Does He Speak With Forked Tongue - One Example

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Ken Rockwell Said:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm

    Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3 (not
    rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I suspect it
    has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see,

    and I avoid off brand
    lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon camera
    is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which are very
    serious optical companies, unlike the off brands.


    And Then Ken Rockwell Said:

    In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8,
    which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the Nikon
    12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008, just get
    the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't autofocus on a Nikon
    D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive Nikons, get the most expensive
    Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for autofocus.


    This is just an example what myself and many others have stated. Which is
    correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice to be able to
    trust his opinion.

    Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and CONSISTENT
    information?
    measekite, Jan 9, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    dj_nme Guest

    <snip anti Ken Rockwell rant>

    Ken Rockwell writes his own opinion.
    Just because you can't fathom his dislike of one off-brand lens and his
    liking of another is no reason to "go nuts".
    Do you expect consistent hatred of third party lenses and unadorned
    praise for camera manufacturer's lenses?
    Or, do you expect to read an opinion piece about which lenses are good
    and bad, regardless of manufacturer?
    Either is fine by me, but at least you could state what you expect and
    then be consistent about it.
    dj_nme, Jan 9, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite wrote:
    > Ken Rockwell Said:
    >
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
    >
    > Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only f/6.3
    > (not rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I
    > suspect it has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see,
    >
    > and I avoid off brand
    > lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon
    > camera is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which
    > are very serious optical companies, unlike the off brands.
    >
    >
    > And Then Ken Rockwell Said:
    >
    > In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm
    > f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below, the
    > Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of 2008,
    > just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't
    > autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive
    > Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for
    > autofocus.
    >
    >
    > This is just an example what myself and many others have stated.
    > Which is correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice
    > to be able to trust his opinion.


    What's inconsistent? He avoids off-brand lenses, but is quite happy to
    acknowledge the sometimes a worthy lens is available. The "best" may
    simply be "Tokina's best". I mean, 11-16mm doesn't even convert the same
    2:1 zoom range as either 12-24mm or 10-20mm does it? And note that he
    says "for $500", which to my mind means that he is already setting his
    expecations at a lower level.


    > Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and
    > CONSISTENT information?


    I would hope that pure lab tests, properly carried out, would do that, but
    as soon as you add any commentary to the numbers the results become
    subjective. Remember that what may have been "the best available lens at
    any price" in 1998 may not qualify for the same description in 2008.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #3
  4. measekite

    bowzer Guest

    Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will increase his
    hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing about photography.
    Unless you believe that tripods are no longer necessary. Or that shooting
    RAW is a waste of time. And you believe his "review/tests" of gear he's
    never even held.
    bowzer, Jan 9, 2009
    #4
  5. Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    bowzer wrote:
    > Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    > increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    > about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    > necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    > his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.


    Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....

    Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #5
  6. measekite

    J. Clarke Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > measekite wrote:
    >> Ken Rockwell Said:
    >>
    >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
    >>
    >> Sigma announced an 18-200mm OS (stabilized) lens, but it's only
    >> f/6.3
    >> (not rated to work well for AF, which needs at least f/5.6) and I
    >> suspect it has primitive focus, not HSM/AFS/USM. We'll see,
    >>
    >> and I avoid off brand
    >> lenses anyway. As I explained, the whole point of a Canon or Nikon
    >> camera is to use the superior lenses made by either, both of which
    >> are very serious optical companies, unlike the off brands.
    >>
    >>
    >> And Then Ken Rockwell Said:
    >>
    >> In 2008, Tokina introduced the best lens yet, the Tokina 11-16mm
    >> f/2.8, which for about $500, is better than the best lens below,
    >> the
    >> Nikon 12-24mm. Read the rest of this if you like, however as of
    >> 2008,
    >> just get the Tokina 11-16mm. Its only gotcha is that it won't
    >> autofocus on a Nikon D40, D40x or D60; for those least expensive
    >> Nikons, get the most expensive Nikon 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm for
    >> autofocus.
    >>
    >>
    >> This is just an example what myself and many others have stated.
    >> Which is correct and what does he really believe. It would be nice
    >> to be able to trust his opinion.

    >
    > What's inconsistent? He avoids off-brand lenses, but is quite happy
    > to acknowledge the sometimes a worthy lens is available. The "best"
    > may simply be "Tokina's best". I mean, 11-16mm doesn't even convert
    > the same 2:1 zoom range as either 12-24mm or 10-20mm does it? And
    > note that he says "for $500", which to my mind means that he is
    > already setting his expecations at a lower level.


    He makes a case that it's superior optically to the 12-24 and pretty
    close to being an APS-C equivalent to the 14-24 2.8. Whether he's
    fudged his test shots or not I have no idea.

    >> Is there anybody out their that provides really accurate and
    >> CONSISTENT information?

    >
    > I would hope that pure lab tests, properly carried out, would do
    > that, but as soon as you add any commentary to the numbers the
    > results become subjective. Remember that what may have been "the
    > best available lens at any price" in 1998 may not qualify for the
    > same description in 2008.


    I've never found any reason to fault photozone.de, and they've tested
    a very wide range of lenses.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, Jan 9, 2009
    #6
  7. measekite

    Scott W Guest

    Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    On Jan 9, 4:42 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    > bowzer wrote:
    > > Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    > > increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    > > about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    > > necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    > > his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.

    >
    > Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    > the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....
    >
    > Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?


    If you are not shooting raw it sounds like maybe Ken led you away from
    the straight and narrow.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jan 9, 2009
    #7
  8. measekite

    bowzer Guest

    Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
    wrote in message news:ynJ9l.17616$...
    > bowzer wrote:
    >> Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    >> increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    >> about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    >> necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    >> his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.

    >
    > Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    > the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....
    >
    > Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?


    He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read
    that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution
    them against using that site.
    bowzer, Jan 9, 2009
    #8
  9. Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Jan 9, 4:42?am, "David J Taylor" <-
    > this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
    >> bowzer wrote:
    >> > Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    >> > increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    >> > about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    >> > necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    >> > his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.

    >>
    >> Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    >> the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....
    >>
    >> Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?


    > If you are not shooting raw it sounds like maybe Ken led you away from
    > the straight and narrow.


    Shooting raw is the wide and boggy track :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 9, 2009
    #9
  10. Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    bowzer <> wrote:

    > "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
    > wrote in message news:ynJ9l.17616$...
    >> bowzer wrote:
    >>> Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    >>> increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    >>> about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    >>> necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    >>> his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.

    >>
    >> Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    >> the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....
    >>
    >> Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?


    > He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read
    > that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution
    > them against using that site.


    Which given the state of the web is going to lead them from the frying
    pan into the fire unless you give them some idea of where to go for
    better information.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 9, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    Scott W wrote:
    []
    > If you are not shooting raw it sounds like maybe Ken led you away from
    > the straight and narrow.
    >
    > Scott


    Ken had nothing to do with my decision - I made up my own mind based on my
    own shooting and post-processing needs.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2009
    #11
  12. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:00:13 +1100, dj_nme wrote:

    > <snip anti Ken Rockwell rant>
    >
    > Ken Rockwell writes his own opinion.
    > Just because you can't fathom his dislike of one off-brand lens and his


    He did not say he disliked one off brand lens.

    He did say "I avoid off brand".

    > liking of another is no reason to "go nuts". Do you expect consistent
    > hatred of third party lenses and unadorned praise for camera
    > manufacturer's lenses? Or, do you expect to read an opinion piece about
    > which lenses are good and bad, regardless of manufacturer?
    > Either is fine by me, but at least you could state what you expect and
    > then be consistent about it.
    measekite, Jan 10, 2009
    #12
  13. Re: Avoid that site; it's a scam.

    Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > On 9 Jan 2009 18:24:12 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > wrote:


    >>bowzer <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
    >>> wrote in message news:ynJ9l.17616$...
    >>>> bowzer wrote:
    >>>>> Rockwell's only game is to publish controversial crap that will
    >>>>> increase his hit count. He's not a photographer, and knows nothing
    >>>>> about photography. Unless you believe that tripods are no longer
    >>>>> necessary. Or that shooting RAW is a waste of time. And you believe
    >>>>> his "review/tests" of gear he's never even held.
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, for my way of working today, tripods are no longer necessary 99% of
    >>>> the time, and I choose not to shoot raw.....
    >>>>
    >>>> Just how has Ken led /you/ away from the straight and narrow?

    >>
    >>> He has not, because I know better. But many, many unsuspecting people read
    >>> that crap and believe it. So whenever I see someone quoting KR, I caution
    >>> them against using that site.

    >>
    >>Which given the state of the web is going to lead them from the frying
    >>pan into the fire unless you give them some idea of where to go for
    >>better information.


    > One good piece of advice to anyone is to not rely on the internet for
    > any reliable information, no matter what site you may be visiting.
    > With photography, the best way to learn is to take some classes, read
    > some good books on the subject, and practice, practice, practice.


    The same goes for books. Have you visited a bookshop or library
    recently? Most books are rubbish.

    Oh wait a minute, you said *good* books. So what's wrong with *good*
    websites?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 11, 2009
    #13
  14. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    []
    > I believe that he purposely gives out inconsistent opinions on gear to
    > prove a point. Read what he has to say about photography and how the
    > gear you choose means nothing if you don't understand the art and
    > craft of photography. He's written some brilliant sarcasm pieces
    > about those he calls "measurebators," and I think many of his gear
    > reviews are tongue in cheek to get them all in a snit.


    I don't see what the problem is. If one Web site doesn't give a positive
    review of a product you're thinking of buying, I'm sure you could find
    another Web site which does! <G>

    Couldn't agree more about doing photography to understand what /actually/
    matters to you.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 12, 2009
    #14
  15. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:56:17 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

    > I believe that he purposely gives out inconsistent opinions on gear to
    > prove a point. Read what he has to say about photography and how the
    > gear you choose means nothing if you don't understand the art and
    > craft of photography. He's written some brilliant sarcasm pieces
    > about those he calls "measurebators," and I think many of his gear
    > reviews are tongue in cheek to get them all in a snit.


    For those that do understand the art and craft of photography, the
    gear means something, but much less than most photographers here
    think. In most settings DSLRs should and do give me better results
    than that from my best P&S, but those denigrated cameras have the
    ability to produce superb photos too. A case in point that backs up
    some of KR's more controversial articles are these photos which were
    just posted in a DPR reply titled "Some of mine last week...", and
    which are more impressive than many I've seen from links in this ng,
    taken with expensive DSLR gear costing from $5,000 to $10,000. The
    P&S used is one of the more sophisticated ones, but it's only one of
    several that could have easily duplicated these shots :


    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30647248
    ASAAR, Jan 12, 2009
    #15
  16. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:56:17 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

    > I believe that he purposely gives out inconsistent opinions on gear to
    > prove a point. Read what he has to say about photography and how the
    > gear you choose means nothing if you don't understand the art and
    > craft of photography. He's written some brilliant sarcasm pieces
    > about those he calls "measurebators," and I think many of his gear
    > reviews are tongue in cheek to get them all in a snit.


    Oops. The series of P&S shots I just provided a link to may be
    misattributed. The poster ("twg") is usually found in Fuji's forums
    and in threads such as the one I linked to, which mainly discuss the
    S100fs. I just noticed that twg also has posted shots taken with a
    D90, so that may have been the camera used to take the shots I spoke
    of. My point still holds, namely that gear costing ten times as
    much, such as a D3 or D3x with 600mm f/4 or 200-400mm f/4 won't
    necessarily provide better photos. As you said, the photographer's
    skill is an important factor, and Thom Hogan adds that the best,
    most expensive gear won't produce better results if there are other
    weak links in the chain, such as not having good workflow skills or
    knowing how to maximize the output quality from even excellent
    printers.
    ASAAR, Jan 12, 2009
    #16
  17. measekite

    Paul Furman Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:56:17 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >
    >> I believe that he purposely gives out inconsistent opinions on gear to
    >> prove a point. Read what he has to say about photography and how the
    >> gear you choose means nothing if you don't understand the art and
    >> craft of photography. He's written some brilliant sarcasm pieces
    >> about those he calls "measurebators," and I think many of his gear
    >> reviews are tongue in cheek to get them all in a snit.

    >
    > For those that do understand the art and craft of photography, the
    > gear means something, but much less than most photographers here
    > think. In most settings DSLRs should and do give me better results
    > than that from my best P&S, but those denigrated cameras have the
    > ability to produce superb photos too. A case in point that backs up
    > some of KR's more controversial articles are these photos which were
    > just posted in a DPR reply titled "Some of mine last week...", and
    > which are more impressive than many I've seen from links in this ng,
    > taken with expensive DSLR gear costing from $5,000 to $10,000. The
    > P&S used is one of the more sophisticated ones, but it's only one of
    > several that could have easily duplicated these shots :
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30647248


    Looks like a Fuji DSLR, he says: "Thanks for the nice comments. I took a
    Nikon Ais 500 reflex, A Sigma 150 macro plus 1.4X TC, and a Tamron 28-75
    f2.8. No more room for the backpack, and I think it was near the
    (weight) limit for me :p"

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Jan 25, 2009
    #17
  18. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:38:11 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

    >> For those that do understand the art and craft of photography, the
    >> gear means something, but much less than most photographers here
    >> think. In most settings DSLRs should and do give me better results
    >> than that from my best P&S, but those denigrated cameras have the
    >> ability to produce superb photos too. A case in point that backs up
    >> some of KR's more controversial articles are these photos which were
    >> just posted in a DPR reply titled "Some of mine last week...", and
    >> which are more impressive than many I've seen from links in this ng,
    >> taken with expensive DSLR gear costing from $5,000 to $10,000. The
    >> P&S used is one of the more sophisticated ones, but it's only one of
    >> several that could have easily duplicated these shots :
    >>
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30647248

    >
    > Looks like a Fuji DSLR, he says: "Thanks for the nice comments. I took a
    > Nikon Ais 500 reflex, A Sigma 150 macro plus 1.4X TC, and a Tamron 28-75
    > f2.8. No more room for the backpack, and I think it was near the
    > (weight) limit for me :p"


    Nope. Right thread, wrong person. Your quote is from agf's reply
    to twg. The link I provided (above) is to twg's post that contains
    the images that I referred to. But did you notice my followup 19
    minutes later? I caught my mistaken assumption in advance :

    > Oops. The series of P&S shots I just provided a link to may be
    > misattributed. The poster ("twg") is usually found in Fuji's forums
    > and in threads such as the one I linked to, which mainly discuss the
    > S100fs. I just noticed that twg also has posted shots taken with a
    > D90, so that may have been the camera used to take the shots I spoke
    > of. My point still holds, namely that gear costing ten times as
    > much, such as a D3 or D3x with 600mm f/4 or 200-400mm f/4 won't
    > necessarily provide better photos. As you said, the photographer's
    > skill is an important factor, and Thom Hogan adds that the best,
    > most expensive gear won't produce better results if there are other
    > weak links in the chain, such as not having good workflow skills or
    > knowing how to maximize the output quality from even excellent
    > printers.


    This was posted to r.p.d. on Jan 12, and two days later twg added
    to the same thread in DPR's Fujifilm Talk forum :

    > I used Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4d but I added TC17E and TC20E to
    > make it 500mm(=750mm) and 600mm(=900mm) respectively. I loved
    > this lens as it is really sharp and versatile (macro). The AF mode I
    > used in my D90 is 3D tracking + AFC (continuous af) and keeper rate.....



    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=30672987

    and the equipment used cost 1/4 to 1/8th that of the "pro" gear I
    listed. The D90 is much less expensive than the D3 or D3x and the
    300mm f/4 ($1,150, 3.1 lb) lens is significantly less expensive and
    lighter than the 200-400mm VR ($4999.00, 7.2 lb) and 600mm f/4 VR
    ($9,699.96, 11.2 lb). That kind of gear is what Rita uses to take
    snapshots of her pets, so I'm not surprised that she's been fairly
    silent recently. She's probably laid low, nursing dual hernias and
    not in the best of spirits due to a hemorrhaging bank account! :)
    ASAAR, Jan 25, 2009
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark²

    The Tongue...

    Mark², Aug 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    378
    Bob Harrington
    Aug 16, 2005
  2. Annika1980

    20D GETS SOME TONGUE !

    Annika1980, Jan 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    284
    Matt Ion
    Jan 14, 2007
  3. Annika1980

    GET MORE TONGUE WITH THE 20D !

    Annika1980, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    300
    Matt Ion
    Feb 10, 2007
  4. Annika1980

    THE 40D GETS SOME TONGUE!

    Annika1980, Feb 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    867
    Noons
    Feb 25, 2008
  5. cisco_crazy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    536
    Doug McIntyre
    Jul 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page