Ken Rockwell's blog

[CptObvious]

Captain,
My point is about KR haters misrepresenting his work.





His recommendation is , and then says that he would have bought this lens back when he was a student.

He also goes so far as to say that others have had better results, and concludes that you take your chances when buying a bargain priced lens.

A quick search revealed a number of folks who have had issues with QC on this lens and with Samyang in general. For example a guy on DPReview said:

There is evidence of inconsistent manufacturing problems, which I am sure Samyang will fix under warranty. Just like the Tamron I returned to Adorama, if you don't mind taking your chances and/or sending it in for warranty repair when you first get it I am sure you will get a very sharp lens.

Seems like that is exactly what KR said...

JR

Not trying to mispresent here - he even acknowledges in his About page that his reviews aren't objective. I'm just trying to make a point that his reviews are more like "impressions."

An analogy would be a tech blog like Engadget compared to Anandtech. Engadget posts tech reviews but a lot of it is based on impression and how a product "feels." Anandtech is more into benchmarks and hard numbers. I look at both when making purchases, but push come to shove I'll take the numbers over unquantified impressions. If I'm deciding between 2 or more competing products, it helps to see objective comparisons (including results from test charts, as boring as those seem). KR's numbers are typically limited to specs I can pull from the manufacturer's site. I still find his impressions useful sometimes (such as for build quality), but when he says a lens is "sharp enough" that doesn't really help me in my decision-making.

As for the QC of Samyang, I've found them to be remarkably consistent. Sure there may be duds and defects, but such as true for any lens out there if you search for it. For example, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Not trying to mispresent here - he even acknowledges in his About page that his reviews aren't objective. I'm just trying to make a point that his reviews are more like "impressions."

An analogy would be a tech blog like Engadget compared to Anandtech. Engadget posts tech reviews but a lot of it is based on impression and how a product "feels." Anandtech is more into benchmarks and hard numbers. I look at both when making purchases, but push come to shove I'll take the numbers over unquantified impressions. If I'm deciding between 2 or more competing products, it helps to see objective comparisons (including results from test charts, as boring as those seem). KR's numbers are typically limited to specs I can pull from the manufacturer's site. I still find his impressions useful sometimes (such as for build quality), but when he says a lens is "sharp enough" that doesn't really help me in my decision-making.

As for the QC of Samyang, I've found them to be remarkably consistent. Sure there may be duds and defects, but such as true for any lens out there if you search for it. For example, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

You and I are in full agreement here.

(BTW, the "win the argument" statement above was a sarcastic response to being accused to having a hard-on about KR).

Perhaps your observations demonstrate a bit of the differences between those who like Ken and those who do not. I like the more subjective reviews, especially if it's someone who agrees with me on other items. I find Ken's impressions to match my own.

S'truth is, the feel is as important to me as the numbers. AND, I always order from Adorama so that I can take advantage of their no questions asked return policy (even on used). With my Tamron experience, the disappointment of the soft focus on a lens that I really wanted to like just left me with no love for the lens. I didn't want it, even if it could have been fixed. I like to like my tech, pragmatism being secondary.

Thanks, O' Captain My Captain... I really appreciate your level-headedness and Obvious intelligence.

JR

 

[blastingcap]

Hi guys.
I've recently gotten into photography. I bought a used canon rebel xt, and a 50mm lens. I've been reading ken Rockwell's blog cuz i remembered it mentioned somewhere on this forum.

But after spending a day reading it, i decided to look at what other people thought of ken rockwell and it seems a lot of people don't particularly ( http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=357406&page=2 ) think much of him. I kind of like him but i don't like doubting my sources. What he says does make a lot of sense, but...

Anyway, what do people here think of him. I don't care about the technical info, more about stuff like framing and composition. Is he a valid resource for something like that ?

He is full of crap most of the time. He mostly makes his living from getting referral commissions and paypal donations from his website--NOT from actually getting paid to take photographs or selling his photographs. That right there ought to tell you something.

I especially hates how inconsistent he is.. one moment he derides a lens for being made in China and not Nikon, the next moment he's praising a made in China Nikon lens. He just has it in for third-party lenses, probably because they are cheaper and so he gets less commission if you buy those instead of the Nikon version.

And some of his advice is just insane, like claiming RAW is unnecessary. While technically true, RAW allows for SO much more than JPG that you would have to be really pressed for space on your HDD or really wanting fps, if you don't shoot RAW. I hear that KR finally changed his tune about this, though... but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You will almost always get better advice asking a technical forum than reading any one person's blog, especially if that person is an unskilled panhandler and not a professional.

 

[blastingcap]

go better to http://www.dpreview.com/ instead of reading all kinds of rockwells.

There are good forums - several for Canon users, and you'll learn more about photography by posting photos for C&C, than reading books, etc.

And it's always fun to participate in dpreview challenges:

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/

I completely agree, go to dpreview or any legitimate technical or photography related website (flickr discussion groups, photo.net, etc.) over some wannabe hack like KR. Heck, even if the guy were actually good, he could still give bad or outdated, so it's almost always better to get 10+ opinions instead of listening to any one person.

P.S. Gintaras those are some really nice shots, I especially like the first one. Sometimes it is not about the camera or sensor or even the lens, but about lighting. Great job!

 

[Midwayman]

Ken Rockwell is a running joke in many circles. I haven't read his stuff in awhile, but other than coming across as a dick, I think he gets many technical details wrong. He's always come off as a "Do what looks good to your eye and don't sweat the technical details" sort of guy. That's not a horrible mantra for a photographer, but not a great one for someone who reviews and tries to teach people.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Ken Rockwell is a running joke in many circles.

Yea, it's just crazy how popular he is when all these other, obscure, experts know so much more and are such better photographers.

What's up with that? :wub:

JR

 

[alkemyst]

Yea, it's just crazy how popular he is when all these other, obscure, experts know so much more and are such better photographers.

What's up with that? :wub:

JR

He is a running joke in circles that are elitist. The funny thing is those circles tend to put things to text that Ken Rockwell never stated.

However, it's just like musicians. There are tons of more talented players out there no one gets to hear because they simply are not marketable.

 

[alfa147x]

I'm pretty sure that at this point JohnnyRebel is Ken Rockwell.

 

[Gintaras]

I'm pretty sure that at this point JohnnyRebel is Ken Rockwell.

No doubt about.....

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I'm pretty sure that at this point JohnnyRebel is Ken Rockwell.

Why else would La Jolla, CA be called the Dixie of the West?

JR

 

[rdp6]

KR's advice has been good for me. I appreciate his point that pretty much any DSLR will yield much better photos than lesser cameras, and that generally similarly-priced DSLRs have similar specs and features, so ease of use in terms of hardware and software can be a key discriminator. Of course, if you are already in once camp for the lenses you are not likely to change to another.

So, with that in mind, he gives some examples of why in the entry segment he likes the Nikon bodies and contrasts with past and current models from Nikon and others, too. So is he a Nikon fanboi? What about his high praise for Leica? or Canon full frame model for landscape photography?

I read dpreview and maybe a few others to compare the T3i and the D5100. None besides KR seemed to indicate a clear winner, because different users want different features. Ken states how he uses his camera, and I, probably along with many others, find a lot in common, e.g. we want great photos of our kids in and outdoors, nice nature and landscape photos, not so much crafted imagery.

So having read the "recommended cameras" section last summer I got the D5100 and a month later some accessories including the SB-400 and the 35mm f/1.8, and I am not only more than pleased with how good the camera is (I realize the T3i would produce similar results in my hands, except maybe for the lack of distortion correction), but I notice the procedures to set the camera up for a given scenario and am happy I don't have to follow the more convoluted path Canon requires. And I am comfortable with Canon, having had a Vixia HF11 camcorder since late 2008.

What else is there? Ken waxing poetic about film and/or simple cameras? Sure, why not - it's his site. I like simple stuff, too. I rarely use effects pedals when playing guitar; for the last 10 or so years I have plugged straight in so I play guitar more than play with settings. And so it is for Ken. Mostly he wants to get his shot rather than screw around with buttons, etc.

 

[Midwayman]

Yea, it's just crazy how popular he is when all these other, obscure, experts know so much more and are such better photographers.

What's up with that? :wub:

JR

I don't think that many folks have a problem with him as a photographer. It the science side of photography that people take issue with when he misleads people. Unlike the art side there are right and wrong answers on how optics and cameras work. This is quantifiable, provable, repeatable stuff.

Its as if Bill Nye the science guy some how became the defacto authority on quantum physics. I'm sure the other "obscure" scientists would have a issue with that.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

It the science side of photography that people take issue with when he misleads people.

KR is an enthusiast blogger. He is very popular, and I like certain things he does in hs reviews. Where has he mislead people as to the science of photography?

JR

 

[alfa147x]

KR is an enthusiast blogger. He is very popular, and I like certain things he does in hs reviews. Where has he mislead people as to the science of photography?

JR

That's an easy question to answer:
www.kenrockwell.com

 

[JohnnyRebel]

That's an easy question to answer:
www.kenrockwell.com

 

[Gintaras]

That's an easy question to answer:
www.kenrockwell.com

+1

Especially: Recommended Cameras: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

 

[Dubb]

KR is an enthusiast blogger. He is very popular, and I like certain things he does in hs reviews. Where has he mislead people as to the science of photography?

JR

here's a specific one that came up in a recent forum question here (from YOU!):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/perspective.htm

To which I replied:

Using Photoshop to correct the effects of camera tilt is a rough hack at best. It's easy enough to get the verticals straight but it almost always throws off the proportions of the building and/or introduces some odd perspective quirks. Rockwells example is very, very wrong - the building looks too squat, it's obvious from the original that in real life the building is proportionally taller.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

here's a specific one that came up in a recent forum question here (from YOU!):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/perspective.htm

To which I replied:

So, he is misleading you because you think the building was taller looking in real life? It that really your point?

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

+1

Especially: Recommended Cameras: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Gin,
So you're saying that KR doesn't really recommend those cameras? He is misleading folks as to what he likes?

JR

 

[Dubb]

So, he is misleading you because you think the building was taller looking in real life? It that really your point?

JR

He says shift lenses and technical cameras aren't necessary, and then posts a whacked out example of why. Bad evidence supporting a bad conclusion - I call that misleading.

The fact that he couldn't see that the proportions are way, way off is pretty illustrative that he doesn't have the ability to critically analyze his own stuff. That's something every good photographer (or architect, or designer, or artist) I've ever met has in spades.

It's not just my opinion that the image is way off, I can prove it. Take a look at guardrails. The height of a guardrail is 42" (this is a building code standard that has been around for decades). Now, measure that in photoshop, and then measure the 9 floors that are easily discernible in the main body of the building. Work out an estimated floor to floor height. Even under the most forgiving of measurements (it is a fairly low res image after all), what it works out to is that the floor to floor height is around 7.7 feet.

This is impossible. By a lot. Absolute Minimum for a building of that type would be around 11'. More standard would be around 13-14'.

And that's not even starting to talk about the perspective weirdness.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

He says shift lenses and technical cameras aren't necessary, and then posts a whacked out example of why. Bad evidence supporting a bad conclusion - I call that misleading.

The fact that he couldn't see that the proportions are way, way off is pretty illustrative that he doesn't have the ability to critically analyze his own stuff. That's something every good photographer (or architect, or designer, or artist) I've ever met has in spades.

It's not just my opinion that the image is way off, I can prove it. Take a look at the top floor. The height of the guardrail is 42" (this is a building code standard that has been around for decades). Now, measure that in photoshop, and then measure the 9 floors that are easily discernible in the main body of the building. Work out an estimated floor to floor height. Even under the most forgiving of measurements (it is a fairly low res image after all), what it works out to is that the floor to floor height is around 7.6 feet.

This is impossible. By a lot. Absolute Minimum for a building of that type would be around 11'. More standard would be around 13-14'.

And that's not even starting to talk about the perspective weirdness.

I will check it out, and appreciate the time you took to explain in more detail what you disagree with.

JR

EDIT: Ok, I did some looking and I can't really tell much from that photo. Rereading the article (which I never read closely, because I decided to buy the tilt lens) it seems that what KR is actually saying it that you can get rectangles to look like rectangles w/o the hardware. The article is obviously not exhaustive, but does show that the "falling back" illusion can be corrected. I think you read more into it than was intended, and that his "misleading" is more about your perception than his intention.

 

[Dubb]

The title of the article is "Correcting Perspective in Photoshop", not "Plumbing Building Verticals in Photoshop"

And he doesn't know enough to realize the difference.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

The title of the article is "Correcting Perspective in Photoshop", not "Plumbing Building Verticals in Photoshop"

And he doesn't know enough to realize the difference.

And if you read the super brief article you see he's talking about the perspective problem known as keystoning.

We usually want rectangular objects to look like rectangles.

I had my camera pointed up to include the whole building. This made it look like it's falling over backwards.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In Photoshop CS2 use the Lens Distortion Correction filter by selecting FILTER > DISTORT > LENS CORRECTION. You get a big new window with a preview and control sliders.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the Transform box (towards the bottom) just move the Vertical Perspective and Horizontal Perspective sliders until your image looks great. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]For this image I simply slid the Vertical Perspective slider until it looked right, which was at -54. [/FONT]​

There is no misleading here. He tells you the problem he wanted to solve, how to use a feature in CS2, and what he did for this particular image.

Did you catch the "until it looked right" which refers back to his original goal of "We usually want rectangular objects to look like rectangles".

Don't read more into this than the simple little thing it is.

JR

 

[alfa147x]

You honestly think Photoshop will correct the issue well enough?

Lmao. Wow.

 

[randomrogue]

He makes some odd comments sometimes. He talks in absolutes. For example he says that a better camera will never take better pictures, it will just make it easier with more buttons and functions. Sorry but if you give me a D700 and put me in a low light situation it will most definitely take better pictures than a D3100. For sports a 7D will most definitely take better pictures than a D5100.