Ken Rockwell on 20D vs D70

[chiswick_john]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm

Says there is no difference between 6 and 8 mp - Says you need 24mp

to get a substantial improvement on 6mp. The guy writes like he knows

what he is talking about - I 've tested 6 vs 8 mp and I use 22mp MF

backs regularly - he don't know what he is talking about.

[carl smith]

He's proven that a while ago with his blindly opinionated articles IMO.

[andrew_carlson]

I like how he contradicts himself from paragraph to paragraph its entertaining. I also like how he justifies the added cost of the 20D by weight. Its not produce or a slab of beef but the added size, weight, thats why its more expesnive! sure...whatever

[shambrick007]

"...The guy writes like he knows what he is talking about..."<p> Yeah, like when he compared a 100% crop of a 4x5 chrome scan to that of a rezed-up 6 MP digi image and pronounced "See look, film is better!" No friggen duh!

[digitmstr]

YOU know, anyone can write about something on the WWW. SOme of it is good, some of it is absolute BS!

[mattalofs]

I think Ken also has something somewhere on his site about flash cards bigger than 512mb being ridiculous and something that no pro would use.

[christopher_bibbs]

I like his comment about needing to print at 11"x14" to notice the difference. Assuming it is true, how many times do you look at a good shot and decide to make an 8"x10" or smaller? Is there a group of photographers that stick to small prints to avoid showing off their work?

[ilkka_nissila]

He also wrote that the D2X wouldn't be much of an improvement over the D70. And other such jokes. He is a joke himself and very entertaining to read. But sadly, some people seem to take his articles seriously.

[beauh44]

My personal favorite?<P> <I>I had no idea that by 2002 my site would become the world's most trusted and popular source of technical information world wide through the Internet.</i><P>Above all, I admire his modesty! ;-)

[dogbert]

I am going to draw heaps of crap for this, but I'm prepared to come out of the closet and say I am a Kenny fan. Sure you can (mis?)quote him out of context and say he is an idiot - its a free internet - but I have found many of his articles pretty helpful to my understanding of photography.

 

Most of all he recognises that all photographers work differently, are aiming to achieve different things, and will have therefore have personal preferences over equipment technique, etc. In contrast many in this forum seem to assume that there is only one right answer (always their own) and take it personally if anyone disagrees.

 

Funny how he gets so many of you guys riled up. Do you have inferiority complexes or something?

 

BTW I would have thought the magnesium alloy body of the 20D compared with the plastic D70 would have something to do with both the weight and cost difference over the D70.

[cooper8168]

And he is also the first to say that what he writes may or may not be peppered with

sarcasm and should be taken with a grain of salt (no, I did not just use the words salt and

pepper in the same sentence that way, did I?). He takes himself seriously only, I think, for

the sole purpose of pushing other people's buttons. It's more of a joke to him than it is to

practically anyone else.

[bobatkins]

"<em>had no idea that by 2002 my site would become the world's most trusted and popular source of technical information world wide through the Internet</em>"

<p>

Hmm. I though that was <em>my</em> website.

<p>

Maybe I need to get more outragous and attract people to my site just to critique me. Now there's a thought...

[carl smith]

The problem with being a jokester and not being serious all the time when you do reviews (if thats what he calls them) is you end up saying something completely stupid, flawed or offbase that some people will believe and others (such as in this tread) will call you on.

 

He can be amusing to read but I don't know anyone that considers him an authoritative source on anything.

[christopher_bibbs]

Geoff,

 

I'm not against all of Ken's writings. Honestly, I've only read a few articles by him and usually he makes good points. This comparison is only useful if you have the same preferences as Ken since his writing is heavily slanted. Calling the resolution equal because you don't see the differences between 6MP and 8MP at his print sizes, but there is an advantage to be called because he prefers the color saturation out of camera on the D70? Saying the AF points of the D70 aren't placed as well because compositions rarely fall there? How does he know where I compose my shots? Another problem comes in when he gives his advice at the end for new users and tells them to compare the two cameras, but ignore one of Canon's features and concentrate on what he feels is Nikon's strength.

 

I agree with the general sentiment that selection between the D70 and 20D has more to do with what other equipment you might own than which has better features. I just wish he stuck to an even comparison of those features without weighting ones he liked.

[bobatkins]

There's no such thing as bad publicity. In fact the more contraversial you are, the bigger the audience that you attract. The more opinionated you are, the more people you draw in, even the ones who disagree with you. Just look at Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

 

I'm not for one second equating Ken Rockwell with either of them, just pointing out that there's more to being a shrewed businessman that presenting facts in a totally even handed, "fair and balanced" manner!

 

If you have a site which carries advertising, the more viewers you get the better, whether they agree with what you're saying or not.

[qtluong]

I've always been appalled at the apparent amount of traffic that Ken Rockwell site gets, especially compared with Bob's site that is chock-full of solid information rather than often dubious opinions.

[bobatkins]

You clearly haven't read my latest article "Does Nikon really suck?" or my recent expose "Leica - are their lenses made of plastic?".

 

In both cases the answer is "no" of course...

 

Next week I'm following Popular Photography's recent lead in publishing an article on how unethical paparazzi photographers are, complete with illustrations of candid shots of Britany Spears sunbathing topless.

 

That should boost my ratings.

[beauh44]

<I>complete with illustrations of candid shots of Britany Spears sunbathing topless.</i><P>Now Bob, I'm sure people would rather see you topless! ;-)

[bobatkins]

I'm pretty damn sure I don't want to meet those people....

 

BTW I'd basically agree with Ken Rockwell that the difference between 6MP and 8MP is small and that most people looking at most images (up to 11x14) probably wouldn't notice the difference.

[dogbert]

Christopher

 

IMO nearly everyone's writings are heavily slanted towards their own preferences. At least Ken is very obvious in doing this, and that way you can recognise his views for what they are. I doubt any newbies are seriously mislead by him and if you base major purchases on a single source on the internet then you only have yourself to blame.

[chris_saul]

I agree with Geoff. I enjoyed reading the article about the 20D vs D70. Ken gave his opinions and, I thought, was pretty clear that in many cases he was talking about his preferences.

 

I am a HUGE fan of Bob's site and reference it all the time. But I think I'll pass on seeing him naked too!

[grepmat]

This being a Canon forum, and Ken's site being a Nikon forum, the tone of most posts here is understandable. Ken is an amusing guy, but he also understands that most people don't want to hear "6 of this, half-dozen of that" discussions. They want answers, even if they are opinionated - in fact, so much the better! I actually thought the story was fair, considering his stated biases. Now, Mr. Atkins, with all due respect (and I do have a lot), your site is a Canon-dominated one. No problem there whatsoever. But, Bob, Bob, Bob, why-oh-why act as a shill for the Alexa spy-ware? Jaw-dropping negative points, Bob! A wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. Please rethink this. Cheers.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Ken's not too bad.

<BR>You definitely don't want to take him seriously all the time,but a good entertaining read occasionally

[jon_austin]

The man's entitled to his opinions (everyone's got 'em), as well as to build a web site and publish those opinions.

 

I found reading his pages quite educational; the occasional contradictions and non sequiturs helped me reason out my own understanding of (digital) photography issues.

 

Since I read through his pages the first time (about 1-1/2 years ago), I've never felt compelled to go back for more.

[bobatkins]

I agree that opinionated reviews are often more entertaining. "Fair and balanced" can become "Dull and boring" if you aren't careful.

 

As for the Alexa link on my website, well, I do have a warning that Alexa collects info and I have a direct link to their privacy policy. It's up to individual users to decide whether the Alexa toolbar provides enough utility to outweigh any privacy concerns. However photo.net and this forum is not an appropriate place to discuss either Alexa or my personal website and it's policies.

 

Wow controversy at last! I knew there must be a way to boost my ratings....