Letter to Mr Rockwell in regards to his 5Dmkiii review

[V8Beast]

How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?

Quite clearly amateurs use mid range zooms, therefore pros dont.

Not too sure what he means by mid range - I would say the 70-200 is a mid range - wow, pros dont use this

Good point. Let's say a ridiculous blanket statement like "pros don't use mid-range zooms" was actually true. Who cares? Does that mean hobbyists shouldn't use them just because pros don't? Please. If you need a mid-range zoom, or any other type of lens for that matter, get it. Who cares what a pro uses? If I saw a pro carry around hemorrhoid medication in his camera bag, does that mean that I should too ?

I've said this before, but I see lots of hobbyists that have nicer gear that pros. So maybe it's the pros that look at their gear enviously, and not the other way around ;D

 

[briansquibb]

If I saw a pro carry around hemorrhoid medication in his camera bag, does that mean that I should too ?

Those are the pills with the red ring thing - oh no what have I been taking :-[ :-[ :-[

;D ;D

 

[jamesdylangoldstein]

You are missing the point. For whatever reason, he wants things simple when it comes to photography. He doesn't want to spend more time or money on HDR, GPS, video, etc. He wants to take pictures. He doesn't want to have to reconfigure buttons or deal with multiple menus. The most informative video I've watched on photography is Jay Maisel's walk through NYC with Scott Kelby. I would say he echoes almost all of Rockwell's essential photography points. He doesn't want to change lenses, carry a tripod, use photoshop, or even crop the images. This is the type of pro Rockwell refers to. He explicitly does mention that wedding photographers use the 24-70. When he's talking about pros he's talking about people like Maisel and Gursky. Whether you like it or not, you're not going to see a Trey Ratcliffe print in the Met. You aren't going to see one by your favorite wedding photographer either.

And Rockwell is without a doubt the least biased site on the web. He reviews things honestly and like a photographer. If I had read his review of the Sony A55 before I read David Pogue's, I would have saved a lot of money. Most of these magazines and websites sugarcoat everything. Read about how upset he was at the D800. Just as upset as the Canon 5D III. His point about switching camera brands based on megapixels was spot on. I would say the only thing he doesn't get is sports photography, which he readily admits. If you don't know much about art theory and composition, his site is invaluable.

 

[Abraxx]

From my perspective, this is pointless.
I'm not even clicking anymore on a link, from a reviewer, who is not even taking his time to fully read a manual.
I have lost all respect for Ken.
I would call "this" an internet parasite.

 

[takoman46]

Ken Rockwell is just one of the more well known retards on the web that think they know better than photographers that actually own and use any camera, lens or peripheral accessory. There are a ton of other dingbats like him on youtube to boot. I even ended up wasting my time trying to argue with some kid on youtube that was saying that he bought a 5DmkII because the 5DmkIII was not worth it, not significantly improved over the 5DmkII, and too expensive considering that he wanted and pre-ordered a Nikon D800... He then went on to saying that he cancelled his D800 pre-order and bought a 5DmkII. How can someone feel that they need the resolution of a D800 and then say that the 5DmkII fills the the same niche in the market? And then go on the claim that the 5DmkIII is the same as a mkII? I argued that I was basing my opinion on my user experience between the mkII and mkIII but got flamed by this kid that I didn't know what I was talking about. All kinds of loonies in this world lol ???

 

[solarpos]

Too much time on your hands. I cannot imagine the brain hours some are devoting to the 5D3 and it's pros/cons. People need to be out shooting!

 

[bornshooter]

ken rockwells a TIT

 

[briansquibb]

ken rockwells a TIT

Clearly not a great tit though - they are good looking


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[V8Beast]

You are missing the point. For whatever reason, he wants things simple when it comes to photography. He doesn't want to spend more time or money on HDR, GPS, video, etc. He wants to take pictures.

That's good, because based on the images he posts, he could sure use some more practice.

He doesn't want to have to reconfigure buttons or deal with multiple menus. The most informative video I've watched on photography is Jay Maisel's walk through NYC with Scott Kelby. I would say he echoes almost all of Rockwell's essential photography points. He doesn't want to change lenses, carry a tripod, use photoshop, or even crop the images.

There's a solution for this. It's called a point-and-shoot. I don't like hauling around a ton of gear more than anyone else, but sometimes even after you pare things down to the bare minimum, you're still left with a lot of gear. With some jobs, there's no way around this. It's really very simple. Use a DSLR (or medium format if you're a high roller) for commissioned gigs, and bust out the point-and-shoot if you have an aversion to carrying gear around. I've tried this before, and it works quite well.

This is the type of pro Rockwell refers to.

Not always. According to Ken, a 70-200 is the longest lens you need to shoot motorsports because that's what someone else told him. If Ken needs to rely on hearsay because he has no personal experience, that's fine. If that's the case, just don't go running you're mouth as if you know what you're talking about and have the nerve to speak on behalf of all pros.

 

[FunPhotons]

I have no problem with people that "see things differently," ... How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?

One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.

What he says isn't controversial. It's jut ill-informed and ignorant ... I've never come across anyone who produces such underwhelming work that tries to speak so authoritatively on any subject matter.

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

 

[V8Beast]

One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.

Nah, that's just one example. His idiotic statements are many. I rarely read his reviews, but whenever I come across one, there's always some highly misinformed opinion that he's trying to pass off as fact. He's a blogger, so my expectations of his reporting ability are quite low.

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

If you base someone's credibility on how they rank on a Google search, then I suppose Ken is an expert. I don't care enough about Ken to dislike him. He's more of a comedy show than anything else. It's just a shame when people take his comments as if they're facts.

 

[D_Rochat]

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

Where are you getting your info? I just checked a few sites that show top hits and he doesn't make the top 25 on any of them. That brings us back to......

To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong

Sure he gets hits on his site and his ad revenue is enough to live off of depending on his lifestyle (while still asking for handouts), but it's because he's a clown and not because he's a reputable figure in photography. Besides, his success was never in question. Although, if his goal was to be a successful d-bag, then good for him. He made it.

 

[KeithR]

And Rockwell is without a doubt the least biased site on the web. He reviews things honestly and like a photographer.

He's a self-confessed (after he was caught) liar whose only talent (it surely isn't photography) is self promotion.

You're right about one thing in that quote though - he's "like" a photographer. He's not a photographer, but to the uninformed he's obviously like one. He's been seen with a camera on occasion...

And unbiased? Dear God!

I honestly didn't realise it was possible to be as gullible as some of the people on here bigging up this pointless, irrelevant waste of bandwidth, but I suppose that's how he makes a living from that godawful abortion of a website: as the saying goes, there's one born every minute.

How does anyone "learn" from his website? Most people would get more from an icepick in the ear than from his - and I use the word ironically - "wisdom".

If you don't know much about art theory and composition, his site is invaluable.

Hah! If you look at what he does and then do the exact opposite, you might have a point.

He's a talentless sphincter, and you would do well to learn that about him.

 

[takoman46]

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

FYI, and this is factual: Google search results are ranked in order of how well connected a given web site is to the rest of the internet in relationship to other websites that contain the same key words from a google search. What this means is that the top search hits using the Google search engine are ordered according to the number of hyperlinks that a web site contains linking it to other sites as well as the number of hyperlinks on other web sites that link to said web site. This has no bearing on relevance of content or credibility of content. Also, another way to get on the top search results is to be a sponsored web site. In other words, you can create your own website and have very little unique visitor traffic or hyperlinks and pay google a sum of money to place you at the top of the list for given key word searches. There is currently no technology that Google or any other search engine employs that is able to intelligently recognize and prioritize search results on the internet.

 

[solarpos]

Dear Ken,

Ignore the asshats on Canonrumors.com.

Cheers,

Reasonable Person

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Look at it this way.

Everyone who posted with his name had the post picked up by Google and other search engines. The more references to a site, the higher the ranking of his site and leads to more visits and more income.

Laughing all the way to the bank

Yes, I know i've over simpified the process, but he is getting free advertising, and it doesn't matter if its good or bad, Google counts it all as good.

 

[D_Rochat]

Dear Ken,

Ignore the asshats on Canonrumors.com.

Cheers,

Reasonable Person

 

[D_Rochat]

Look at it this way.

Everyone who posted with his name had the post picked up by Google and other search engines. The more references to a site, the higher the ranking of his site and leads to more visits and more income.

Laughing all the way to the bank

Yes, I know i've over simpified the process, but he is getting free advertising, and it doesn't matter if its good or bad, Google counts it all as good.

For now on we will refer to him as "He who must not be named".

 

[nitsujwalker]

Look at it this way.

Everyone who posted with his name had the post picked up by Google and other search engines. The more references to a site, the higher the ranking of his site and leads to more visits and more income.

Laughing all the way to the bank

Yes, I know i've over simpified the process, but he is getting free advertising, and it doesn't matter if its good or bad, Google counts it all as good.

For now on we will refer to him as "He who must not be named".

Oh I love Harry Potter references... Classic.

 

[EvilTed]

Asshat?
Is that like a lens cap?

Ken definitely prefers the Nikon here because he likes the recesses you can put you fingers in

ET