Letter to Mr Rockwell in regards to his 5Dmkiii review

[moreorless]

You guys entirely have the wrong idea. You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else. Maybe you only use a little of what he says, maybe nothing, but maybe it gets you to think differently and see photography from a different viewpoint for a while.

For example, last week I came across his articles about wide angle lenses and tripods. First on tripods, since then I've been really thinking - why do I carry a tripod around? Is it really necessary? Am I over using it, under using it? On wide angles - which I've always preferred - these are the first articles that I've found which talked the same reasons about why I like them.

People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.

I do think you need to give Ken his due that a small part of the content of his site offers some decent (if rather basic) advice, even this decent advice is often hurt by his frequent desent into hyperbole though.

Most of his site though seems to be made up of either blantant untruths and/or highly contradictory articles, one moment he's advising than an S95 is all the camera anyone needs, the next he's carping on about film as "the real raw".

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

 

[Marsu42]

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

I guess part of the hate is based on his blunt but obviously very successful family marketing and that he seems to be doing well as a rich amateur who has nothing to do than review top gear and state his opinion - a job that most people envy, including me.

When I re-discovered photography, I found his website to be helpful because it's *not* full of the global "get expensive L glass and full frame" advice easily given elsewhere. And I like his "Is it worth it?" and "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" pages. The latter is the often mistaken reason for him finding mid-range zooms boring, including me.

My 2 cents: If he gets things wrong in the technical department - and people often complain but seldom give examples - he's forgiven for the general insight "the picture matters" and because I'd never make a purchase decision based on one review anyway.

 

[seanshen]

the guy is a joke...his reviews are full of crap...his website is there to rob you of your money ('make a donation' can be found on every page)...and his 'about' page demonstrates what a tool he is.

 

[moreorless]

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

I guess part of the hate is based on his blunt but obviously very successful family marketing and that he seems to be doing well as a rich amateur who has nothing to do than review top gear and state his opinion - a job that most people envy, including me.

When I re-discovered photography, I found his website to be helpful because it's *not* full of the global "get expensive L glass and full frame" advice easily given elsewhere. And I like his "Is it worth it?" and "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" pages. The latter is the often mistaken reason for him finding mid-range zooms boring, including me.

My 2 cents: If he gets things wrong in the technical department - and people often complain but seldom give examples - he's forgiven for the general insight "the picture matters" and because I'd never make a purchase decision based on one review anyway.

I agree the "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" article is a very nice introduction indeed, I found it helpful after I bought my first UWA and I'v read many others who thought the same. I actually somewhat agree with him about screw in grads, obviously they have there limations(that he fails to acknowledge) but for many users I do think a 2 stop screw in will cover most of their needs.

The problem is that more often than not he has to push home his point with needless hyperbole so that rather than looking to advise people on the equipment thats best for there needs he just hammers home one option.

At a more advanced level though he often slips into blatant dishoniesty, the resolution of scanned 35mm stands out as very much in oposition to both my own expereince and everything else I'v read for example or indeed several Nikon lenses such as the 16-35mm or the 28-300mm.

 

[KeithR]

Reasonable Person

Is that a synomym for "easily-fooled mug"?

Because there's nothing unreasonable about considering a tool like Rockwell to be a tool.

 

[FunPhotons]

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.

Purely anecdotal, when I do searches on gear or photography he comes up in the top ten more often or not, according to my memory. Could be entirely wrong here.

This discussion is pointless, I'm exiting. Some people like him, some don't mind, some hate him. Big deal.

 

[Marsu42]

The problem is that more often than not he has to push home his point with needless hyperbole so that rather than looking to advise people on the equipment thats best for there needs he just hammers home one option.

... but he frequently adds "that's just me", and since his website of course offers his opinion he can very well speak up as far as I'm concerned. I'll make up my mind only after reading a *lot* other sites and sources than just one. Concerning the tech stuff - thanks for the info, I wouldn't have noticed but on the other hand I only look at his site for general advice (like the uwa article) or a quick lens review.

 

[@!ex]

Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.

 

[cpsico]

Yes Ken Rockwell is not considered the supreme camera authority, but he is good for new camera users looking for a plain English review. I don't find anything useful for advanced users. Of course DXO is sort of for tools also and people seem to love them so don't get upset read lots of sites and form a good overall opinion instead of relieing on one source.

 

[TexPhoto]

 

[EYEONE]

Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.

Well, 99% of Ken's readers don't know enough about camera's to know when he's wrong. I wouldn't expect him to be in any hurry to change anything.

 

[rocketdesigner]

After reading this on Rockwell's site....:

"No big deal; the video guys LOVE the D800, D4 and 5D Mark III. These are the new Messiah to them. Nikon and Canon did the Japanese two-step adding all the things vidiots wanted, added more resolution to stultify we still shooters with desire, and had to pull some of the things we still photographers need to make room for the video features."

...this guy is now on my list.

I did not know just because I shot video with my HDSLR I was a "vidiot".

 

[EvilTed]

LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

ET

 

[@!ex]

LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

ET

Of course, because he actually starting to LEARN how to use the camera. What a fucking idiot. still no reply to the email and he is still using all three custom functions to switch between AF modes, which is a ridiculously dumb solution when you can do it faster and easier with button customization (which I included in my email).

 

[wickidwombat]

LOL, now he loves the 5D MK3

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

ET

Of course, because he actually starting to LEARN how to use the camera. What a F______ idiot. still no reply to the email and he is still using all three custom functions to switch between AF modes, which is a ridiculously dumb solution when you can do it faster and easier with button customization (which I included in my email).

LOL I actually started reading about HOW he is getting around his complaints please for the sake of your blood pressure dont read it, or at least have soeone nearby ready to call 911 for you, but a hint is using C1 C2 and C3...
I didn't finish reading as i fell out of my chair after the first 2 sentences...

 

[briansquibb]

OMG

Just read his review on the 5DIII. This paragraph says it all

"The Mark III's new autofocus system is more complicated than it is good. It's about the same as Nikon's old D300 AF system from 2007. Its added complexity and inferior, obstructive LCD finder display is getting in the way of my pictures. I can't see my subject under the ugly black AF-area squares, and its added complexity demands that I stop what I'm doing to set it. By comparison, the simple, fast AF system of my 5D Mark II and original 5D never required more than one click to adjust, and my eyes never had to leave my subject. "

He needs to:

- read the manual
- take 10 steps back and clear his mind

From his 7D review:

"Bad

1.) New AF system draws big, black rectangles as each AF sensor goes active — and they never turn off as you're trying to compose! These big, ugly, distracting rectangles don't go away until after you've taken your picture! This makes it difficult to see your subject's expression, or even your subject! (better cameras turn off the AF point indicators after focus locks.)

2.) New 19-sensor AF system is so complex that it doesn't work as well as Canon's classic 9-point system. This is because when you need to change among settings, there are now so many settings that you need to stop what you're doing and click a few buttons to do what you used to be able to do with one finger. "

Well I jumped from the 5DII to the 7D to the 1D4 - and found it easier to do what I wanted on every jump. Nothing complex - just more function to tap into. The only real issue is whether you use the expansion point or change the tracking speed. If he cant get his mind round that .........

 

[D_Rochat]

[quote author=Ken "I'm awesome" Rockwell]
After shooting another day with my 5D Mark III, I am so digging it. Its magic in-camera lens correction is letting me shoot fly-weight plastic Canon lenses, like my weightless and ergonomically superior 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, getting great results, and lightening my load, all at the same time.
[/quote]

You know, right before the release of the 5D mkIII I said to myself, "I really hope Ken tests and reviews this $3500 camera with sh*tty lenses".

I really hope he tests the 1Dx with the ef 75-300.

 

[EYEONE]

[quote author=Ken "I'm awesome" Rockwell]
After shooting another day with my 5D Mark III, I am so digging it. Its magic in-camera lens correction is letting me shoot fly-weight plastic Canon lenses, like my weightless and ergonomically superior 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, getting great results, and lightening my load, all at the same time.

You know, right before the release of the 5D mkIII I said to myself, "I really hope Ken tests and reviews this $3500 camera with sh*tty lenses".

I really hope he tests the 1Dx with the ef 75-300.
[/quote]

Hahaha. He always complains about the heavy and bulk of large lenses and cameras but is front page image is him with a Nikon super-tele. I guess just to look cool and "pro"

 

[RunAndGun]

He can't see the forest for the trees. Or is it vice-versa... 8) If he would actually read the manual and spend some time with the camera he would realize that Canon instilled a LOT of useful customization features for camera and focus system that makes it VERY easy to use. In fact I would say the focus system is a revolutionary jump forward from the MKII and given it's jump in features, usefulness and "complexity", it's as easy or easier to use than the previous generation. And in turn his beloved Nikon actually took away ease of use of their focus system.

It's kind of funny, I actually have focus schemes tied into my C settings as well, but it's not because I can't figure out the focus system or how to make it work quickly and simply to my liking.

 

[DJL329]

Just an update. No response to my email, and no changes to his misinformed website. If I ran a website that reviewed gear for a living and I got an email pointing out a bunch of clear and glaring mistakes on said website, I'm pretty sure I would be pretty quick to respond and update the site, although I'm not a technologically inept tool with a website designed in the late 90's.

Perhaps you should read Ken Rockwell's "manual":

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

Therefore, if you are reading his page and making the mistake of taking him seriously, then you're the one with the problem.

If you are looking for site with serious reviews, then look somewhere else. End of discussion.