapixels was spot on. I would say the only thing he doesn't get is sports photography, which he readily admits. If you don't know much about art theory and composition, his site is invaluable.


----------



## Abraxx (Apr 7, 2012)

From my perspective, this is pointless.
I'm not even clicking anymore on a link, from a reviewer, who is not even taking his time to fully read a manual.
I have lost all respect for Ken.
I would call "this" an internet parasite.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 7, 2012)

Ken Rockwell is just one of the more well known retards on the web that think they know better than photographers that actually own and use any camera, lens or peripheral accessory. There are a ton of other dingbats like him on youtube to boot. I even ended up wasting my time trying to argue with some kid on youtube that was saying that he bought a 5DmkII because the 5DmkIII was not worth it, not significantly improved over the 5DmkII, and too expensive considering that he wanted and pre-ordered a Nikon D800... He then went on to saying that he cancelled his D800 pre-order and bought a 5DmkII. How can someone feel that they need the resolution of a D800 and then say that the 5DmkII fills the the same niche in the market? And then go on the claim that the 5DmkIII is the same as a mkII? I argued that I was basing my opinion on my user experience between the mkII and mkIII but got flamed by this kid that I didn't know what I was talking about. All kinds of loonies in this world lol ???


----------



## solarpos (Apr 7, 2012)

Too much time on your hands. I cannot imagine the brain hours some are devoting to the 5D3 and it's pros/cons. People need to be out shooting!


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 7, 2012)

ken rockwells a TIT


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 7, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> ken rockwells a TIT



Clearly not a great tit though - they are good looking


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 7, 2012)

jamesdylangoldstein said:


> You are missing the point. For whatever reason, he wants things simple when it comes to photography. He doesn't want to spend more time or money on HDR, GPS, video, etc. He wants to take pictures.



That's good, because based on the images he posts, he could sure use some more practice. 



> He doesn't want to have to reconfigure buttons or deal with multiple menus. The most informative video I've watched on photography is Jay Maisel's walk through NYC with Scott Kelby. I would say he echoes almost all of Rockwell's essential photography points. He doesn't want to change lenses, carry a tripod, use photoshop, or even crop the images.



There's a solution for this. It's called a point-and-shoot. I don't like hauling around a ton of gear more than anyone else, but sometimes even after you pare things down to the bare minimum, you're still left with a lot of gear. With some jobs, there's no way around this. It's really very simple. Use a DSLR (or medium format if you're a high roller) for commissioned gigs, and bust out the point-and-shoot if you have an aversion to carrying gear around. I've tried this before, and it works quite well. 



> This is the type of pro Rockwell refers to.



Not always. According to Ken, a 70-200 is the longest lens you need to shoot motorsports because that's what someone else told him. If Ken needs to rely on hearsay because he has no personal experience, that's fine. If that's the case, just don't go running you're mouth as if you know what you're talking about and have the nerve to speak on behalf of all pros.


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 8, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I have no problem with people that "see things differently," ... How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?



One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter. 



> What he says isn't controversial. It's jut ill-informed and ignorant ... I've never come across anyone who produces such underwhelming work that tries to speak so authoritatively on any subject matter.



And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 8, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.



Nah, that's just one example. His idiotic statements are many. I rarely read his reviews, but whenever I come across one, there's always some highly misinformed opinion that he's trying to pass off as fact. He's a blogger, so my expectations of his reporting ability are quite low. 



> And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.



If you base someone's credibility on how they rank on a Google search, then I suppose Ken is an expert. I don't care enough about Ken to dislike him. He's more of a comedy show than anything else. It's just a shame when people take his comments as if they're facts.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 8, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.


Where are you getting your info? I just checked a few sites that show top hits and he doesn't make the top 25 on any of them. That brings us back to......


FunPhotons said:


> To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong



Sure he gets hits on his site and his ad revenue is enough to live off of depending on his lifestyle (while still asking for handouts), but it's because he's a clown and not because he's a reputable figure in photography. Besides, his success was never in question. Although, if his goal was to be a successful d-bag, then good for him. He made it.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 8, 2012)

jamesdylangoldstein said:


> And Rockwell is without a doubt the least biased site on the web. He reviews things honestly and like a photographer.



He's a self-confessed (_after_ he was caught) liar whose _only_ talent (it surely isn't photography) is self promotion.

You're right about one thing in that quote though - he's "like" a photographer. He's _not_ a photographer, but to the uninformed he's obviously _like_ one. He's been seen with a camera on occasion...

And _unbiased?_ Dear God!

I honestly didn't realise it was possible to be as gullible as some of the people on here bigging up this pointless, irrelevant waste of bandwidth, but I suppose that's how he makes a living from that godawful abortion of a website: as the saying goes, there's one born every minute.

How does anyone "learn" from his website? Most people would get more from an icepick in the ear than from his - and I use the word ironically - "wisdom".



> If you don't know much about art theory and composition, his site is invaluable.



Hah! _If_ you look at what he does _and then do the exact opposite_, you might have a point.

He's a talentless sphincter, and you would do well to learn _that_ about him.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 8, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.



FYI, and this is factual: Google search results are ranked in order of how well connected a given web site is to the rest of the internet in relationship to other websites that contain the same key words from a google search. What this means is that the top search hits using the Google search engine are ordered according to the number of hyperlinks that a web site contains linking it to other sites as well as the number of hyperlinks on other web sites that link to said web site. This has no bearing on relevance of content or credibility of content. Also, another way to get on the top search results is to be a sponsored web site. In other words, you can create your own website and have very little unique visitor traffic or hyperlinks and pay google a sum of money to place you at the top of the list for given key word searches. There is currently no technology that Google or any other search engine employs that is able to intelligently recognize and prioritize search results on the internet.


----------



## solarpos (Apr 8, 2012)

Dear Ken,

Ignore the asshats on Canonrumors.com.

Cheers,

Reasonable Person


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 8, 2012)

Look at it this way.

Everyone who posted with his name had the post picked up by Google and other search engines. The more references to a site, the higher the ranking of his site and leads to more visits and more income.

Laughing all the way to the bank  

Yes, I know i've over simpified the process, but he is getting free advertising, and it doesn't matter if its good or bad, Google counts it all as good.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 8, 2012)

solarpos said:


> Dear Ken,
> 
> Ignore the asshats on Canonrumors.com.
> 
> ...


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 8, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Look at it this way.
> 
> Everyone who posted with his name had the post picked up by Google and other search engines. The more references to a site, the higher the ranking of his site and leads to more visits and more income.
> 
> ...



For now on we will refer to him as "He who must not be named".


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Look at it this way.
> ...



Oh I love Harry Potter references... Classic.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 8, 2012)

Asshat?
Is that like a lens cap?

Ken definitely prefers the Nikon here because he likes the recesses you can put you fingers in 

ET


----------



## moreorless (Apr 8, 2012)

FunPhotons said:


> *You guys entirely have the wrong idea.* You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else. Maybe you only use a little of what he says, maybe nothing, but maybe it gets you to think differently and see photography from a different viewpoint for a while.
> 
> For example, last week I came across his articles about wide angle lenses and tripods. First on tripods, since then I've been really thinking - why do I carry a tripod around? Is it really necessary? Am I over using it, under using it? On wide angles - which I've always preferred - these are the first articles that I've found which talked the same reasons about why I like them.
> 
> People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.



I do think you need to give Ken his due that a small part of the content of his site offers some decent (if rather basic) advice, even this decent advice is often hurt by his frequent desent into hyperbole though.

Most of his site though seems to be made up of either blantant untruths and/or highly contradictory articles, one moment he's advising than an S95 is all the camera anyone needs, the next he's carping on about film as "the real raw".

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.



I guess part of the hate is based on his blunt but obviously very successful family marketing and that he seems to be doing well as a rich amateur who has nothing to do than review top gear and state his opinion - a job that most people envy, including me.

When I re-discovered photography, I found his website to be helpful because it's *not* full of the global "get expensive L glass and full frame" advice easily given elsewhere. And I like his "Is it worth it?" and "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" pages. The latter is the often mistaken reason for him finding mid-range zooms boring, including me.

My 2 cents: If he gets things wrong in the technical department - and people often complain but seldom give examples - he's forgiven for the general insight "the picture matters" and because I'd never make a purchase decision based on one review anyway.


----------



## seanshen (Apr 8, 2012)

the guy is a joke...his reviews are full of crap...his website is there to rob you of your money ('make a donation' can be found on every page)...and his 'about' page demonstrates what a tool he is.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.
> ...



I agree the "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" article is a very nice introduction indeed, I found it helpful after I bought my first UWA and I'v read many others who thought the same. I actually somewhat agree with him about screw in grads, obviously they have there limations(that he fails to acknowledge) but for many users I do think a 2 stop screw in will cover most of their needs.

The problem is that more often than not he has to push home his point with needless hyperbole so that rather than looking to advise people on the equipment thats best for there needs he just hammers home one option.

At a more advanced level though he often slips into blatant dishoniesty, the resolution of scanned 35mm stands out as very much in oposition to both my own expereince and everything else I'v read for example or indeed several Nikon lenses such as the 16-35mm or the 28-300mm.


----------



## KeithR (Apr 8, 2012)

solarpos said:


> Reasonable Person



Is that a synomym for "easily-fooled mug"?

Because there's nothing unreasonable about considering a tool like Rockwell to be a tool.


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 8, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.
> ...



Purely anecdotal, when I do searches on gear or photography he comes up in the top ten more often or not, according to my memory. Could be entirely wrong here. 

This discussion is pointless, I'm exiting. Some people like him, some don't mind, some hate him. Big deal.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The problem is that more often than not he has to push home his point with needless hyperbole so that rather than looking to advise people on the equipment thats best for there needs he just hammers home one option.



... but he frequently adds "that's just me", and since his website of course offers his opinion he can very well speak up as far as I'm concerned. I'll make up my mind only after reading a *lot* other sites and sources than just one. Concerning the tech stuff - thanks for the info, I wouldn't have noticed but on the other hand I only look at his site for general advice (like the uwa article) or a quick lens review.


----------



## @!ex (Apr 8, 2012)

Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 8, 2012)

Yes Ken Rockwell is not considered the supreme camera authority, but he is good for new camera users looking for a plain English review. I don't find anything useful for advanced users. Of course DXO is sort of for tools also and people seem to love them so don't get upset read lots of sites and form a good overall opinion instead of relieing on one source.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 9, 2012)




----------



## EYEONE (Apr 9, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.



Well, 99% of Ken's readers don't know enough about camera's to know when he's wrong. I wouldn't expect him to be in any hurry to change anything.


----------



## rocketdesigner (Apr 9, 2012)

After reading this on Rockwell's site....:

"No big deal; the video guys LOVE the D800, D4 and 5D Mark III. These are the new Messiah to them. Nikon and Canon did the Japanese two-step adding all the things _*vidiots *_ wanted, added more resolution to stultify we still shooters with desire, and had to pull some of the things we still photographers need to make room for the video features."

...this guy is now on my list. 

I did not know just because I shot video with my HDSLR I was a "vidiot".


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 10, 2012)

LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

ET


----------



## @!ex (Apr 10, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
> 
> ET



Of course, because he actually starting to LEARN how to use the camera. What a fucking idiot. still no reply to the email and he is still using all three custom functions to switch between AF modes, which is a ridiculously dumb solution when you can do it faster and easier with button customization (which I included in my email).


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 10, 2012)

@!ex said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3
> ...



LOL I actually started reading about HOW he is getting around his complaints please for the sake of your blood pressure dont read it, or at least have soeone nearby ready to call 911 for you, but a hint is using C1 C2 and C3...
I didn't finish reading as i fell out of my chair after the first 2 sentences...


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 10, 2012)

OMG

Just read his review on the 5DIII. This paragraph says it all



> "The Mark III's new autofocus system is more complicated than it is good. It's about the same as Nikon's old D300 AF system from 2007. Its added complexity and inferior, obstructive LCD finder display is getting in the way of my pictures. I can't see my subject under the ugly black AF-area squares, and its added complexity demands that I stop what I'm doing to set it. By comparison, the simple, fast AF system of my 5D Mark II and original 5D never required more than one click to adjust, and my eyes never had to leave my subject. "




He needs to:

- read the manual
- take 10 steps back and clear his mind

From his 7D review:



> "Bad
> 
> 1.) New AF system draws big, black rectangles as each AF sensor goes active — and they never turn off as you're trying to compose! These big, ugly, distracting rectangles don't go away until after you've taken your picture! This makes it difficult to see your subject's expression, or even your subject! (better cameras turn off the AF point indicators after focus locks.)
> 
> 2.) New 19-sensor AF system is so complex that it doesn't work as well as Canon's classic 9-point system. This is because when you need to change among settings, there are now so many settings that you need to stop what you're doing and click a few buttons to do what you used to be able to do with one finger. "



Well I jumped from the 5DII to the 7D to the 1D4 - and found it easier to do what I wanted on every jump. Nothing complex - just more function to tap into. The only real issue is whether you use the expansion point or change the tracking speed. If he cant get his mind round that .........


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 10, 2012)

[quote author=Ken "I'm awesome" Rockwell]
After shooting another day with my 5D Mark III, I am so digging it. Its magic in-camera lens correction is letting me shoot fly-weight plastic Canon lenses, like my weightless and ergonomically superior 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, getting great results, and lightening my load, all at the same time. 
[/quote]

You know, right before the release of the 5D mkIII I said to myself, "I really hope Ken tests and reviews this $3500 camera with sh*tty lenses". 

I really hope he tests the 1Dx with the ef 75-300.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 10, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> [quote author=Ken "I'm awesome" Rockwell]
> After shooting another day with my 5D Mark III, I am so digging it. Its magic in-camera lens correction is letting me shoot fly-weight plastic Canon lenses, like my weightless and ergonomically superior 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, getting great results, and lightening my load, all at the same time.



You know, right before the release of the 5D mkIII I said to myself, "I really hope Ken tests and reviews this $3500 camera with sh*tty lenses". 

I really hope he tests the 1Dx with the ef 75-300.
[/quote]

Hahaha. He always complains about the heavy and bulk of large lenses and cameras but is front page image is him with a Nikon super-tele. I guess just to look cool and "pro"


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 10, 2012)

He can't see the forest for the trees. Or is it vice-versa... 8) If he would actually read the manual and spend some time with the camera he would realize that Canon instilled a LOT of useful customization features for camera and focus system that makes it VERY easy to use. In fact I would say the focus system is a revolutionary jump forward from the MKII and given it's jump in features, usefulness and "complexity", it's as easy or easier to use than the previous generation. And in turn his beloved Nikon actually took away ease of use of their focus system.

It's kind of funny, I actually have focus schemes tied into my C settings as well, but it's not because I can't figure out the focus system or how to make it work quickly and simply to my liking.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 11, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.



Perhaps you should read Ken Rockwell's "manual":

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm



> It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."





> 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.



Therefore, if you are reading his page and making the mistake of taking him _seriously_, then _you're_ the one with the problem.

If you are looking for site with serious reviews, then look somewhere else. End of discussion.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 11, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
> 
> ET



Lollercakes, I bet that in-camera lens correction helped that shot of the little girl.

Saturation +4


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 11, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3
> ...



Zooming in on that picture shows not bad quality, not that sharp though. I wonder how much pp he did on it?


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 11, 2012)

Ken Rockwell doesn't do post processing. He gets it right in the camera, or so he claims.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 11, 2012)

KR in his D800 Review:

"The D800 is the best DSLR ever made by anyone at any price. I've got a D800 already, and have a D800E on order. There is no comparison."

There you have it. We can all pack up and go home now.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 11, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Ken Rockwell doesn't do post processing. He gets it right in the camera, or so he claims.


translation = Hasn't figured out how to change from jpg to RAW yet

still waiting for @lex's next letter letting him in on that little gem


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 11, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> [quote author=Ken "I'm awesome" Rockwell]
> After shooting another day with my 5D Mark III, I am so digging it. Its magic in-camera lens correction is letting me shoot fly-weight plastic Canon lenses, like my weightless and ergonomically superior 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, getting great results, and lightening my load, all at the same time.



You know, right before the release of the 5D mkIII I said to myself, "I really hope Ken tests and reviews this $3500 camera with sh*tty lenses". 

I really hope he tests the 1Dx with the ef 75-300.
[/quote]
i have a 28-90 I can lend him if he cant afford one for the review


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Apr 12, 2012)

The funny thing about Ken's review of the 5DIII (or any camera) he tends to pick the oddest things as negatives - "No Flash! booo!" ... oh dear.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Rockwell doesn't do post processing. He gets it right in the camera, or so he claims.
> ...



The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Chuck Norris _Ken Rockwell _ been there _with his D800_. In that case the grass is most likely soaked in blood and tears.

Chuck Norris  _Ken Rockwell_ doesn't read books _5D3 manuals_, he just stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them.

The Manhattan Project was not intended to create nuclear weapons, it was meant to recreate the destructive power in a Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick _Ken Rockwell camera review_. They didn't even come close.

and so on...


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 12, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> The grass is always greener on the other side, unless Chuck Norris _Ken Rockwell _ been there _with his D800_. In that case the grass is most likely soaked in blood and tears.



And here I was thinking it was greener because someone turned up the saturation. Silly me. 



DJL329 said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.
> ...



now, see, usually, a disclaimer like that should be upfront and seen, not hidden in the about page. If he can find place to make it so obvious that he needs help to feed his growing family, he can surely fit that in somewhere....


----------



## @!ex (Apr 12, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > D_Rochat said:
> ...




Awesome, I hope this thread lives forever...

Ken Rockwell lives forever - You really want to know what happened to the dinosaurs? One of them made fun of Ken Rockwell's fanny pack.


----------



## @!ex (Apr 12, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


>


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

I've never seen anyone co-ordinate their wardrobe with their teeth before


----------



## @!ex (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I've never seen anyone co-ordinate their wardrobe with their teeth before



It's late, and am defending my dissertation on Friday so I should be asleep, but I just lost my shit on that comment.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 12, 2012)

@!ex said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen anyone co-ordinate their wardrobe with their teeth before
> ...


Sorry I was wrong, this guy does too

T.H.E. (The Hardest Ever) | Official Video HD


----------



## @!ex (Apr 12, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I picked up the nuance of the "defending my thesis" lyrics, nice. Also WTF has Wyclef been up too, oh ya, running for president.


----------



## alberto (Apr 12, 2012)

Perfect response for a Bull... like kr !! sorry ;-)

http://blog.dojoklo.com/2012/04/04/a-response-to-ken-rockwells-review-of-the-canon-5d-mark-iii/


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 12, 2012)

@!ex said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > @!ex said:
> ...




Will.I.am?


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 12, 2012)

Who would win in a fist fight

Ken Rockwell or Chuck Norris?

I think it's obvious if they actually got down to it that Chuck would, but I'll wager Ken would be telling him his technique is all wrong 

ET


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 13, 2012)

Originally comaprison to Chuck Norris came yesterday to my mind, but today I googled and found that somene did it already 5 years ago! That's long but really great and still so close 

Quote from flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikondigital/discuss/72157600003338158/

"chad™ [deleted] says:

For a couple long hours, the folks on freenode.net's #photogeeks IRC channel dropped lines about Ken Rockwell, the photographer/blogger we love to hate.

We created these morsels along the same vein as the infamous Chuck Norris Facts, I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.

Ken Rockwell Facts

Contributed by liem, Epic|, Fufie, michel_v, neom, Wintre, Bas|k, lament, mattsteg__ and pal.

* Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

* Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

* Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

* Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

* Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

* Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

* Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

* Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

* Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

* Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

* When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

* Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

* Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

* Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

* Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

* Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

* Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.

* Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

* Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

* Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.

* When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

* Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

* On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

* Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

* When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos

* For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

* Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

* Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

* Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

* The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

* Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

* A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

* Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

* Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues"


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 13, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> * Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
> 
> * Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.



 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

I'll add my own:

Ken Rockwell's images aren't overly saturated; he just sees the world more vividly than anyone else.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 13, 2012)

That was awesome, stay thirsty my friends 

ET


----------



## kdsand (Apr 13, 2012)

Wow just darn *WOW*.

Lol


I'm not the only one with obnoxious carnivorous humor!

Please please please keep it up 1 and all.


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Ken Rockwell's images aren't overly saturated; he just sees the world more vividly than anyone else.



No, it's the other way around. He has to crank up the saturation because that's the only way he can get anything out of any subject. Without 'Vivid' his photos would all be grey & beige picnic tables and his own horrible, colorless kids.


*And remember folks! Tripods are for wimps!* (Says KR, and he knows)


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 14, 2012)

Lets face it. KR is a retard.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

Fishnose said:


> Without 'Vivid' his photos would all be grey & beige picnic tables and his own horrible, colorless kids.



Easy there. I don't like Ken's ramblings any more than the next guy, but let's leave his kids out of it. Isn't it enough that they're going to be raised by this guy? That alone is unfortunate enough.


----------



## kdsand (Apr 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Fishnose said:
> 
> 
> > Without 'Vivid' his photos would all be grey & beige picnic tables and his own horrible, colorless kids.
> ...



Shezz

You just had to mention the kids. 
Now the bashing is loosing momentum. :'(


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

So now that we all know kids are not to be mentioned, lets get back on track people. 

Google doesn't lie.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> So now that we all know kids are not to be mentioned, lets get back on track people.



Well....OK. 

Ken Rockwell's images are like a Picasso. They look like $h!t to 99.99999% of the public because only .00001% of people are brilliant enough to appreciate them.

On the first day, God said "Let there be light," and there was Ken Rockwell.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 14, 2012)

As much as the bashing is enjoyable - aren't we going a bit off topic... =P

That google search was hilarious though


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

The guy on the Dos Eqius commercials doesn't hire photographers often, but when he does he prefers Ken Rockwell. 

The guy on the Dos Equis commercials isn't Ken Rockwell's mentor; he is Ken's protege.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 14, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> The guy on the Dos Eqius commercials doesn't hire photographers often, but when he does he prefers Ken Rockwell.
> 
> The guy on the Dos Equis commercials isn't Ken Rockwell's mentor; he is Ken's protege.



I'm sure you could have generated that pretty easily =P

http://memegenerator.net/instance/18535098 

Alternatively:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/18535205


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 14, 2012)

We need to get Ken's picture on this site, hilarious 


http://memegenerator.net/instance/18539082


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> We need to get Ken's picture on this site, hilarious



Ask and you shall receive. http://memegenerator.net/Ken-Rockwell


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

I added a bunch from marekjoz's post on the last page so the Ken memes have a better chance of being approved. Please create your own. ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 14, 2012)

Toy Story 3 Clip - Ken Meets Barbie


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

and one more for the night/early morning. This is in the spirit of the Dos Equis guy and fitting for this thread.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 14, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> This is in the spirit of the Dos Equis guy and fitting for this thread.



Right on, commander  - but it is doubtful if this ensures that the Canon community is not confused with fanboyz. Since I haven't that much of a problem with his site: it'll be interesting if he corrects mistaken facts after all. However, some things like "I can't see my subject under the ugly black AF-area squares" are just personal opinions that cannot argued about, and might be even valid opinions to people using a Canon...


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 14, 2012)

Found on a website:






http://www.leica-boss.com/ken-rockwell/

funny to read 

hope it wasnt posted yet.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 14, 2012)

Oh dear... what have we started...


----------



## Fishnose (Apr 14, 2012)

Okay... here's KR's portrait in his own style ;D


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 14, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > The guy on the Dos Eqius commercials doesn't hire photographers often, but when he does he prefers Ken Rockwell.
> ...









Thank you!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 14, 2012)




----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Found on a website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That picture is from a 10 part rant (5 min each) on Froknowsphoto about what Ken says and what's actually the reality. You can find it on youtube or his website.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Apr 14, 2012)

Is this really a part of Ken's site??? 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm


----------



## vetch_vicia (Apr 14, 2012)

Thx to all dudes that click to my papa's website, the traffic never be this high before!

XOXOX,
Ryan Rockwell

ps. My pop like to buy me the yellowest milk, he said the most saturated is the best for my future photographic career.

ps2. He said to make good portrait, teeth havta be yellow.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 14, 2012)

When Master Yoda enters a room full of Jedi, they all laugh and say, "Look there's Ken Rockwell's little green b**ch."


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> Is this really a part of Ken's site???
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm



WTF.... I would think it's from his site since it's "kenrockwell.com", but could someone who knows more about websites and hosting confirm if this is his or if someone somehow did this? As much as I dislike the guy, this seems a little juvenile even for his sense of humour. But maybe not.....


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 14, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really a part of Ken's site???
> ...


Very strange... and informative.


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 14, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Very strange... and informative.



No kidding. I had it all wrong...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 14, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Very strange... and informative.
> ...



_Where do Babies Come From?........ daddy will stick his pee-pee in mommy's mouth or in mommy's poo-poo hole. _


How did he ever manage to have kids with that method?


----------



## moreorless (Apr 15, 2012)

The Mona Lisa was copied from a Ken Rockwell photo, her mysterious smile is a knowing response to Ken's use of a Nikon 28-300mm.


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 15, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



You're welcome. As soon as I get home I'll complete the meme... have something... interesting in mind


----------



## smithy (Apr 15, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> WTF.... I would think it's from his site since it's "kenrockwell.com", but could someone who knows more about websites and hosting confirm if this is his or if someone somehow did this? As much as I dislike the guy, this seems a little juvenile even for his sense of humour. But maybe not.....


Nah, it's gotta be Ken's work. The page is full of hyperlinks...


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> Is this really a part of Ken's site???
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm



I had a very strong dislike of Rockwell before. Seeing this, I have an unquenchable, seething hate for him now. What a douche. Its a wonder of science this man was ever able to procreate at all, and god help us when his offspring fill their despicable daddies shoes.


----------



## takoman46 (Apr 16, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> nitsujwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really a part of Ken's site???
> ...



Basically, his web site could have been compromised and this added to it without his knowledge... But it definitely is a "part" of his site. The domain name is the same, and therefore is not a spoof site. A spoof site would have a "similar" domain name; not an "identical" domain name. 

But for what it's worth I would rather like to believe that Ken himself wrote this and someone did not hack his site. I think he's a dip**** anyway so whatever LMAO


----------



## D_Rochat (Apr 16, 2012)

The page was last modified in 2009 and if it was hacked, I'm sure it would have been pulled down by now. That page is pretty messed up, especially coming from a grown man.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 16, 2012)

I wasn't going to post anything more because Frankly i don't care one way or the other about Ken Rockwell. Love the saturated version of KR as he would shoot it. Also really enjoyed the "Ishoot Raw" guy and the shooting target being KR with "I shoot Jpeg" on the front.

V8 and others using the Dos Equis guy quotes! My fav commercials! 
"Stay sharp and saturated my friends" was an original concept by KR but later removed during filming the commercial. They found the Protege more suited to fit the "most interesting man in the world" category since he owned a puma.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 16, 2012)

With all this serious treatment and respect to Mr. Rockwell I'm surprised that domain http://fakekenrockwell.com/ is not fulfilled with the proper content yet. It's not free BTW, but was bought in 2010 waiting maybe for some bigger event?


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 18, 2012)

nitsujwalker said:


> Is this really a part of Ken's site???
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm



What. the. hell. ??


----------



## Bosman (Apr 18, 2012)

That link about mommy and daddy, can't be real. He doesn't seem like an uneducated fool that would write that way. If it is real, his mistake for putting it up on a website even if it isn't reachable from his site.

On another note, isn't continuous perpetual bashing of this guy beneath us? Do we really need to share with the world what we think of KR? The joking around was in good fun but saying he's this or that or i hate KR, that just seems kinda awful.


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 18, 2012)

After all this bashing, maybe - I say maybe eh - we should do him justice a bit for what he just posted on his site: quote: 

_"Seeing how awesome are the results I got from my 5D Mark III this past week, I have a sneaking suspicion I might have to move the World's Best DSLR crown to the 5D Mark III. We'll see; the D800's yellow LCD makes shooting it no fun, and trying to use Shooting Banks still takes five clicks with three buttons to swap, and they still don't change half the things I need to change from snapping people or landscape shots. Canon so rules, and so does the X-Pro1.

The D800 is King for replacing medium format, but medium format has never been mainstream. "_

Shouldn't we ?


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 18, 2012)

Bosman said:


> That link about mommy and daddy, can't be real. He doesn't seem like an uneducated fool that would write that way. If it is real, his mistake for putting it up on a website even if it isn't reachable from his site.
> 
> On another note, isn't continuous perpetual bashing of this guy beneath us? Do we really need to share with the world what we think of KR? The joking around was in good fun but saying he's this or that or i hate KR, that just seems kinda awful.



I agree. And I find some of his advices very helpful, like the one about getting more saturated photos: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color.htm
No kidding...


----------

