File :-(, x, )
Ken Rockwell
Hey guys, why do you all hate me so much?
>> Anonymous
Fuck off and die.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105974

hahaha i lol'd so hard.
>> Anonymous
who is this vario ass nigga
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
This douche tells people that support systems like tripods aren't needed, that handheld is all you ever need to do with AUTO ISO etc etc...

and look. The faggot has his camera propped up.
>> Anonymous
>>105979

He's not referring to all lens. He's using a fucking 400mm of course he's going to need to prop it up, you got any idea how heavy those things are?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Clearly that photo has been altered. Ken would never be seen with anything other than his 18-200. ;)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>105996
lol
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>105990

That's not the point he's tellin people not to bother with tripods and in the SAME paragraph saying he still uses them...

whaaaat?\

>>105996

I LOL'd... the biggest mistake in photography for me was purchasing the 18-200 on account of Rockwell. *sigh*
>> Anonymous
>>106006

Why does everyone hate the 18-200 so much? It's a great lens. It's not the sort of lens you'd use every single day but when you're just walking around and snapping random things it's handy.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>106029

Bad IQ. It's not surprising considering the cost and focal length range involved. If you're going around aimlessly snapping without caring about how the images will look then you may as well not be taking pictures at all.
>> Anonymous
>>106032
Truth.
>> Anonymous
>>106032

>>Bad IQ

have you even used the lens? Or are you just joining the mob and agreeing with them? There's nothing wrong with the IQ.

It's a good all purpose lens. If i was doing portraits I'd use my 50mm or 85mm, for sports I'd use my 200mm 2.8 or my 300 4.5. But for a lens that I can use and walk around on holidays or with friends, it's ridiculously convenient.

You seem to be one of those people who think there's only 1 way to do something in photography. Let me guess; You shoot Canon and your favorite photographer is Ann Leibowitz.
>> des
why is that flash on that camera with that lens mounted?
I wish I had more money than sense, I could buy all kinds of crap and troll every photographer on the internets at once, too. :/
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>106104
I wouldnt even call it a flash, its just a little lamp for lighting up the zoom display by the looks of it.
>> Anonymous
I wanna have sex with Ken.
>> Anonymous
Ken is a mega-successfull troll.
>> Anonymous
>>106105

This just shows that you know fuck all. It's the Sb-400 flash, you Canon fag.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111602nikonsb400speedlight.asp
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>106117

Is everyone who disagrees with you a Canon fag, Ken? Butterfly is a famous Canon supporter on /p/.

The trolling is strong in this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>106118

So...because he supports Canon, I should excuse his ignorance for not knowing what a piece of equipment is and talking as if he does?

No one has still answered my question, why people give this guy so much shit? Pretty much any piece of camera gear you google, the first result is either DPReview or ken's page.

Maybe /p/ is a bunch of jealous hacks? Who knows, it's clear the question will never be answered...
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>106121
You need to lurk more to understand who everyone is, read up on sarcasam and learn to spot it and take the dick out of your butt.

Everyone hates ken because he contradicts himself all the time, i at least have the decency to keep a single line.
>> Anonymous
>>106125

Aside from the monopod thing, give me three other examples of where he's contradicted himself.
>> Anonymous
>>106125
>understand who everyone is

Fuck off and die. You're the one who's gone tripfag for the ego-boost. And the Anon stirring up shit, although stirring up shit, does bring a valid point.

>>106121
I don't mind Ken for a very basic introduction to things. He's like a very basic for dummies book. He seems to over simplify things. Although he'll be reviewing a flash for a D80 or something along those lines, he still seems to be treating you like it's your first camera.
>> Anonymous
>>106029
>>106032
So is the 18-200 f3.5 vr lens okay? I'm planning to buy one in the near future ?
>> Anonymous
>>106169

Don't listen to the tripfags. It's a fantastic lens. It's not the last lens you'll ever buy or need, but it will be the one you just might use the most.

For amateures who don't have a specific thing to shoot, it's excellent.
>> Anonymous
>>106170It's a fantastic lens.

Ken Rockwell, is that you?
>> Anonymous
>>106172

Butterfly is that you?
>> Anonymous
>>106170

It's pointlessly expensive for "amateures" who have nothing to shoot. May as well buy a decent lens or even get a P&S.
>> don't ask me for the source
he's been a useful source of info when i've needed it...
>> Anonymous
>>105278
>> i admit it Anonymous
i've masturbated to ken
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106169

No worth it. The 18-200 is over rated, now that nikon has release the 18-55 VR grab that and the 55-200mm VR, sure you have to swap lenses, but he savings also mean you'll be able to buy a 600 if not SB-800, or what ever other accessories is needed

>>106129

Honestly, it's harder to find bits where he DOESN'T contradict himself. It's been dealt with to death on Dpreview forums and other forums too, just type in Ken Rockwell into those and you'll see.

I followed every word of Ken's when i firsted, and the more i've learnt the more i realise he's like that salesman you first meet in the store.

Yuo know nothing, they know that, they pretend that they actually know what they're talking about, and sometimes they do. But mostly they just care about getting your attention enough to get your sale.

Just remember that Rockwell is NOT a professional photographer. Not saying you have to be to offer comments, but boy does he act like one.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106175

it is expensive for amateurs, i completely agree, it's a lens that costs as much as a camera... but doesn't have the image quality to show for it.

I bought mine during the shortage and hence got charged a premium cause people like Ken Rockwell hyped it up... he's a shady speculator, most likely what he did in real life.

The distortions are worse than the 18-70, 18-55 within that range. The image quality and colour contrast are not up to par for the amount of money you pay. I went through alot of my old photos i took with and now with my slightly more experienced eye noticed SO SO much CA it was just beyond ridiculous.

I can't recommend the lens based on my OWN experiences, doesn't mean that people who recommend it is wrong. It just means that Rockwell sucks dick.
>> Anonymous
>>106116


fucking with people since the dawn of time
>> pskaught
he is the essence of all the photography I absolutely hate. look at his stupid face. I've never mentioned my feelings on this, but only fucking losers own lenses that large. losers who only shoot things from far away.

good job shooting houses in new mexico you fucking asshole... KEN!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106252
He actually mentions in several of his articles that he almost never uses that lens. He prefers to shoot with superultraturbomegawides.

>>106129
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
vs
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/obsolescence.htm
>I still shoot medium and large format, but in 2005 digital completely replaces 35mm.
vs.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/free-digital-camera.htm

And... I'm too lazy to track down a third example. HOWEVER, I personally don't have a problem with Ken Rockwell. Yeah, he changes his story sometimes. The sort of people who never admit admit that they were wrong in the past end up doing things like getting us mired in a never-ending war in the middle east. And the tripod thing isn't a contradiction so much as hyperbole. Yes, obviously you still need a tripod for some things, but digital cameras and image-stabilized lenses *have* made them a lot less necessary.

I've said a lot of stupid things in the past which I've since recounted too (my favorite: "What the hell's the point of a digital SLR? You don't need a through-the-lens viewfinder when you have a live view LCD! Why the hell doesn't someone make a normal digital camera with interchangeable lenses?" --AC, ca 2005), so I can't really fault Rockwell.
>> Anonymous
>>106263
Now that I think about it, what IS the point of a digital SLR?
>> des
>>106276
Pragmatically, it's a stop-gap until EVF becomes really usable. This will be sooner than later.
Also, us oldfags hang on to everything we know because new stuff is different and scary. D:
>> Anonymous
>>106252

Whaaaaaaaaaat? Are you being sarcastic?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106279
Also, until very recently, the large sensors in digital SLRs didn't like being used in live mode. I.e., it would make things noisy as hell and vacuum the batteries at best, and heat would melt the sucker at worst.

And after I actually got an SLR (film) and played around with it for a bit, I decided that I liked framing my shots on glass a hell of a lot more than I liked framing them on an LCD. Most (though obviously not all) serious photographers agree.
>> Anonymous
well, Rockwell is not the only one who gave 18-200 good reviews ... http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm comes into my mind too, and this dude can, unlike Rockwell, be considered as a reference for Nikon stuff.

Also, I do use it and I am happy with results.

But that don't change the fact that Rockwell should be banned from intarbutt for saying bullshit. Sometimes I feel that his god-omg-i-don't-use-anything-else review of this lens make people think it is actually really bad.
>> Anonymous
>>106129
O btw, he says nikon gave him nothing... but look on photo on the homepage. Huge lens aside (contradicting with omg i only use ultrawides and 18-200) that camera he has is not something you can or will ever be able to buy or get your hands on. But no, nikon never gave him anything :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106288
>Huge lens aside (contradicting with omg i only use ultrawides and 18-200)
"About that humongous lens on the home:
I used that photo of myself simply because it communicates this website's topic more lucidly than having to use the word "photography." Personally I hate carrying that beast around and emphasize that your camera has nothing to do with the quality of images produced. It's the artist, not the tools, who creates art. The lens is a 400mm f/2.8."

>that camera he has is not something you can or will ever be able to buy or get your hands on. But no, nikon never gave him anything :P
"How Much Does Nikon Pay Me?
I don't get anything from Nikon. They don't even give me the time of day! No loaners (except for the left handed F100 I got before this site went on-air), no special help, no advance information, no hats or even pens. Nothing. Nada. Squat. They don't even send me press releases on time. I always hear about new things from you folks first!"
(Note specific mention of the loaner left-handed F100)

"About the left-handed camera on the home page:
Nikon decided against producing the camera, but let me keep the beta on indefinite loan as thanks for all my input. (This was long before I started this site.) It of course remains property of Nikon Japan."
(Note technically not his)

" I fool around, make stuff up and create hoaxes, too, when I feel like it. If you believe everything you read on the internet and see on TV, have I got a bridge for you!"
(Note he might just be fucking with you. There's some evidence to suggest that the photo is just a flipped shot of him with a normal F100)
>> Anonymous
>>106290
So yeah,

Camera has nothing to do with being photographer, but I'm going to masturbate over D3 for few weeks, while I'm at that .. D40 is best for everyone, but I'm going to replace my D200 with D300. I have no reason for this but why not if I can?

I don't like huge lenses I never use but here's a photo of me with one.

Sadly, I don't know the word to describe this behavior (something along the lines of "say water drink wine"), but I guess everyone gets a picture.

Everyone has the right to change his opinion over time, but this dude just don't make any sense.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106294
>Camera has nothing to do with being photographer, but I'm going to masturbate over D3 for few weeks
So? Pretty much everyone on /p/ who's expressed an opinion agrees that it's the photographer who makes the picture, not the equipment, and that a low-end body can take high-quality images just like a high-end body. But can any of us really say that we'd stick with a Digital Rebel if we could easily afford a 1D? Or a D40 if we could easily afford a D3? And then write it off on our taxes as a legitimate business expense?

> .. D40 is best for everyone, but I'm going to replace my D200 with D300. I have no reason for this but why not if I can?
He doesn't say D40 is best for everyone. He says the D40 is best for people who're asking for a recommendation on what camera to buy. Which, again, is the standard line on /p/. If you have to ask, you should get the cheapest one until you're smart enough to know what you want. And he does use his D40 a lot in situations where he doesn't need to bring out the better bodies, since it's light and satisfies 99% of his photographic needs (especially since he shoots in full-auto mode most of the time).

>I don't like huge lenses I never use but here's a photo of me with one.
See the very post you're responding to, with the explanation for that huge lens shot.
>> Anonymous
anyone in this thred remotely supporting ken rockwell is a moron.

the ironic thing is that 99% of /p/ take the same shit photos as him but have spent a lot less money.

he is the SINGLE BEST CASE to describe lack of creativity.
>> totally amazed kent brockman
honestly, i don't know who this ken guy is ... i just chose his name off a random thread but wow, most successful troll thread ever!! you guys made my weekend.

btw, for people with 'hobbies', you fags sure spend a lot of time arguing about nothing
(c'mon flame me back. you know you want to. i mean, it's not like you've got anything else to do like take pictures or shit. you've already proven that)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>106323
0/10
>> Anonymous
>>106296

It's the flip-flopping he does too. He'll say that $150 P&S is just as good as a $5000 set up or anything else you can get, he'll then ineptly use tens of thousands of dollars worth of cameras himself instead (with the saturation CRANKED TO THE MAX), then medium and large formats for a whole bunch of his stuff and say how great they are over his other stuff. He can't make his fucking mind up and says many blatantly contradictory and false things. DPReview and elsewhere have torn into him for this. I hope he dies painfully and soon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106323
I dunno if this really counts as a troll thread. We all just assumed you were making fun of Ken Rockwell. Which you were, even if you don't know who Ken Rockwell is. It's kind of a subtle distinction... A real troll should make it seem like you're not doing something just to inspire argument.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106337
All of which boils down to this: Different cameras are good for different things, and if you know what you're doing, you can get good pictures from just about any sort of camera.

What's the best kind of camera? Well, if you want the absolute best image quality, large format film. But that'll suck for shooting sports, so you're going to want a Canon 1D. But that's expensive as hell, so if price is an issue, you should get a low-end SLR. But that won't quite give you ease of use for manual controls, so you'll want a midrange SLR. But that'll be big and bulky if you're going somewhere without photography as your main goal, so you'll want a little pocketable camera. And so on and so forth.

It's really not contradictory, assuming you actually read the articles and don't just skim them for things you can pull out of context to use in threads like this to say how dumb he is.
>> Anonymous
>>106279Pragmatically, it's a stop-gap until EVF becomes really usable.

What the fuck is a EVF?
>> Anonymous
>>106372

So it's really a miniature LCD screen inside the viewfinder?

Like, how small are we talking about? iPod nano?
>> Anonymous
>>106379

The size of a fingernail.
>> Anonymous
>>106381

Oh wow, I never knew such a thing existed. O_O

What kind of resolution are those things? Like 800x600?

And what kind of cameras have these?
>> Vincent
>>106386
Lol more like 100x150, They are pathetically bad.
Any P&S camera without a straight through viewfinder will have one
>> Anonymous
>>106386

>Like 800x600?

like a quarter of that at best

They're mostly bridge cameras like the S5 IS from Canon
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106393
The EVF in my Minolta DiMAGE A200 was like 400x500 pixels. It pretty much sucked. The only time I ever used it was when I was walking and had something in my other hand and couldn't flip out the LCD.

>>106374
I spend a lot of time bored at work. I've read everything on the site. I stand by my assertion.
>> Anonymous
>>106432

That's because you are an idiot, just like your usual "why a digital SLR? LULZ" crap. You and Ken are like two peas in a pod, with about as much common sense and brains as two peas.

Fuck you. Go kill yourself before you pollute the world any more with your shit.
>> Anonymous
>>106622

Nah. I don't think so. He is pretty straightforward with what he says.

I've gotten more out of his site than I have off of DPReview or here... by far.

You know /p/ sucks, right? I mean... you gotta know that its the worst photography board ever?
>> Anonymous
>>106624

DPReview is far better than Ken "the thumbnail" Rockwell.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
I don't always agree with him, but overall Ken Rockwell is a good guy. He's contributed a hell of a lot more to the online photographic knowledge-base than the vast majority of people, whether you like it or not.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>106636

Yeah, but most of that contribution is shit.

There's a difference between quantity and quality.

But this topic really has been done to death. Whilst i think people who like him can be persuaded to dislike him, I sincerely doubt it could ever happen the other way.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>106640
There's always the tradeoff of quality vs quantity, but overall I still think Mr Rockwell comes out on the better side of the equation.
>> Anonymous
I <3 Ken
>> des
>>106283
>>I decided that I liked framing my shots on glass a hell of a lot more than I liked framing them on an LCD.
I agree, now; but it's just a matter of time. When they're finally viable, the advantages are too great.
Dynamic information displays, live histogram, Picture-in-Picture, foo. Not to mention cost, size and weight savings from not needing a pentaprism/mirror.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>106712

Why they haven't come up with some hybrid already? Glass with transparent display which shows histogram etc...
That would totally rock.
>> Anonymous
>>106928
They haven't made miniature HUD's for cameras yet?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>106928
Probably because people don't actually like things blocking their viewfinder view. Hell, some people even complain about the little light-up autofocus indicators.