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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mark.thomas.7@gmail.com, Nov 30, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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-vs-5000-dollar-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?
     
    , Nov 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. frederick Guest

    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"

    ;-)
     
    frederick, Nov 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    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.....
     
    , Nov 30, 2006
    #3
  4. LuvLatins Guest

    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, 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-vs-5000-dollar-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?
     
    LuvLatins, Nov 30, 2006
    #4
  5. 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 fucken 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 piss 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
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 30, 2006
    #5
  6. ASAAR Guest

    On 30 Nov 2006 02:11:26 -0800, 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-vs-5000-dollar-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? :)
     
    ASAAR, Nov 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Scott W Guest

    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-vs-5000-dollar-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
     
    Scott W, Nov 30, 2006
    #7
  8. jeremy Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >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?
     
    jeremy, Nov 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "jeremy" <> wrote in message
    news:4NBbh.12808$ki3.10736@trndny01...
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>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?
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Nov 30, 2006
    #9
  10. jeremy Guest

    "Kinon O'Cann" <> 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.
     
    jeremy, Nov 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    jeremy wrote:
    > 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.


    There is some truth to that, but equipment DOES matter. All the article
    showed was that a cheap P&S can - in one specific situation - make
    photos that look similar to photos from a Canon 5D. If all you ever
    shoot are well-lit outdoor scenes that you print out really small or
    view on the web, then yeah, you're better off with a P&S. But if you
    want to shoot in other situations, then his argument that a $150 camera
    is as good as a 5D is completely insane.

    As I'm sure you know, you'll get waaaay better sharpness, dynamic
    range, and low-light performance with a 5D. Not to even mention the
    ability to use different lenses and external flashes.

    > 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.


    I don't think anyone here claims that cheap cameras can't take great
    pictures. It's just that better, more expensive cameras are simply more
    flexible and better at more things. Let's see a comparison of a P&S and
    a 5D in low light, at 800 ISO. Do you still think the P&S would take
    great pictures then?

    -Gniewko
     
    , Nov 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Scott W Guest

    jeremy wrote:
    > "Kinon O'Cann" <> 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.


    Somehow reality and Rockwell just don't seem to go together.

    In this case he is way off the mark and he should know better. We had
    friends visiting the last week and they brought their Sony Cyber Shot
    P200 and I was using the Canon 350D. We both had our cameras with us
    most of the time and shot in the same places under the same conditions
    and you know what? The 350D takes better photos. In some cases the
    Cyber Shot did fine but the problem was we were not just photographing
    a tree that was in bright light, close up and standing still. We were
    photographing at all times of day and night and gee photographing
    moving subjects at a distance.

    This does not mean he did not get some very nice photos, but the
    limitations of the camera became pretty clear and the advantages of the
    350D were hard to miss. Had I been using a 5D instead the differences
    would have been even larger yet.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Cynicor Guest

    wrote:
    > 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.....


    Those leaves would sure look a lot better with a polarizer.
     
    Cynicor, Nov 30, 2006
    #13
  14. wrote:
    > jeremy wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > There is some truth to that, but equipment DOES matter. All the article
    > showed was that a cheap P&S can - in one specific situation - make
    > photos that look similar to photos from a Canon 5D. If all you ever
    > shoot are well-lit outdoor scenes that you print out really small or
    > view on the web, then yeah, you're better off with a P&S. But if you
    > want to shoot in other situations, then his argument that a $150 camera
    > is as good as a 5D is completely insane.
    >


    Of course equipment matters. What Ken was saying and what can not be denied,
    is if the photographer is the limitting factor, hardware will not help one
    bit. Marching troops can only be as fast as their slowest member. If the
    limitting factor is the photographer ... than so be it, don't waste the money
    on a better camera until the photographer gets better.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 30, 2006
    #14
  15. Scott W <> wrote:
    >
    > Somehow reality and Rockwell just don't seem to go together.
    >
    > In this case he is way off the mark and he should know better. We had
    > friends visiting the last week and they brought their Sony Cyber Shot
    > P200 and I was using the Canon 350D. We both had our cameras with us
    > most of the time and shot in the same places under the same conditions
    > and you know what? The 350D takes better photos. In some cases the
    > Cyber Shot did fine but the problem was we were not just photographing
    > a tree that was in bright light, close up and standing still. We were
    > photographing at all times of day and night and gee photographing
    > moving subjects at a distance.
    >
    > This does not mean he did not get some very nice photos, but the
    > limitations of the camera became pretty clear and the advantages of the
    > 350D were hard to miss. Had I been using a 5D instead the differences
    > would have been even larger yet.
    >



    Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
    photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
    then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.

    I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
    cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
    photographer.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 30, 2006
    #15
  16. Bill Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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.


    It's not that his articles have become worse, it's that your knowledge
    of photography has grown and you now realize that what he posts is
    crap.

    I suggest you go back and re-read some of those articles you thought
    were interesting and see if you feel the same way. But don't blame me
    if you develop a severe urge to beat some sense into Rockwell with a
    2x4.

    :)

    > Witness this masterpiece:
    >
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm
    >
    > By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
    > settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?


    Ken suggests that he messed it up. But likely it was on purpose during
    post-processing to demonstrate how a cheap camera can take an equal or
    better photo out-of-the-box:

    "If I had left the 5D set as it came out of the box the results would
    have been much, much worse."

    No kidding. But since the EXIF data is conveniently stripped from
    every single one of the images, we have no way of knowing any facts
    about the controls or settings, or even if the images were made on a
    5D.

    Personally, I don't believe that he made an exposure error, if he used
    a 5D at all...even he's not that stupid. Instead, I believe he is
    trying to show that a newbie should buy a P&S because they might screw
    up shots with an SLR system. That's the only thing he's somewhat
    managed to get right. And newbies are the only people who should read
    his site at all.

    The rest is very questionable sensationalism. And let's not forget
    that Rockwell is a known liar and moron.

    :)
     
    Bill, Nov 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Scott W Guest

    Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >
    >
    > Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
    > photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
    > then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.
    >
    > I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
    > cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
    > photographer.


    I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
    and he will get better photos.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Annika1980 Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    >
    > Ken's a fucken moron!


    Can't wait for his next article about how a Kia beats the hell out of a
    Lexus.
    After all, they'll both get you to the grocery store.

    With the type of crap that Rockwell shows, a cheap P&S might be just
    the ticket, so long as it has a means to boost the saturation about
    100%.
     
    Annika1980, Nov 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Cynicor Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
    >>
    >> Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
    >> photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
    >> then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.
    >>
    >> I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
    >> cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
    >> photographer.

    >
    > I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
    > and he will get better photos.


    I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with the
    D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
    6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
    shootin' instead of grab shots.
     
    Cynicor, Nov 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Annika1980 Guest

    Cynicor wrote:
    >
    > Those leaves would sure look a lot better with a polarizer.


    If you set out to do a camera test what would you choose as the
    subject?
    Why, moving leaves, of course!

    Look at the close-ups (the 4' wide rollover shot). The trunks of the
    trees are sharp in the 5D pic and are a blurry halo'd mess with the
    P&S.

    Seems like Rockwell is shooting himself in the foot these days.
    He downplays the importance of better gear, thus making his own
    opinions of gear meaningless. So why would anyone go to his web site?
     
    Annika1980, Nov 30, 2006
    #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. Smirnoff

    Problem with Certifcate (sic) New Thread

    Smirnoff, Feb 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    916
  2. A Man Crying Alone in the Wilderness

    Another <sic> Massive cover-up! Here's the proof!

    A Man Crying Alone in the Wilderness, May 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    286
    John McWilliams
    May 19, 2006
  3. bill
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    368
    Don Gould
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. Stephen

    Slow down mp3 beats per minute

    Stephen, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    705
Loading...

Share This Page