Letter to Mr Rockwell in regards to his 5Dmkiii review
- Thread starter @!ex
- Start date
- Status
Anyone ever seen the videos on youtube where he wonders around B&H like a buffoon, claims that good sports photographers should not need super teles, delcares a EVIL camera has too many buttons and all other sorts of nonsense??
Enjoy:
Ken Rockwell Visits B&H
Enjoy:
Ken Rockwell Visits B&H
Upvote
0
E
EvilTed
Guest
Oh come on.
He's just a little indecisive
For Canon's he thinks the 24-70 or the 24-105 is the shit and that most Canon pros use the 24-70.
For the Nikon, he raves a bit about the 24-70, but then in his FX Dream Team, he gushes over the 50 F/1.4 G, saying things like "Pros don't use a midrange zoom".
ET
He's just a little indecisive
For Canon's he thinks the 24-70 or the 24-105 is the shit and that most Canon pros use the 24-70.
For the Nikon, he raves a bit about the 24-70, but then in his FX Dream Team, he gushes over the 50 F/1.4 G, saying things like "Pros don't use a midrange zoom".
ET
Upvote
0
EvilTed said:
Comments like these are why no one can take him seriously. How the f**k can someone who's clearly a talentless tech head of an amateur feel qualified to speak on behalf of all pros, and make ignorant blanket statements at that? Is it the overly saturated snap shots of a picnic bench taken with "the world's best DSLR" that's supposed to earn him credibility?
In that vid, he says how a 70-200mm zoom is sufficient for motorsports photography because that's what some NASCAR photographer told him. What a dumb@ss. That might apply to NASCAR, where the press can get very close to the action and the cars race in tight packs 10-20 cars deep. However, on a road course (F1 for example) where the cars get strung out, it's not uncommon to need 600mm of reach.
I snapped this at Texas Motor Speedway with a 1DII and 70-300L at 236mm. Taking the crop factor into account nets 307mm, yet the cars still aren't framed that tightly. So much for Ken's theory.
Photography wise, the only thing he's qualified to blog about his love of cranking the saturation slider to the right. Come on Ken, keep cranking on that slider! You can do it!
If Ken can speak on behalf of all pro photographers, can I return the favor by speaking on behalf of all idiots
?
Upvote
0
pwp said:
+1 I don't consider paint being dripped onto a canvas as art, so I don't read up on Jackson Pollock.
Perhaps some folks should read his "About" page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
Excerpts:
In other words, don't take everything -- or anything -- he says seriously, lest the joke be on you.
Upvote
0
Can I ask why all of you keep reading his stuff if you do not agree with him, or find some value in his posts? Seriously this is like a bunch of old women arguing that Nancy dies her hair.
Upvote
0
K
KeithR
Guest
pwp said:
Point missed by you and his other apologists, and by a wide margin.
He knows that his "opinions" influence people: but what those same people are unlikely to know about the f**ker (yes, I have a problem with him) is that - once, many moons ago - he was forced to admit that he has made up (and probably still makes up) a significant number of his "reviews", without ever touching the equipment he so happily pontificates about.
There's also a very specific personal dimension to my perspective here: back when I didn't know any better about this tool (Rockwell), and when I was still a Nikon shooter, I took at face value - and was so influenced by - his gushing praise of the Nikon D200, that I bought not one but two of the the things.
The Nikon D200 was and is far and away the biggest piece of sh1t I've ever laid hands on.
The point being that not only is he supremely arrogant in his assumption that his photography (and let's be honest - everything he does could be achieved with a P&S and Irfanview to whack the saturation right up) accurately reflects the demands and requirements of other photographic genres; but that when they're so confidently expressed, Rockwell's "opinions" come across as very authoritative, so God help you if you read them without the filter of experience to interpret them through.
The man is the definitive example of the internet phenomenon of being able to spout any old crap, secure in the knowledge that there's bugger all anyone can do about it.
Upvote
0
TexPhoto said:
I try not to, but I like Canon Rumors, and people keep posting links to his website. Despite his idiocy, I do find amusement by how he's so convinced that he thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Based on his obsession with taking overly saturated snap shots with expensive equipment, I figured that there must be some entertainment value in it that I'm overlooking. So, I decided to give it a go:
What do you think, guys, did I crank that saturation slider far enough to the right
?
Upvote
0
Stephen Melvin said:
Thanks for the feedback. How about the image overall? Is the subject, lighting, and composition uninspiring enough?
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:TexPhoto said:
I try not to, but I like Canon Rumors, and people keep posting links to his website. Despite his idiocy, I do find amusement by how he's so convinced that he thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Based on his obsession with taking overly saturated snap shots with expensive equipment, I figured that there must be some entertainment value in it that I'm overlooking. So, I decided to give it a go:
What do you think, guys, did I crank that saturation slider far enough to the right
Muh eyes!! Muh eyes!!!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 392350
- EOS R
