Re: D3 vs D700

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nospam, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.


    HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
     
    nospam, Jan 2, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    > >bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

    >
    > Nothing of the sort.


    absolutely true.
     
    nospam, Jan 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Ken Rockwell's Hoax Site Re: D3 vs D700

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    > in <020120091350287206%>:
    >
    >> In article <>, John Navas
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.

    >> HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    >> bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

    >
    > Nothing of the sort.
    >


    John obviously isn't aware of one of the net's practical jokes that
    turned into something taken seriously by the gullible..

    From Ken himself:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

    > Caveat Lector! (reader beware!)
    > This is my personal website. I do it all by myself...
    > I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making
    > mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.
    > This site is purely my personal speech and opinion,
    > and a way for me to goof around.
    > While often inspired by actual products and events,
    > just like any other good news organization, I like to
    > make things up and stretch the truth...
    > In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly
    > stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector,

    (John, is that you?)
    > please treat this entire site as a work of fiction...
    > This site is provided only for the entertainment of my
    > personal friends, dogs, family and myself...
    > Read this site at your own risk
    > I started this site as a joke in 1999 after I took
    > a community college class in webmaking...
    > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there
    > are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright
    > foolish and made-up things lurking...
    > ...I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff
    > I simply make up out of thin air...
    > I love a good hoax... A hoax, like this site, is
    > done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive
    > minds as a practical joke.


    Umm, any questions?
     
    Mark Thomas, Jan 2, 2009
    #3
  4. nospam

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:56:01 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    >in <020120091350287206%>:
    >
    >>In article <>, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.

    >>
    >>HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    >>bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

    >
    >Nothing of the sort.


    While some of the things he has on his site seem like a valuable
    resource (such as the article starting here:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm which made
    the decision of the 50mm 1.4 vs. 50mm 1.8 easier for me) you have to
    filter it. It's really for the photographer who "knows better" and
    can tell when he's making stuff up for fun vs. when he's providing a
    valuable resource. If you don't believe me, read it here for
    yourself:

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

    And if you're the type who believes *everything* you read on his site,
    you shouldn't be reading it.

    Steve
     
    TheRealSteve, Jan 2, 2009
    #4
  5. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> >HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    > >> >bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
    > >>
    > >> Nothing of the sort.

    > >
    > >absolutely true.

    >
    > Forgive me for not just taking your word for it.


    i'm not asking you to take my word, but that of ken himself:

    <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

    While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any
    other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch
    the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new
    products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you
    lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of
    fiction.

    ....

    I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
    there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    The Onion.

    ....

    I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    overactive minds as a practical joke.

    ....

    If you don't know me personally, then you can't possibly have any
    idea of what I mean when you read my text.


    he also disguises lies as truth. for instance, he claims that he
    didn't flip the negative in the photo of the left-handed nikon f100.
    that's correct, he didn't flip *the negative*, he flipped the jpeg. he
    then goes on about the hand grip being made from an elephant penis.

    <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm#lefty>

    the guy is a liar. there's no easy way to tell what's true from what's
    not. he also likes to review products he sees for a couple of minutes
    at a trade show (and sometimes not at all).

    a far more credible resource is thom hogan, and while i don't always
    agree with thom, he at least has well a reasoned basis for the
    statements he makes. and most importantly, he doesn't get his jollies
    by being the class clown.
     
    nospam, Jan 2, 2009
    #5
  6. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
    > differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.


    i bet you've been fooled more than once by him.
     
    nospam, Jan 2, 2009
    #6
  7. nospam

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:46:47 -0800, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:32:23 GMT, TheRealSteve <> wrote
    >in <>:
    >
    >>
    >>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:56:01 -0800, John Navas
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    >>>in <020120091350287206%>:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <>, John Navas
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.
    >>>>
    >>>>HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    >>>>bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
    >>>
    >>>Nothing of the sort.

    >>
    >>While some of the things he has on his site seem like a valuable
    >>resource (such as the article starting here:
    >>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm which made
    >>the decision of the 50mm 1.4 vs. 50mm 1.8 easier for me) you have to
    >>filter it. It's really for the photographer who "knows better" and
    >>can tell when he's making stuff up for fun vs. when he's providing a
    >>valuable resource. If you don't believe me, read it here for
    >>yourself:
    >>
    >>http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
    >>
    >>And if you're the type who believes *everything* you read on his site,
    >>you shouldn't be reading it.

    >
    >I didn't say that. Here's what he says:
    >
    > While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any
    > other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch
    > the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new
    > products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you
    > lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of
    > fiction.
    >
    >I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
    >differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.


    Well let's see... You said:
    "My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest."

    Someone else replied:
    "HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    bogus and nothing more than a practical joke."

    And then you replied:
    "Nothing of the sort."

    According to Ken Rockwell himself:
    "I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
    there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The
    Onion." and "I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see
    their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the
    heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke."

    So apparently, according to Ken Rockwell himself, you are completely
    wrong when you said "nothing of the sort" to someone else saying that
    he "admits he makes stuff up and that a lot of his site is bogus and
    nothing more than a practical joke."

    You may think you have a good BS detector, but it's obvious you don't
    if you needed this fact about Ken's site pointed out to you before
    you'd believe it yourself.

    Steve
     
    TheRealSteve, Jan 3, 2009
    #7
  8. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, TheRealSteve
    <> wrote:

    > >I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
    > >differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.

    >
    > Well let's see... You said:
    > "My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest."
    >
    > Someone else replied:
    > "HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    > bogus and nothing more than a practical joke."
    >
    > And then you replied:
    > "Nothing of the sort."
    >
    > According to Ken Rockwell himself:
    > "I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    > legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
    > there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The
    > Onion." and "I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see
    > their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the
    > heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke."
    >
    > So apparently, according to Ken Rockwell himself, you are completely
    > wrong when you said "nothing of the sort" to someone else saying that
    > he "admits he makes stuff up and that a lot of his site is bogus and
    > nothing more than a practical joke."
    >
    > You may think you have a good BS detector, but it's obvious you don't
    > if you needed this fact about Ken's site pointed out to you before
    > you'd believe it yourself.


    i wonder if his bs detector gets pegged on his own posts.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #8
  9. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >the guy is a liar. there's no easy way to tell what's true from what's
    > >not.

    >
    > I disagree.


    unless the lies are tagged as such (which they aren't), there's no easy
    way to tell unless one is deeply familiar with the topic or they're
    truly outrageous like the elephant penis one. most people are not
    experts going in and read his site to learn and think what he says is
    true.

    > >a far more credible resource is thom hogan, and while i don't always
    > >agree with thom, he at least has well a reasoned basis for the
    > >statements he makes. and most importantly, he doesn't get his jollies
    > >by being the class clown.

    >
    > Thom Hogan does some good stuff, but he's clearly got his own biases.


    sure, but at least they're well formed arguments, not something idiotic
    like tripods are no longer needed with digital.

    > Regardless, what matters is whether something is true or false, not who
    > says it, and thus far you've not presented anything that bears on the
    > issue at hand, just guilt by association.


    actually, i have.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #9
  10. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
    > >> differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.

    > >
    > >i bet you've been fooled more than once by him.

    >
    > On what basis?


    on the basis that it's unlikely you've caught every instance with 100%
    accuracy.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #10
  11. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Stephen Bishop
    <> wrote:

    > Another example is that he is very inconsistent. When he reviewed the
    > D70 he basically said that film was dead and no longer needed. Now
    > that he's owned cameras that are far better than the D70, his schtick
    > is that all digital is inferior to film. He says that all of his
    > digital cameras are toys, but he does his "real" photography with 4x5
    > sheet film cameras.


    i've even seen him contradict himself in the same article.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #11
  12. nospam

    measekite Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:43:59 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

    > On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:46:47 -0800, John Navas
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:32:23 GMT, TheRealSteve <> wrote
    >>in <>:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:56:01 -0800, John Navas
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <> wrote
    >>>>in <020120091350287206%>:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <>, John Navas
    >>>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
    >>>>>bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
    >>>>
    >>>>Nothing of the sort.
    >>>
    >>>While some of the things he has on his site seem like a valuable
    >>>resource (such as the article starting here:
    >>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm which made
    >>>the decision of the 50mm 1.4 vs. 50mm 1.8 easier for me) you have to
    >>>filter it. It's really for the photographer who "knows better" and
    >>>can tell when he's making stuff up for fun vs. when he's providing a
    >>>valuable resource. If you don't believe me, read it here for
    >>>yourself:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
    >>>
    >>>And if you're the type who believes *everything* you read on his site,
    >>>you shouldn't be reading it.

    >>
    >>I didn't say that. Here's what he says:
    >>
    >> While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any
    >> other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch
    >> the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new
    >> products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you
    >> lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of
    >> fiction.
    >>
    >>I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
    >>differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.

    >
    > Another example is that he is very inconsistent. When he reviewed the
    > D70 he basically said that film was dead and no longer needed. Now
    > that he's owned cameras that are far better than the D70, his schtick
    > is that all digital is inferior to film. He says that all of his
    > digital cameras are toys, but he does his "real" photography with 4x5
    > sheet film cameras.


    They call the wind Mariah. He says a lot of things like the wind blows.
    One day South and the other North. He is inconsistent from time to time
    and review to review and article to article. Still I find him interesting
    and once you can pick and choose information some of it is beneficial.
    Some you throw out and the rest you have a hard time knowing if it is
    correct or true.
     
    measekite, Jan 3, 2009
    #12
  13. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> Another example is that he is very inconsistent. When he reviewed the
    > >> D70 he basically said that film was dead and no longer needed. Now
    > >> that he's owned cameras that are far better than the D70, his schtick
    > >> is that all digital is inferior to film. He says that all of his
    > >> digital cameras are toys, but he does his "real" photography with 4x5
    > >> sheet film cameras.

    > >
    > >i've even seen him contradict himself in the same article.

    >
    > Example?


    i don't remember specifically and don't have time to comb through his
    site to find it.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #13
  14. measekite wrote:
    []
    > They call the wind Mariah. He says a lot of things like the wind
    > blows. One day South and the other North. He is inconsistent from
    > time to time and review to review and article to article. Still I
    > find him interesting and once you can pick and choose information
    > some of it is beneficial. Some you throw out and the rest you have a
    > hard time knowing if it is correct or true.


    I think I respect someone more who changes his view as new evidence
    becomes available or in the light of practical experience, than someone
    who sticks with their outdated ideas even when they are proven wrong or
    new developments happen.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 3, 2009
    #14
  15. nospam

    measekite Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 08:50:07 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

    > measekite wrote:
    > []
    >> They call the wind Mariah. He says a lot of things like the wind
    >> blows. One day South and the other North. He is inconsistent from
    >> time to time and review to review and article to article. Still I
    >> find him interesting and once you can pick and choose information
    >> some of it is beneficial. Some you throw out and the rest you have a
    >> hard time knowing if it is correct or true.

    >
    > I think I respect someone more who changes his view as new evidence
    > becomes available or in the light of practical experience, than someone
    > who sticks with their outdated ideas even when they are proven wrong or
    > new developments happen.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    That is not the case. Sometimes even in the same article he contradicts
    himself. And other times he says contradictory things in different
    articles a few days apart; hardly enough time for new information.

    One time he said he can get about as good an enlargement from a P&S
    camera. Now you may composition wise but the more higher quality MP you
    have the better an image will look when a print is 16x20 or 20x25.
     
    measekite, Jan 3, 2009
    #15
  16. measekite wrote:
    []
    > That is not the case. Sometimes even in the same article he
    > contradicts himself. And other times he says contradictory things in
    > different articles a few days apart; hardly enough time for new
    > information.
    >
    > One time he said he can get about as good an enlargement from a P&S
    > camera. Now you may composition wise but the more higher quality MP
    > you have the better an image will look when a print is 16x20 or 20x25.


    I think you take Ken Rockwell far too seriously. What's wrong with
    someone who can see both sides of an argument, even if he chooses to
    present in such a style? I enjoy his writings but, like everything on the
    Internet, I take it with a pinch of salt. What I need to know, I try and
    test for myself.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 3, 2009
    #16
  17. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, savvo
    <> wrote:

    > The problem is that many people have neither the experience nor critical
    > faculties to judge when KR *is* lying for his own amusement.


    yep. a few people might be able to detect what's bogus but most people
    don't know the difference and believe anything he says. furthermore,
    why must one be on alert for bogus statements?? there are more
    credible writers who treat the reader with respect.
     
    nospam, Jan 3, 2009
    #17
  18. nospam

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:29:28 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> One time he said he can get about as good an enlargement from a P&S
    >> camera. Now you may composition wise but the more higher quality MP
    >> you have the better an image will look when a print is 16x20 or 20x25.

    >
    > I think you take Ken Rockwell far too seriously. What's wrong with
    > someone who can see both sides of an argument, even if he chooses to
    > present in such a style? I enjoy his writings but, like everything on the
    > Internet, I take it with a pinch of salt. What I need to know, I try and
    > test for myself.


    I haven't see measekite's ravings for years, due to his pollution
    in printer newsgroups. I agree that some of what KR says needs to
    be taken with a grain of salt, but most of his detractors almost
    willfully misunderstand some of his points. IIRC, the bit about
    P&S's wasn't that an inexpensive P&S could produce prints as good as
    a $5,000 5D, but that too many photographers could be intimidated
    into getting a DSLR when they'd never go to the trouble to make
    prints better than an cheap P&S could produce. Thom Hogan recently
    made a similar (but less hyperbolic) point about how photographers
    getting one of the new high res. DSLRs such as the D3x wouldn't see
    much of an improvement, if any, unless they really understand their
    kit, knowing what lenses to use, at what ISO and apertures, as well
    as knowing how to use their large format printers effectively. He
    feels that most photographers could improve their images much more
    by improving their D700/printer skills than by getting a D3x.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 4, 2009
    #18
  19. ASAAR wrote:
    []
    > [Thom Hogan]
    > feels that most photographers could improve their images much more
    > by improving their D700/printer skills than by getting a D3x.


    For most people, I think that's true. Subject, composition, lighting,
    and, unfortunately, happening to be at the right place at the right time,
    contribute a lot to the "great" image.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 4, 2009
    #19
  20. Wess_Gaston wrote:
    []
    > Yes. Limitations like shutter and mirror noise that scares wildlife
    > so you only get one chance to get a shot of any wild animal. Not
    > being allowed at public events due to the annoying noises that your
    > camera makes. Slow flash-sync speeds so you have to stop to put an ND
    > filter on your lens to use fill-flash in harsh sunlit conditions, but
    > now your volleyball playing subjects are blurred because you have to
    > use such slow shutter speeds. Missing half of your shots because you
    > have to change lenses to find the right focal-length to frame your
    > subject, just so you're not wasting all those valuable pixels that
    > you paid for. Having to over-shoot your composition because you know
    > your camera's viewfinder is not accurately framing what the sensor is
    > going to record, then wasting all those expensive pixels because you
    > have to edit and crop each "guessed at" composition. Not having a DOF
    > preview because when you do try to use that feature it makes the
    > scene impossible to see in your OVF. Getting nothing but
    > artificial-looking macro photography shots because the only way that
    > you can get any useful DOF for your subjects is by stopping down the
    > lens so much that you have to use flash at all times. Investing a
    > small fortune in lenses and then finding yourself trapped in that
    > line of cameras when a better camera by another company is now
    > available. Trying to take photos in sub-freezing conditions only to
    > find out that all your lenses are now useless due to the lubricants
    > that they have to use in their design. Finding out that most of your
    > photos are ruined from getting dust on your sensor while having to
    > change lenses constantly, only now you can't go back and reshoot
    > those once-in-a-lifetime shots. Forgetting that the light entering
    > from the side of your eyepiece is throwing off the exposure-metering
    > system so all your photos in that situation are under or overexposed
    > by two or more stops. Changing lenses and getting condensation on the
    > mirror or sensor due to changes in air temperatures and humidity and
    > then not being able to take any photos until you can get that dried
    > off without touching either component. Excess weight and bulk so you
    > can't carry more important supplies like food, water, and protective
    > clothing when going on extensive hikes. Having to haul an 8 lb.
    > tripod everywhere you go if you want to use any longer focal-length
    > lenses with your camera. Having to use your camera's mirror-lock-up
    > feature so you aren't getting less resolution due to the camera
    > jarring effects from the slapping mirror, then losing the ability to
    > frame and focus your moving subject while the mirror is locked-up.
    > .... And the list of limitations goes on and on and on and on and
    > on......................


    You really need to work on your technique, "Wess".
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 4, 2009
    #20
    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. Paul Furman

    Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!!

    Paul Furman, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    960
    Alotta Fagina
    Jul 3, 2008
  2. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    588
    JufĂ­
    Jul 1, 2008
  3. vinnyss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,194
    bmw2007
    Nov 7, 2008
  4. ASAAR

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    564
    Paul Furman
    Jan 2, 2009
  5. John McWilliams

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    John McWilliams, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    952
    John McWilliams
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page