Ken Rockwells 7d2 review.

I know Ken takes a bashing and often rightly so but I think that if you view him as entertainment... he's ok :D and I think that some of his help articles are actually rather good.
 
He's still about!?? wow, my choosing to ignore his existence has worked for longer than I expected :D

I used to read his page a lot when I started out using dslrs, but soon tired of his obnoxiousness, and he changes his mind every other article! SO don't be shocked if in a couple of months you find him dissing the very same body! Better to look elsewhere for reviews I'd say. From what I seen of it, they've been favourable for the 7DII thus far.
 
Without reading...it's the worlds best for something, right?
 
I'm sure it's answered in his review but do we still need to shoot in JPG medium to save memory card space and increase the speed it takes to transfer to a computer for processing later...
 
Actually, the piece is quite good, though he goes on about specs, but there are no sample images and no references to its performance in the field.

Reading it again, I don't think he's got his hands on one yet, as he states "I'll let you know when my real, paid-for camera arrives" when he mentions the actual performance.

I love Ken!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Actually, the piece is quite good, though he goes on about specs, but there are no sample images and no references to its performance in the field.
Click to expand...

So what's the point? We can all read spec-sheets.

Reading it again, I don't think he's got his hands on one yet, as he states "I'll let you know when my real, paid-for camera arrives" when he mentions the actual performance.
Click to expand...

So he's just relaying the specs which are available to everyone. Give me strength.
 
everyone pretends to ignore him yet he's the one driving round in a spinky new porsche. Go figure.
 
Nawty said:
No, he's providing an opinion based on a spec sheet. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

You're assuming his opinion is worth something ;)
 
I'll leave it thanks. And plenty of people make a living doing worthless rubbish, just look at One Direction :p
 
Are there reviewers similar ( comprehensive ) to Uncle Ken that could be recommended ? I realise that Ken is the gateway drug of reviewers.
He also gets a good kicking on most forums. I find him quite funny, at times.
I've not seen many alternatives mentioned though.
 
Without looking at his sight, which I'll never do again, does he actually say 'review'? Because you can't review a camera without the camera. You can assess a specs sheet, but not review a camera.

DPReview actually have a camera, and have posted an initial First Impressions Review as a Preview to their in depth review which will no doubt come in a month or two, you know, after they have had the camera for awhile to actually review it.

Got hand it to KR, he has a knack at making money. Not something I could do, BS for a living.
 
Ken Rockwell is to Photography What Tommy Cooper was to Magic..............a comedian!
 
M.A.Gibson said:
Ken Rockwell is to Photography What Tommy Cooper was to Magic..............a comedian!
Click to expand...

He has had photographic successes though hasn't he? Published photographer and all that... He may be anything on the scale from eccentric and brilliant to fool depending upon your view but I think it's worth accepting that he's at least got some talent and a grasp of the issues even if his outpourings and style are a little marmite :D
 
Nawty said:
No, he's providing an opinion based on a spec sheet. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
But anyone and everyone has an opinion on a load of black ink on a white piece of paper. So why does Mr Rockwell's opinion seem to be of any more importance than yours or mine or anyone else?

To be honest I hate the fact that his website pop up on any sort of photographic related reviews/guides search. I wouldn't mind if someone started a right to be forgotten campaign so that google can take off links to his site. Too much garbage on his pages, I read his site and compared the more methodical review sites such as DP and Photozone...when I first started off photography...those two sites really blows his "opinionated rubbish" out of the water.

If you actually read one of his proper reviews...he doesn't do a review as you would expect. He probably doesn't k ow the first thing of how to. For instance when carry out a lens review it is important to measure the sharpness and distortion figures. He never ever tests his lens in this way. His description goes along the lines of "super sharp" "sharp" "soft" or useless...right great if I can compare one lens to another based on those description. Was he wearing his glasses when he was reviewing the super sharp ones or was he having a bad day when seeing the picture taken but the useless one?
 
Last edited:
ricky1980 said:
His description goes along the lines of "super sharp" "sharp" "soft" or useless...right great if I can compare one lens to another based on those description. Was he wearing his glasses when he was reviewing the super sharp ones or was he having a bad day when seeing the picture taken but the useless one?
Click to expand...

And then he will say the opposite at a later date to generate threads in photo forums, and of course generate traffic to his site. He's canny chap, making a very good living. Just not the way I'd like to do it. Each to their own though. Like Wikipedia, I warn everyone to get any 'facts' on his site verified at various other sources.

I bet he's got more money than me doing it though. :rolleyes:
 
ricky1980 said:
If you actually read one of his proper reviews...he doesn't do a review as you would expect. He probably doesn't k ow the first thing of how to. For instance when carry out a lens review it is important to measure the sharpness and distortion figures. He never ever tests his lens in this way. His description goes along the lines of "super sharp" "sharp" "soft" or useless...right great if I can compare one lens to another based on those description. Was he wearing his glasses when he was reviewing the super sharp ones or was he having a bad day when seeing the picture taken but the useless one?
Click to expand...


Why are test charts and distortion figures important? He tests lenses as most people would, by taking photos, what's wrong with that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a particular fan of his (nor particularly anti) but I fail to see why people get so wound up by him when it is easy to see what his agenda is and frankly SOME of the things he says are waaaaaay more true than people chose to (not) believe.
 
Nawty said:
Why are test charts and distortion figures important? He tests lenses as most people would, by taking photos, what's wrong with that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a particular fan of his (nor particularly anti) but I fail to see why people get so wound up by him when it is easy to see what his agenda is and frankly SOME of the things he says are waaaaaay more true than people chose to (not) believe.
Click to expand...
charts and figures are useful tools to compare one to another...adding personal objectivity without justification of it is not a review but simply as I said an opinion...he gets paid for this and it is appalling
 
redhed17 said:
And then he will say the opposite at a later date to generate threads in photo forums, and of course generate traffic to his site. He's canny chap, making a very good living. Just not the way I'd like to do it. Each to their own though. Like Wikipedia, I warn everyone to get any 'facts' on his site verified at various other sources.

I bet he's got more money than me doing it though. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
very true, I think he can be likened to the TOWIEs and MICs, Big Brothers etc etc...people who thrive to contrive and to be as eccentric, pig ignorant to a level obnoxious as possible. Maybe a bit strong there but similar...
 
Nawty said:
it is easy to see what his agenda
Click to expand...

The thing is, it's not. If you are beginner, or just someone uninformed, and looking for information, and one of his 'reviews' or some information on his site comes up quite highly in a search, one would assume that it is good information because it is popular. And it may well be, but by going to the information you are interested in, you miss the little nuggets in the 'About me' section. In words to the effect of (because he keeps on mentioning his Copyright) 'His site is all in his imagination' and 'a work of fiction'. 'It's a personal website, not presented as fact'. 'He enjoys making things up'. That's fine, if it was on every page, then you could take that as part of how you use the information he presents. Like I said, anything you read, get it corroborated somewhere else. You never know, it could be him just 'having a bit of fun' and 'making something up'. :rolleyes:
 
M.A.Gibson said:
Ken Rockwell is to Photography What Tommy Cooper was to Magic..............a comedian!
Click to expand...

Tommy Cooper was an accomplished magician and a member of the Magic Circle. Also, Les Dawson could play the piano very well... etc. etc.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top