evphotography Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>I have to agree with Mike Dixons post, from what I have seen of his portfolio I'm not sure how he makes a living as photographer, or does he? Only thing that Ken every wrote that I agree with is his article on "lens sharpness", that is something I think every pixel peeper, beginner or amature should read.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Velvia is probably the most garish, cartoonishly oversaturated film in existence. My cell phone camera renders color more naturally and with more subtlety than Velvia.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=271799">Vincenzo Zappavigna</a> , Jan 23, 2009; 05:29 a.m.<br> <br /> Concerning digital, come on let's face it, after all the ado about digital, if all of you are honest, you will have to admit that by loading a good old Yashica T5 with Fuji Velvia you will get much (a lot much) better pics (in terms of colour, sharpness, and noise above all) than with a brand new Lumix lx3 (or Canon G10). Dare to affirm the contrary......</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, as Mike said, out of this world colors from Velvia. Try Kodachrome 25 or Ektar 25 (not the new stuff with the old name).</p> <p>Ken Rockwell is the best bet for camera chat. Wait for his next attempt to resurrect glass plates once he discovers that film can actually curl.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_clark1 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Typical ex-Leica hater. When it's too expensive, they can't be bothered looking at the system. But, when they realize it's not as expensive compared to other systems, they love it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_clark1 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>"Velvia is probably the most garish, cartoonishly oversaturated film in existence."</p> <p>Isn't this the point? Use Provia or another stock, if that's not your look.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>No, the point is that, if you don't even realize that Velvia (with its limited, unnatural color palette) is a terrible example of how film can capture color, you're not a very credible judge of how colors are rendered (whether the capture is film or digital). You probably shouldn't be daring people to disagree with you if you don't really know what you're talking about.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>I don't think Rockwell thinks of himself as "a photographer" as much as he considers himself a "photo industry provocateur" (i.e., he expects to be judged not by the photos he takes but by things he says about photo gear).</p> <p>Fairly or not, the most-popular one-person "gear" sites - luminous-landscape, reidreviews, digilloyd, bythom, naturfotograf, the-digital-picture, etc. - generally are not popular because of the quality of their author's portfolio! One can talk an awful lot about gear without needing to be a good photographer, and the reality is that the former is more likely to attract consistently returning web traffic than is the latter.</p> <p>Judging Rockwell by the "provocative" standard instead of by any "photographic" standard, he is quite successful.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rffffffff Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>his "lame attempts" at page views work very well, and he has a bad portfolio because he isnt a great photographer. He is brilliant as a web marketer and entrepreneur, though, as I am sure he doesnt have a day job anymore, sits at home and types about photography (or pays people to do it for him) and collects lots of income from his site. </p> <p>Imagine if hes paying people to type nonsense and JUST collecting the money. </p> <p>How stupid is that guy for his opinion on consumer grade lenses, which generate much more search traffic, when they pay more of his bills. Its the same reason photographers like pro lenses. They pay our bills more.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldrich Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>I go to Ken's site regularly for kicks and for facts. Ken is a unique guy...he has a massive engineering background and is familiar with the inner workings of a camera, and I mean the INNER workings, as in the physics of why ISO works the way it does and how digital sensors actually "read" light. Yes, his portfolio is generic, but he does state that it was mostly shot on 4x5 film. Is he fair in his assessments on whether or not products actually work as advertised? Jury's still out with me. I like how he's willing to poke fun at himself, i.e. taking pics of a stuffed monkey for camera comparisons, and dubbing it "Self-Portrait."</p> <p>Ralph seems to have hit this one solid. Ken rarely flaunts any photo as being a work of art, except the mono lake under pinatubian light shot. He flaunts his knowledge and education to explain to people WHY this camera may be useful for a certain type of photographer. Works for me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_thornton1 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>M7 body - $4,400 <br> 28mm/f2.8 - $1,800<br> 50mm/f2 - $2,000<br> 90mm/f2.8 - $1,800<br> Total - $10,000<br> For that price I could get a D3X with the 17-35mm f/2.8. I would not have to buy film or convert to digital. The Nikon is also more durable and trouble free. So how did Ken come up with those #'s ?</p> derek-thornton.artistwebsites.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p><em>"How did Ken come up with those numbers?"</em></p> <p>From the page linked at the top of this thread: "I got the M7, 50mm f/2 and 90mm f/2.8 Tele <strong>used </strong> for far less than new. I bought the 28mm brand-new because it costs about the same as used. You can't get the same deals on a used D3X, and you certainly will never be able to resell in a few years an $8,000 D3X for anywhere near what you paid for it."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>You have to take everything he writes not with a grain of salt but with a spoonful:</p> <blockquote> <p>Wait a year or two, and the digital Nikon stuff will be worth next to nothing, while the Leicas you buy today will still be worth a lot.</p> </blockquote> <p>Since the M7 costs $4400 new and can be had for less than the cost of a D300 used now - this statement doesn't hold water. And, from the post above, his own purchase proves it wrong too.</p> <p>Not even a year ago, he wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>I shopped for a Leica rangefinder last summer. The film <a href="http://www.adorama.com/refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sstring=leica%20m7">Leica M7</a> , which has auto exposure, could be almost as useful as a used <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/fe.htm">Nikon FE</a> . The FE sells for $100 used, and the M7 sells for just under $4,000 new. <br /> Then I discovered that I could get Japanese copies of the Leica M7, either the ugly <a href="http://www.adorama.com/refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sstring=Voigtlander%20bessa">Voigtländers</a> for about $700 or the classy <a href="http://www.adorama.com/refby.tpl?refby=rflAID021866&sstring=zeiss%20ikon%20body">Zeiss Ikons</a> for about $1,500. They use the same Leica lens mount, and have superior shutters with 1/125 <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm">flash sync</a> . Today's film Leicas are still beyond primitive, with an inferior 1/50 sync speed. Criminy, the Nikon rangefinders of the 1950s had 1/60 sync. <br /> OK, so figure $1,500 for a Zeiss Ikon body that does almost what an FE does, but without through-the lens viewing. Then I noticed that today's <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f6.htm">Nikon F6</a> sold for the same $1,500 (a little more new today, and a little less used). I bought an F6, and it's the most incredibly good 35mm film camera I've ever used. It is the best 35mm film camera ever created, for the same price as a knock-off of a 50-year obsolete camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why believe anything this guy writes?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>It is often the most reluctant converts to a religion who are ultimately the most passionate about it, and that may characterize Ken's feelings about Leica.</p> <p>Or it could just be his offering for this week's B.S.!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Ken seems to attract comparable hatred to Erwin Puts. Then there are the Velvia-haters too... It's a big world-can't we all live in it?</p> <p>In my opinion photography is like most things: there are those who do it, and then there are those who write about it and they are not necessarily the same people. Very few combine the two together (Ansel Adams comes to mind). Both types can be useful.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snommisbor Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>If you read his site and not just pull a few quotes out of context you will see he is giving his honest opinion on equipment that he has used and most of the time he tries to save you money by telling you cheaper alternatives. He is also poking fun at himself and it is HIS site so he can say whatever he wants, if you don't like it don't read it. I have to admit he has got me back into film because I am tired of spending money on a camera i.e. D300 this time to have it not be worth anything in 3-5 years because the speed of technology. I bought a used F4 to start shooting slides and I love it. The 3 dimensional look is incredible, and like Rock says film is the original RAW and is not a RAW that will be stuck at 2009 technology. I also got a Crown Graphic and have been shooting 4x5 which is incredible. I will still shoot digital for wildlife and sports but landscape and even wildlife to an extent I am digging on film. Which brings me to why I am looking to get into a RF like the M6 or M7. (Of course another thread for your opinions as to which one I should buy) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p><em>"Which brings me to why I am looking to get into a RF like the M6 or M7. (Of course another thread for your opinions as to which one I should buy)."</em></p> <p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Mf55</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00LJAF</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00BLdK</p> <p>http://www.cameraquest.com/mguide.htm<br /> (scroll down)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p><em>If you read his site ... you will see he is giving his honest opinion on equipment that he has used</em><br> On the contrary, he has no trouble <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/pentax/istDs.htm">trashing a camera he has never used</a> . It's all about site traffic, boys and girls!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Enjoy<br> http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Zane, I`d not say he is not honest... thanks for the link. He have some really funny writings :)</p> <p>Others know why Ken writes things like this. From Dieter`s link:<em> "Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one, thats how Pentax was born."</em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_taylor8 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Seems like the haters sure spend alot of time reading about him.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasvata__shash__chatterjee Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Rob,</p> <p>"<em>I have to admit he has got me back into film because I am tired of spending money on a camera i.e. D300 this time to have it not be worth anything in 3-5 years because the speed of technology. I bought a used F4 to start shooting slides and I love it.</em> "</p> <p>I am like-minded with you about film & slides.....I have never printed film myself so never had the control, and now I am not too sure about quality of images from scanned film (at least 35mm). But give me a gorgeous slide projected on a wall, that is Nirvana.</p> <p>But, with the D300 I am not sure I care about obsolescence, it will at least keep on doing what I bought it for and what it is designed to do. My D70 gave me great images, but I was never quite happy with the noise in dark areas and definitely not at ISO 400 and above, not to speak of the VF/screen/AF-module. But with the D300, I cannot complain about a thing except crop-factor anymore, most of the limitations are mine. I am sure dynamic range on newer cameras will improve even more over time, but unless the D300 falls apart on me, I think I'll be taking satisfying (for me) images with it for a long time to come without a need (not lust, which I'll likely find hard not to succumb to) for replacement. In fact, I can't wait for a new generation of full-frames to show up, so I can pick up a D700/D3 for next to nothing so I can have a DX/FX combo. I think DSLRs are at a point now where manufacturers are going to have to do much more than MP increases and bells-and-whistles to get most people to dump the older generation.</p> <p>Shash</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p><em>"For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers."</em><br> <p>Excellent parody.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Ken Rockwell is a troll. And he is darn good at it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snommisbor Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Ralph,<br> Thanks for the links to the M7, M6 threads.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 <p>Sure, you can't go wrong with either. Comes down to minor personal taste differences (and of course budget!).... Gandy (cameraquest.com link in my post 9 above this one) is particularly helpful, though of course he's as opinionated as any Leicaphile!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now