Left handed F100 - Ken Rockwell's Pointless Deception

<p><i>Exciting 3/18/13 update: Moved from Nikon forum to photo.net's exciting new <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/"><b>Rumors/KR/Versus Forum</b></A>. Enjoy!</i></p>

<hr>

<p>I've long been a reader of Ken Rockwell's site strictly for his technical analysis of new cameras and lenses. Personally, I could care less about his ever-contradicting opinions on gear so I just skip those sections of his articles. One of the things that has always bothered me about his site is the photo of him using a left handed camera on his Home page. I've always assumed that he flipped the original correctly-oriented image for some random reason... but then I just happened to glance at his About page and found this:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#lefty<br>

He claims that Nikon considered production of a left handed F100 and gave him what seems to be a one of a kind prototype on permanent loan. Obviously, he knows that making such a claim is begging for naysayers so he welcomes readers to inspect a full resolution photo of him with the camera on his Contact page.</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/contact.htm</p>

<p>On a quick glance of the photo I see that the Nikon logo on his flash is indeed correctly oriented and there is no wedding band on his ring finger. So, it appears that he could be telling the truth regarding wearing his watch on his right wrist and claiming he did not flip the image. BUT... I noticed something strange about his watch... it is upside down. I did a quick youtube search the first video I watched disproved him: http://youtu.be/MIYv7Xzvfz0</p>

<p>He clearly is wearing his watch on his left wrist. Its easy enough to fix the Nikon logo and remove his wedding ring in photoshop but his seems he had a little trouble correctly re-orienting his watch face.</p>

<p>I guess my question is... why? I seriously have an issue with people that flat out lie. I know that he has his little fun with his opinions but this seems to me to be a pointless lie. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>EDIT: Upon reading a little more I saw Ken mention putting African Elephant "phallus hide" on his D1h as a better grip. I should have known he was just being a piece of $#%!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's obviously him being funny. You shouldn't have wasted your time thinking about it.</p>

<p>Well, that and the fact that the writing on the lens has obviously been flipped (I did a similar investigation of his claim a while back, on the basis that if Nikon actually had prototyped a left-handed camera, that would be of historical interest). I assume it's his idea of a joke, and he's continuing to tease the unobservant by giving it a background story. I didn't think too much about it, other than that I wasn't all that amused - but he's entitled to entertain himself with a sense of superiority over some of his readers if he wants to.</p>

<p>I know haha. I just have a problem solving addiction. If something intrigues me, I have an impulse to examine it to death. Only a waste of 20 minutes or so haha</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I <strong>could</strong> care less about his ever-contradicting opinions on gear</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Or <em>couldn't.</em></p>

<p>Steve-<br>

He wasn't sharing an opinion here... he was claiming it as fact. Again, I realize now that it was just a joke.</p>

<p>In this thread: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm">People realize Ken Rockwell is a troll</a>. Again.</p>

<p>KR is mostly a web savvy humor writer whose goal is web traffic and high Google ranking. Occasionally he writes about photography. On rare occasions he writes something useful and accurate about photography. But he is a photography writer in the same sense that Amelia Earhart was an aviatrix and Charles Lindbergh was a tolerant humanitarian.</p>

<blockquote>Personally, I could care less about his ever-contradicting opinions on gear.<hr />

<blockquote>Or couldn't.</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Or could.</p>

<p>I could care less. I just don't care enough to muster the energy it takes to care less.</p>

<p>17 days early :-)</p>

<p>I don't think you ought to take Ken seriously. Hitler consulted him about Nikons according to a video I have seen on youtube so I think you must not read his blog ever again ;)</p>

<p>Umm,<br>

Are you an <em>engineer</em>, by any chance, John?</p>

<p>There was just somebody looking to adopt one the other day ( see down the list at http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00bRfM ).</p>

Complaints about KR tend to only inspire traffic to his site by the curious. It sort of free marketing.

<p>For a long time, in his "About" page, Rockwell stated that he likes to make things up and that his readers need a good BS detector. I'm not going to bother to look and see if it's still there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a reader of Ken Rockwell's site strictly for his technical analysis of new cameras and lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you do that? The warning on the "About" page and his repeated jokes like the one you encountered means that you never know when he's telling the truth, and that he doesn't even have to worry about errors in what he writes. It's a perfect scam. If you want fiction, read <em>The Great Gatsby</em>. There is truth within its story, which you can't say about the Rockwell site.<br /><br /></p>

<p>And why whould we judge if he wants to hold an elephant's phallus while he shoots his camera?</p>

<p>This isn't an example of Ken Rockwell being a "piece of [stuff]." It's an example of him f***ing with you. It worked.</p>

<p>Seriously? One of a kind lefty F100 given to <em>Ken Rockwell</em>? My automatic assumption is he put that up on April 1 one year.</p>

<p>I like to read Ken, but I read him with eyes wide open.</p>

<p>I think that Ken's page should be categorized under "drama."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Who is Ken Crockwell?</p>

<p ><a name="00bS9y"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andy L</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 15, 2013; 07:11 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't an example of Ken Rockwell being a "piece of [stuff]." It's an example of him f***ing with you. It worked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, he's got us talking about him yet again.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Or could.<br>

I could care less. I just don't care enough to muster the energy it takes to care less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the case why mention it in the first place.</p>

Like I said yesterday in another thread that turned to KR, whatever he says is just an opinion, his point of view, or I guess

sometimes his folly. He has some valid points and decent info among his charades, serious or not. What I don't get is

why he gets taken so seriously and why anyone would take his word as the final opinion. Some of his info is clever, I'm

not going to bash it, but I don't get all serious into it. I use it more as a, "well let's see what KR says just to get a feel for

the subject at hand, that's all.

 

And just to add, when in doubt, go shoot more pictures, make more mistakes and learn from them, not someone's talk on the web, like mine.

<blockquote>

<p>he flipped the original correctly-oriented image for some random reason</p>

</blockquote>

<p>His idea of a joke I assume - it only takes one quick look to figure out that the image has been flipped. How can anyone read that fluff about the "left-handed" F100 with elephant phallus leathering and keep a straight face?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If that's the case why mention it in the first place."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't. I mentioned it in the seventh place.</p>

<p>We Lefty's do just fine with Righty cameras. I am though waiting for someone to finally come out with a left handed hammer. How long must we suffer?</p>

<p>HAHAHA! SUCKER!</p>

<p>Amazing how people seem oblivious of jokes!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[KR quote begin] I even had a veterinarian friend in Africa who specializes in elephant care send me some phallus hide from the Loxodonta Africana (known for its flexibility and grip when wet) which I then had a local taxidermist apply to my camera in place of the original rubber. It took a lot of paperwork with the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game but at least it doesn't peel off on my <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d1x.htm">D1H</a> as the rubber does. [KR quote end]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there any doubt he is not kidding.</p>