Say what you want about Ken; he sure likes his Leica!

[vic_.]

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1648265"><em>Steve Taylor</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Jan 23, 2009; 12:38 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Seems like the haters sure spend alot of time reading about him.</em></p>

 

 

That's the only sane thing written on this KR-hating circle jerk.

 

[w_t1]

<p>I can't believe the energy that guy creates here, don't you bother to read his "about" section - the one that starts off "reader beware"? Here's a short clip:</p>

<p><em>While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fictio</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Comical how his work gets quoted, Ken probably has a good laugh over all this...I figure the guy has lots of money, how else would a geek like him get a (relatively) attractive woman like his wife to sleep with him? He's dead on with the car buying advice.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>How did digital SLRs grow so big and why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One word - batteries. Well, batteries and "chimp" screens. You need a lot of juice to run all the electronics. Can't do that without batteries.</p>

[tobycline]

<p>KR-hating circle jerk is spot on. </p>

<p>This thread needs a little perspective. Ken has a website. So what? If people don't like it, they don't have to read it. However, Ken also doesn't need to have a spectacular portfolio to make comments and share his opinion about the newest photo gear. Why would he need one to talk tech or photo theory? In fact, he has put up some nice stuff (better than some of the Leica folks here at Pnet, I might add.)</p>

<p>The only reasons I see that people would criticize him would be that they are upset that his megaphone is louder than theirs or that he preaches that less that a Leica can be used to make great photographs. Otherwise, if he was irrelevant and consistently wrong, no one here would know his name. Now, if I could only think of a polite way to say "get over yourselves." :o)</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Anyone that promotes film over digital nowadays has my vote. Ken is provocative, and I certainly do not agree with alot of his commentry, however I find him entertaining, which is more than I can say for the swag of magazines and sites promoting all the latest digital garbage that has been released in the last month - always enough to fill a magazine and if it's not, they can always throw in the latest technique for converting your raw files to b&w, or how to make your 29 stops of dynamic range hdr shots look natural.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>I try to get better at photography, and Ken´s got a lot of advice. Most of it is useful - to me. As for recommendations of individual brands, I couldn´t care less. The tools do not matter, the photographer does, and the ravings concerning one brand´s superiority to another are laughable at best. You just learn to use your gear.</p>

[betty_lowrey]

<p>The ridiculous love/hate relationship with Mr. Rockwell on this site cracks me up. Why let someone on the Internet rile you up so much?</p>

[blaise1]

<p>I like what Shash said above. Digital cameras are great and are reaching a technological point where they don't need to be upgraded to increase quality much. Likewise, my dad's Leica M3 is a lot of fun and leicas can be had used for quite cheap these days. Isn't it wonderful that we can take pictures with all of these things.<br>

But... after looking through this whole thread I'll suggest the usual internet forum comment: "just go out and shoot."</p>

[jim_stunkel]

<p>Some day all of arguments about film vs digital will be mute. Eventually the technical qaulity of digital photography will surpass all forms of film media, it's only a matter of time. Everyone seems to forget that digital is relatively new compared to film.<br>

For those who think that digital is more expensive than film, I couldn't disagree more. It's as expensive (or inexpensive) as you want it to be. If you don't like spending loads of money on camera bodies, don't do it. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy new gear all the time. Ken himself argues vigorously that the camera itself doesn't matter anyway. I just bought a digital SLR and I guarantee I won't upgrade for 5 years or more. By that time, there will be significant advances in digital technology (imporant stuff, like real improvements in image quality) that will make it worth spending another 900 bucks. $900 every 5 years is chump change in the world of photography, and is far less than I would have spent on film and development in the same time period. If film were still in vogue, Nikon and Canon would be releasing new film bodies that they somehow would convince us we need. Now that's a real waste of money.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent point. Most of these folks are effective at self-promotion. Some offer reasonably reliable info while others offer considerable "entertainment value." Unfortunately, the neophyte searching the web and innocently looking for information might not be able to tell who's on the level. Magazines have editors to screen out dubious claims; personal websites don't.<br>

For an example of sound advice presented with the right intentions, see Nikon pro Dave Black's outstanding site ( daveblackphotography.com ).</p>

 

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>Jim, I still shoot both film and digital, but you're right that digital is expensive as you want it to be. It kind of amazes me when I see someone who bought say a D80 two years ago is already wondering if they should upgrade to a D90, D300, or D700. I bought my D80 back in 2006 and fully plan on getting a good five years out of it before thinking about replacing it. I paid $800 for it, so that works out to about $175 per year. And I'm still using a seven year old computer with only 750 MB of ram, but it still works for my images, just a little slow. I hope my D80 still functions after that for a backup or to use for casual photos. Ken Rockwell seems to buy every new DSLR that comes out, and yes I can see how that would get expensive. </p>

 

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I think Ken Rockwell is a genius! Even folks that hate him go to his website and read his writing.<br>

If you really don't like the guys and think his writing is crap, don't come there. You only increase the traffic that he needs to generate money.</p>

[andreasb]

<p>Wow! Retrospectively, I wish I would have spent the time I did reading all these posts out in the woods with my cheap camera and cheap lenses chasing a moose! Good thing I'm at work!</p>

[vivek iyer]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3671344">Sinh Nhut Nguyen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jan 23, 2009; 07:15 p.m.<br>

I think Ken Rockwell is a genius! Even folks that hate him go to his website and read his writing.<br /> If you really don't like the guys and think his writing is crap, don't come there. You only increase the traffic that he needs to generate money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to contradict you. It occurs to me that Ken generated so much discussion here and not the other way around! :)</p>

[nzdavid]

<p>Don't believe everything you read -- online or in print! And why not be provocative? Life would be dull indeed otherwise. I think Rockwell is entertaining, and I bet he's had a chuckle at this post. But think how much he'd have saved if he had bought Leica first off, instead off all those dozens of DSLRs.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I don't care what all of you gays saying about Ken Rockwell (it is a good manner in my home country to say the full name of a person we talk about. Not just KR ) time to time I reading his web page, specially about lens review and recommendation. So is my story; I always shopping the best ever I can afford, sometime more what I can afford, started my photography with a Russian Zorkij C, ------- today I own Nikon FM3, FA, D40, D300, D700 and the best lenses like 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2.8VR , etc., etc. Being curious, and like the full frame business better then DX, but I have both, and lenses for them. Recently I bought a Nikon AF 70-210/4-5.6 lens, like new, including hood and a Nikon 62mm NC filter on it for 100 dollar. Yess! Hundred dollar! Just for a fan. Mounted on the D700, couple of shoots I was surprised of the sharpness of the lens. Then mounted the C$2000 total, lens, 24-70/2.8 and taken the same images in the same time and same lighting condition. RAW. On the screen, LaCie 324, I cannot see a difference between the to images. Yessss! . . . You right it has a difference, but an image size of the screen, 100 % view, vas no difference. So! He is wrong ?, when he telling you, you don't has to buy an expensive equipment to produce a good quality image, an artistic quality image. Hi is right, some of the old Nikon lenses, AI etc. very good lenses indeed, sharp, and build beautiful solid quality lenses. Then, the D700 (no battery grip) + 24-70/2.8 is a monster. D700 + MB-D10 is bigger, heavier then the D3, D3X. Never mind the price. Hi is right on many subject, and what I like the best, Hi is not using so called "politicly correct" language. A spade is a spade!</p>

[razzledog]

<p>"I don't care what all of you gays saying about Ken Rockwell'........ I wasn't aware that most guys here were 'gay' but the concept is kinda interesting. I think Uncle Ken can be somewhat of an 'old woman' at times, but I really enjoy reading his comments as they're generally more interesting than the the usual garbage put out by manufacturers..... However, I have found that 'gays' are generally more interesting......</p>

[razzledog]

<p>...too. <br /> (This ten minute window to edit posts is unbelievable.....You get chopped off at the knees whilst hurriedly making sure you got it right, perhaps this time could be extended a little?, I mean, why is it that the window of opportunity only lasts for 10 minutes?)<br /> Anyway, back to Uncle Ken. I realise that he can be a little controversial at times, but then he gives his honest opinion at least, I don't care if it's done to attract traffic. I get tired of reading barf from websites that just repeat what I just read somewhere else....Good on you Ken, dare to be different.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I don't hang around his site, but he seems like more of a blogger than a shooter. His galleries don't show any inspired work.<br>

Why on earth do people give a rat's what he thinks? Do you really care what Ann Coulter thinks too?</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Dieter, is spot on, take one Nikon F6 and one Zeiss Ikon RF and call me in 3 years when the D3x shrinks to the F6 size and $3,000. Meanwhile I am also looking forward to more u4/3 digital and adapters for my Leica, Nikon, and Pentax legacy lenses.<br>

<br /> Why listen to KR and Ann Coulter? Because despite your dislike they are darn interesting and we cannot stop ourselves can we?</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>"I don't care what all of you gays . . . ." <br>

Sorry for the misspelling! I meant guys..!!!! . . . GUYS.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>He'll end up paying a lot more for his M7 than he would have for a D3x when you factor-in film, processing, and printing. So what's his point really?</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>How can one compare digital to Leica? These are two different beasts. Additionally, there is little comparision between any Nikon glass and Leica. Sort of comparing a Lamborgini (Leica) and a Chevy (digital, your choice).</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I am a $ contributor to Ken website as he has some outstanding reviews on gears otherwise.</p>

<p> </p>

[snommisbor]

<blockquote>

<p>He'll end up paying a lot more for his M7 than he would have for a D3x when you factor-in film, processing, and printing. So what's his point really?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Extra 4000 can buy a lot of film and processing but you can't count the printing digital has to do that as well. And a Leica sold in 5-10 years down the road should bring more back should one decide to sell.</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>Those who are worried about increasing traffic at Rockwell's site can ignore this link;</p>

<p>those who want to see his argument for shooting <strong>film </strong> instead of <strong>digital </strong> in at least some situations (he shoots plenty of the latter, btw, so don't read too much into his arguments) can read this:</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm</p>

<p> </p>