Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?

Reply
Thread Tools

So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?

 
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.

But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm

Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600
pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s
versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D.

There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light
performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer
to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a
cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is
the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring
where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3
commercial partners...


By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
<snip>
>
> By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
> settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?
>


He's got you covered on that:
"I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better.
The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This
wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more
important than the camera"


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
frederick wrote:
> He's got you covered on that:
> "I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better.
> The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This
> wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more
> important than the camera"


I missed that! (O: Words fail me.....

 
Reply With Quote
 
LuvLatins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006

I can sum it up rather easy, clearly a DEU error

DEFECTIVE END USER

Perhaps if he knew how to use the 5D (just kidding)


On 30 Nov 2006 02:11:26 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
>over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
>much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.
>
>But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
>and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:
>
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm
>
>Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600
>pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s
>versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D.
>
>There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light
>performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer
>to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a
>cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is
>the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring
>where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3
>commercial partners...
>
>
>By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
>settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
> settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?


Ken's a ****en moron! Though the image taken with the 5D and 16-35/2.8 is
clearly sharper than the one taken with the P&S it is still **** poor even
for web viewing. This is the type of biased hype that gives the 5D a bad
name. The idiot selected the wrong lens for this test. The Nikon 17-35/2.8
would have yielded a much shaper image with better color and contrast. I
couldn't stand this anti-5D propaganda any longer so I e-mailed him to do
the same test with the 17-35. Let's see what happens.







Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
On 30 Nov 2006 02:11:26 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
> over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
> much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.
>
> But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
> and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm



Nope, it's you that's wrong, unless the article's title trumps its
content. Before looking at the website I guessed what the
discrepancy between $3000 and $5000 would turn out to be, and I was
right. First, the P&S can't be bought without its lens, and the 5D
can't take pictures without one, so the cost of the lens would have
to be added to the cost of the 5D.

Second, prices may be cheaper today, but the prices Ken quoted
were probably accurate at the time he wrote it, and the costs of the
camera, lens and memory card did add up to a bit over $5000. It's
unreasonable to expect writers to constantly update articles that
mention prices, and if it's done, it's rare. Just read a few of the
old full reviews on dpreview.com.

The only fudging he might have made would be that he didn't quote
the MSRP for the A530, but its actual selling price. Still, if he
had quoted the MSRP, the magnitude of the price difference wouldn't
have changed all that much.


> Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600
> pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s
> versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D.


A boring scene is actually better for these purposes as it has
little or nothing to distract us from the point Ken is trying to
make. He did *not* offer "a treatise on the relative ability of a
$150 p&s versus the . . . Canon 5D". The treatise was on the
relative ability of a $150 p&s vs the 5D to make the typically small
snapshots that most people take. While it's probably true that many
5D owners won't limit their shooting to 4" x 6" snapshots, many DSLR
owners do, so it might have been more reasonable if Ken's comparison
had been between Canon's A530 and a budget DSLR such as the 350D.


> There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light
> performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer
> to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a
> cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is
> the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring
> where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3
> commercial partners...


You may be assuming too much. I didn't see Ken end his treatise
by saying "I was really amazed to discover that a little P&S is just
as good as a far more expensive DSLR. As a result I'm selling all
of my DSLRs and will henceforth use only the more convenient A530".
I think that he's well aware that most of his readers know that
DLSRs have more to offer. And for the few that aren't aware, he
really may have saved them some money. Whether it amounts to $3000,
$5000 or something in between is mere quibbling. Not that there's
anything wrong with that. Where would this ng be without quibbles
to keep it alive and active?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
> over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
> much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.
>
> But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
> and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm
>
> Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600
> pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s
> versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D.
>
> There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light
> performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer
> to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a
> cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is
> the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring
> where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3
> commercial partners...
>
>
> By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
> settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?


Ken never ceases to amaze me with the crap that he comes up with.

In this test not only did he miss expose the 5D shot but as normal Ken
he shot in jpeg mode. Had he shot the 5D in raw mode he would have been
able to easily get the photo back, but then it was Ken who was telling
people that raw was a waste of time.

And if he is trying to tell us that the A530 will make as sharp 12 x 18
prints as the 5D, as he seems to be, then he really needs to have his
eyes checked.

And I would love to seem he redo the test using available light
shooting indoors in low light.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...

>A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
> over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
> much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.
>
> But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
> and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:
>



What other articles have gotten, as you put it, "progressively worse. as
time has gone by?" And when did his articles begin to miss the mark?

Or are you using one page out of hundreds on his site to discredit him?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kinon O'Cann
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006

"jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4NBbh.12808$ki3.10736@trndny01...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
>>A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
>> over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work,
>> much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark.
>>
>> But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse,
>> and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece:
>>

>
>
> What other articles have gotten, as you put it, "progressively worse. as
> time has gone by?" And when did his articles begin to miss the mark?


His articles began to miss the mark when he published "review tests" of gear
he's never even held, when he saw no need to shoot RAW as opposed to JPEG,
and when he flaunts his expensive gear and then publishes an article that
says that the camera doesn't matter.

Sorry, the credibility level on that site is absolute zero. And now he
compares a 5D to a P&S? Why? What's next? a Yugo/BMW shootout?

>
> Or are you using one page out of hundreds on his site to discredit him?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2006
"Kinon O'Cann" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0UBbh.12254$gJ1.8298@trndny09...
>
>
> His articles began to miss the mark when he published "review tests" of
> gear he's never even held, when he saw no need to shoot RAW as opposed to
> JPEG, and when he flaunts his expensive gear and then publishes an article
> that says that the camera doesn't matter.
>


His comments on one's camera not mattering were right on the mark. He was
commenting on the fact that far too many owners of photo gear were agonizing
about their equipment, and dreaming of how much better photographers they
would be if they just got that next technological marvel, rather than
concentrating on using what they had and making great images.

The manufacturers and the whore photo magazines don't press that argument,
because the name of the game is to keep selling equipment. And too may
people have been suckered into that constant-upgrade scene. We all know
people that have more individual pieces of equipment than they had photos.
They can recite technical specifications from memory--but ask them to show
you their work and it is either nonexistent or is nowhere near the level of
sophistication of their shiny new photo gear.

Rockwell shows images made with really cheap equipment that won awards or
were featured in exhibitions. And he links to several other sites that also
feature award-winning work that was produced by cheap cameras, just to make
the point that this is not as rare as one might expect.

He reminds us that it is about images--not whether you shoot them on film or
digital, not whether your camera outputs in JPG or RAW, not whether you
edited it in the current version of PS or one from three years ago.

For pointing us back to reality, Rockwell is to be congratulated.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Trojan beats Firewall!! x@y Computer Support 25 12-31-2004 08:32 PM
Java beats them all John Bailo Java 5 11-27-2004 06:26 AM
Re: Where OSS beats CSS Aquila Deus ASP .Net 2 11-05-2004 06:05 AM
Slow down mp3 beats per minute Stephen NZ Computing 5 02-14-2004 07:28 AM
Samba beats Windows 2003 in file serving performance Dolly Computer Support 2 11-05-2003 02:29 PM



Advertisments