Rant?Rave? not sure about that guy........

[Pitman68]

As a long-time Canon photographer, looking for new equipment, i checked the Nikon-stuff as well. Searching the internet for information about Nikon, i found KenRockwell.com, a name i saw mentioned in this forum a few times already.<br>What the heck should i think about him? On the one side he seems to know a lot about Nikons, on the other side i am reading about a guy with a new baby, who has every camera ever made at home and taking his Mercedes 500 on a race track.... ? ?? ??????????<br>OK, we are not judging other people here, and that's not what i want. But how good are his reviews, any opinions?<br><div></div>

[JMS]

His equipment reviews are pretty decent, BUT IGNORE ALL HIS OPINIONS LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!<br><div></div>

[BobF]

I'm not entirely sure how much of what comes off his keyboard is worth paying attention to. He definitely knows what sarcasm is and uses it so much that it can become difficult to tell when he's being serious. He is an almost militant Nikon user/supporter. Read his stuff when you're looking for a bit of a giggle.<br><div></div>

[pixeldawg]

<DIV>I forget where, but at one time, there was a top 100 list of things about Ken Rockwell on that net that was pretty funny. He has said that he does his blogs half in fun and half serious, so take what he says with a grain of salt. I don't think he takes himself nearly as serious as others seem to. He does seem to know his equipment fairly well though and not all, but some of his work on his website is pretty nice and worth a look.</DIV>

[RickWells]

<div>Ken Rockwell is an interesting read, and entertaining for sure. Whether I would base my photo purchases on what he writes is another thing altogether.</div>

[canonist]

<div>Dont believe any of what you hear and only half of what you see.</div>

[ZZZ]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><hr>pixeldog wrote:<br><div>...He does seem to know his equipment fairly well though...</div><br><hr></blockquote>His review of the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens is the very review that convinced me to purchase the lens. Besides the D80, that lens is probably the best investment I made. Thanks Ken.<br><p><span class="headertext"><span></span></span><span></span></p></div>

[JeffA]

<DIV>Some of his reviews show an amazing lack of understanding of the basic concepts of photography.&nbsp; I would not trust much of what he writes for that reason alone.&nbsp; He frequently gets things dead wrong, and I fear that he sometimes makes things up, just to fill the page.&nbsp; I feel sorry for folks who thake <EM>that </EM>nonsense as truth.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>As far as the review of the 18-200 VR, I didn't see that one, but most reviews on this lens have been excellent.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Jeff</DIV>

[JMS]

<div>My favorite Ken Rockwell article:</div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/wife.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/wife.htm</a></div>

[AstroImager]

<DIV>A perfect example...</DIV>
<DIV>In another thread here, one forum user was concerned about the Nikon D40 because its flash sync speed is slower than the D80/D70.&nbsp; Ken Rockwell said that having a slower sync speed would reduce effective flash distance and make the flash use up its batteries faster.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Both of those statements are completely wrong, and show an absolute lack of understanding about basic photography.</DIV>
<DIV>The effective flash distance and how much batteries get used are determined ONLY by the ISO and aperture.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; The sync speed is completely irrelevant.</DIV>
<DIV>You'd think a guy that's supposed to be such an expert would know such basics -- but these are the kinds of errors he has all over his site.&nbsp; </DIV>
<DIV>Basic, fundamental errors.&nbsp; In many cases, they're no big deal, don't really affect what he's talking about, and can be simply amusing.</DIV>
<DIV>In many other cases, they cause big problems -- like our forum user who thought this was a fundamental flaw in the D40, when in reality it's a non-issue.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>He has some nice shots, he's a huge Nikon booster, and has some interesting opinions.&nbsp; But it wouldn't be wise to depend on him for facts...:)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Paul</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

[Pitman68]

Well, at least one thing worked for him. Everybody knows him.......<br>Once he mentioned that in his opinion fast lenses are not necessary.... because you can just push teh ISO speed. Man, if i knew that before, i would have saved a lot of bucks in the last years.<br><br>Thanks for your comments guys, that is what i thought about him as well. Still entertaining to visit his site. And as a new dad i like the baby section anyways.......<br><div></div>

[DrJalapeno]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Ahh, Ken Rockwell....Ken Rockwell's opinions may be entertaining, but he attempts to fool readers into thinking he's an authority on the subject of digital imaging.</div><div>When you read his lengthy manuscripts, you'll find that they're packed with redundancy (he repeats himself several times in the articles he writes). A very strong trademark of someone who is attempting to appear authorative and brilliant. Most people like him think that filling a page with volumes of information will convince people that they know what they're talking about.</div><div> </div><div>Ken is the one who criticized the Sigma SD9 as a worthless camera after allegedly taking some sample photos without a CF card inserted.<em> &quot;I'll be honest and admit that I didn't even bother to pop in my CF cards when I used this, sorry.&quot;</em></div><div> </div><div>Ken is the one who stated in an &quot;All About and How to Use Filters&quot; essay concerning the blue/yellow polarizer: <em>&quot;Wow! I've always been curious and finally got one of these in December 2003. I got this one here for a whole $34. It looks like a huge winner for improving yucky light. Knowing me I may start using it for everything. It changes things that are polarized, like the sky and reflections off stone, either to blue or yellow. Used correctly it can make the sky bluer and the ground warmer, which is exactly the artistic effect and lighting for which I pine. Just remember to rotate it until you get the look you want. Pretty neat, eh?&quot;</em></div><div><em></em> </div><div> </div><div>'Nuff said! :D</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><br><br><br>Message Edited by DrJalapeno on <span class="date_text">06-22-2007</span> <span class="time_text">10:30 AM</span>

[canonist]

<div>I just spent some time looking over his site, he's said some stupid thing's like &quot;All cameras in the same format perform the same&quot; but is mostly a solid photographer. He also dosn't seem to be too much of a Nikonite, even saying he owns a xti and 5d, but admits he uses mostly nikon.</div>

[Lazy_Eye]

<div></div><div><br><blockquote><div><hr></div><div>Pitman68 wrote:<br>As a long-time Canon photographer, looking for new equipment, i checked the Nikon-stuff as well. Searching the internet for information about Nikon, i found KenRockwell.com, a name i saw mentioned in this forum a few times already.<br>What the heck should i think about him?<br></div><div><hr></div><div> </div><div> </div><div><br></div></blockquote><div>Probably what you should think about a &quot;professional&quot; photographer who has to run a web site like this. Shucks, I wish I had time to put up a web site. I'm too busy shooting and editing. All the other pros I know are the same way. More work than time. Just think of another famous &quot;pro&quot;--- Bob Shell.</div><div> </div></div>