Ken Rockwell's blog

[Gintaras]

5D Mk II versus D7000. Which makes better images?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/d7000-vs-5d-mk-ii.htm



JR

Better images makes better photographer. Better photographer can handle any camera.
A Good photographer can take a very good photo using entry level DSRL. No way, a newbie will take a very good photo using Pro gear. No way, unless, it's a wunkderkind - like winning a lottery.... I've seen photos made by very good photographer with Blueberry that I couldn't ever make with DSRL.

On dpreview challenges, you can see some people are able to use Point & Shoot cameras way better than those, who use expensive Pro DSRL.

 

[Gintaras]

Those are absolutely gorgeous. Who is that ? is that you ? Great photos.

I wish these were mine.
These are made some photographer hobbyist from Russia. He doesn't consider himself a Pro because he has a day job.
It's not a camera, it's a TALENT, that a few have...I haven't seen better portraits.
He used before Olympus, now Sony - which in fact are Minolta.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Better images makes better photographer. Better photographer can handle any camera.
A Good photographer can take a very good photo using entry level DSRL. No way, a newbie will take a very good photo using Pro gear. No way, unless, it's a wunkderkind - like winning a lottery.... I've seen photos made by very good photographer with Blueberry that I couldn't ever make with DSRL.

On dpreview challenges, you can see some people are able to use Point & Shoot cameras way better than those, who use expensive Pro DSRL.

So...you're saying you agree with KR? Previously you described him as BS.

I provided the shortcut hoping that some of the KR haters would stop casting un-glittering generalities and actually show us how he is full of BS and not to be trusted (as has been claimed ad nauseum).

JR

 

[alfa147x]

So...you're saying you agree with KR? Previously you described him as BS.

I provided the shortcut hoping that some of the KR haters would stop casting un-glittering generalities and actually show us how he is full of BS and not to be trusted (as has been claimed ad nauseum).

JR

Are you Ken Rockwell?

People have their own opinion. I personally don't like his writing style. He comes off as a dick. There is a plethora of information on the internet. Skipping over him isn't hurting anyone.

 

[twistedlogic]

Those that know photography, sell photographs. Those that don’t, just buy more equipment. Those that pretend to know, just beg from a website.

I found this little site interesting. It has reviews of the most popular photo sites.

Ken's review:

"Ken is either loved or hated, depending on who you ask. His extremely popular site has been described as the National Enquirer of Photographic Sites. Ken often goes for a reaction, including making bold claims like Digital is Dying, and claiming he can get better results from a $5 film camera than a $3,200 DSLR system."

And his about page used to say this:

"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I love to stretch the truth if it makes 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 or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction. "

 

[Cattykit]

To me, unlike what most of people think, he is more of a gear-head than a good photographer. I guess it's because he makes pictures that I just do not appreciate: crazy saturation without gradation.

Edit: but then again, that's exactly what I do sometimes for I know most of people like images like that. Makes me wonder if people are color blind. So many people using 92-105% monitors without calibration thinking such crazy amount of saturation is cool, TVs with insane amount of saturation/contrast settings...

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Are you Ken Rockwell?

People have their own opinion. I personally don't like his writing style. He comes off as a dick. There is a plethora of information on the internet. Skipping over him isn't hurting anyone.

Yes, I am Ken Rockwell.

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

To me, unlike what most of people think, he is more of a gear-head than a good photographer. I guess it's because he makes pictures that I just do not appreciate: crazy saturation without gradation.

Edit: but then again, that's exactly what I do sometimes for I know most of people like images like that. Makes me wonder if people are color blind. So many people using 92-105% monitors without calibration thinking such crazy amount of saturation is cool, TVs with insane amount of saturation/contrast settings...

I agree. I think he wants to be an artist and has to constantly fight his love of technology dominating his photography. In this, he is much like me.

JR

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Are you Ken Rockwell?

People have their own opinion. I personally don't like his writing style. He comes off as a dick. There is a plethora of information on the internet. Skipping over him isn't hurting anyone.

He may come off as a dick. But most (if not all) his article have a theme off "camera does not matter". So he's saying the exact same thing people have been saying above. That a blackberry and a P&S can make just as good photos as DSLR in the hands of a good photographer.

 

[twistedlogic]

That a blackberry and a P&S can make just as good photos as DSLR in the hands of a good photographer.

I wouldn't go that far,

Give a pro a blackberry and hand me their D3s + 70-200 VRII and I'm sure I could pull off a few more keepers.

Ken says gear doesn't matter and then raves on about his new Leica M9, Nikon D7k, Fuji X100, etc etc, with links where you can buy them.

Contradicting statements like: "Sure, if I shot in the raw I could have spent all day tweaking colors, but if I did, I never would have gotten to sharing anything since I don't have all day", then 20 days later he brags about a photo from Yosemite that he rescued by shooting RAW.

 

[fonebone]

Focus on the technical aspects of KR's postings and you'll definitely benefit from his site. Noob or not.

Note what he likes and dislikes, get out and test it yourself, agree or disagree... then move on. You don't get better by getting stuck on other people's opinions.

 

[CptObvious]

I will usually check his site (along with the other lens review sites like Photozone and Lenstip) when researching a new purchase. But I tend to take his recommendations with a grain of salt, while some of the tech info is useful. One example is the Samyang 14mm. He blasted it as the optically worst wide angle lens on the market, while the other lens sites said it was one of the sharpest. Methinks he was confused by the focus scale which is misaligned on many copies of the lens, and he simply misfocused all of his shots.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

One example is the Samyang 14mm. He blasted it as the optically worst wide angle lens on the market, while the other lens sites said it was one of the sharpest. Methinks he was confused by the focus scale which is misaligned on many copies of the lens, and he simply misfocused all of his shots.

Or, he's right about sample variation:

I have read reports on something called the "Internet" where others have had much better results. If true, this is due to sample variation. Just as my sample of the Samyang 8mm f/3.5 fisheye had its focus out of adjustment, and my sample of the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 had a sticky diaphragm that leads to occasional gross overexposure, it may be the luck of the draw that gave me a soft 14mm lens. This is what we get when we go trolling for the least expensive product, so be careful. Unlike men and LEICA lenses, every cheap lens is created differently.

Also, he seems to be talking more about distortion than the lack of sharpness...

...this Samyang 14mm f/2.8 isn't very sharp, and has hellacious distortion...

Now from lenstip.com:

How does the problem of geometric deformations look in this version of the lens? Unfortunately we have bad news. The producer decided to improve the resolution and the work against bright light at all costs so they forgot about the distortion. As a result the distortion increased significantly. On a small sensor we get barrel distortion reaching a high value of –5.44% and on the full frame it increases officially to the level of –7.21% although a noticeable moustache distortion appears there as well!

I would like to stress that the distortion (even very complicated) can be easily corrected using different graphic programs. There’s just one “but” – such a huge barrel distortion moves a significant portion of the image outside the frame – these fragments simply won’t be registered. The distortion correction can make the lines straight again but it won’t be able to reconstruct a non-registered image. If you want a frame without any empty spaces you must crop it and, by doing so, limit the field of view of our ultra wide-angle lens. However, you buy such lenses exactly in order to get the widest field of view…

JR

 

[CptObvious]

Or, he's right about sample variation:



Also, he seems to be talking more about distortion than the lack of sharpness...



Now from lenstip.com:


JR

He has a separate section on the distortion, which is accurate. I've owned 3 copies of this lens and all have that funky mustache distortion in the center, but as far as sharpness it's the sharpest lens I've ever used.

Near the end of the review he talks about the lens being soft. He mentions it improving when stopped down, and doesn't complain of de-centering so I'm inclined to believe it was a focus problem. In any case, it seems a more technically minded site like the ones I mentioned will review a second copy if the first is a dog. Ken doesn't and just tells you to skip it and buy a Canon/Nikon version (which only costs like 6x more). However, every other site says the Samyang actually outresolves the Canon/Nikon in sharpness, which is embarassing given the huge price difference.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

[QUOTENear the end of the review he talks about the lens being soft.][/QUOTE]

And he comments others have had better results. He attributes it to production. I had a similar issue with my one venture into cheaper lenses (Tamron), where I had issues with sharpness on a lens that everybody raved about. After I had the issue, some folks here said I might have to send it in (under warranty) to Tamron and have it fixed, and that it is not uncommon to have those issues with Tamron but they are awesome once they are fixed. I find Ken's conclusion believable, perhaps a bit more than assuming he misfocused even after knowing that other reviewers wrote about the sharpness of the lens.

Just some thoughts. As I recently learned (a few posts back from Alpha147x) different people seem to actually have different opinions...

JR

 

[Gintaras]

I've noticed, that there 2 kinds of people, when it comes to Photography:

- People who take photos and post on the net, most don't get even involved at all in any kind of discussions about cameras, etc.

- Others are, as I call them: photo engineers - no photos to share, to show, just discussions - tech talk about cameras, lenses - why some are better than others...etc. Usually, bad advices to newbies - buy expensive cameras/lenses - good to learn about photography and you'll be able instantly to take great photos with that gear. No shit...Photo engineers usually "forget" to warn newbies, that no camera, even expensive, pro cameras has no "Masterpiece" button on.

For the photography novice buying professional camera and expecting to get good, great photos, would almost same if someone would think to go to college without graduating elementary and middle schools, high school.

Entry, Mid-Level cameras are made for the reason.

Everywhere you have to take a learning curve. No "jump" from out of nowhere to somewhere, unless you're a real genius. But nowadays, people like more to fantasize than never before: "I can become, do something great without any learning involved"
It's like someone does think, that he/she can join billionaires club by buying a lotto ticket.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I've noticed, that there 2 kinds of people, when it comes to Photography:

- People who take photos and post on the net, most don't get even involved at all in any kind of discussions about cameras, etc.

- Others are, as I call them: photo engineers - no photos to share, to show, just discussions - tech talk about cameras, lenses - why some are better than others...etc. Usually, bad advices to newbies - buy expensive cameras/lenses - good to learn about photography and you'll be able instantly to take great photos with that gear. No shit...Photo engineers usually "forget" to warn newbies, that no camera, even expensive, pro cameras has no "Masterpiece" button on.

For the photography novice buying professional camera and expecting to get good, great photos, would almost same if someone would think to go to college without graduating elementary and middle schools, high school.

Entry, Mid-Level cameras are made for the reason.

Everywhere you have to take a learning curve. No "jump" from out of nowhere to somewhere, unless you're a real genius. But nowadays, people like more to fantasize than never before: "I can become, do something great without any learning involved"
It's like someone does think, that he/she can join billionaires club by buying a lotto ticket.

Exactly right. It's the same, regardless of the discipline. Just look at golf. For all the equipment advances, average scores don't go down. But, a lot of money gets spent because it's easier to upgrade equipment than it is to improve skill.

A D7000 w/ 17-55 f/2.8 is a better P&S than a D3100 w/18-55 kit lens. The Hack might take a bit "better" picture, but the shots will still be boring even if more of them are auto-sharp and auto-balanced.

JR <== a self-confessed corporate hack

 

[CptObvious]

Near the end of the review he talks about the lens being soft.]

I find Ken's conclusion believable, perhaps a bit more than assuming he misfocused even after knowing that other reviewers wrote about the sharpness of the lens.
JR

I guess there's no way to tell unless his copy was compared with another one. My original point is that I take his advice with a grain of salt because his evaluations don't try to be objective. I trust Photozone and Lenstip more because they will often test additional copies if there is a possible flaw. Ken tells you to skip the lens entirely and spend ~$1700 more for the Canon or Nikon version, based on one lens he tested.

 

[Elganja]

I'm a fan of kenrockwell, but i'm also a fan of Photozone, Lenstip and dpreview (although I HATE HATE HATE the layout of their forums)

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Ken tells you to skip the lens entirely and spend ~$1700 more for the Canon or Nikon version, based on one lens he tested.

My last swing at this particular dead horse.

What he actually said was...

The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is a manual-focus-only lens.
In the hands of a creative photographer, it can create eye-catching images.

If you're a pixel-counter, skip this lens and get a real Nikon or Canon 14mm,

but if you're a student on a budget, heck, I would have bought one of these back when I was a student, if they had made these back then. (hint: Nikon's and Canon's 14mm lenses aren't exactly that sharp in the corners, either, but stil much better than this Samyang.)

If you're on a budget and demand an ultra-sharp ultra-wide lens, look instead at Nikon's 18mm f/3.5 AI-s, which sells used for about the same price, uses filters, and is smaller and lighter.

For half this price, look at either the Nikon 20mm f/3.5 AI-s or Nikon 20mm f/4 AI.

This lens is sold under many names like ProOptic, Rokinon and Bower. It is the same lens, so buy whichever costs less. I've found the ProOptic brand, as sold at Adorama and shown here, is the least expensive.

JR

 

[CptObvious]

My last swing at this particular dead horse.

What he actually said was...



JR

Exactly, he tells you to skip the Samyang for the Canon/Nikon version if you care about sharpness. However, his is the only review I've found that calls the Samyang soft or even softer than the Canon/Nikon versions. Here's a quote from Lenstip's recent review of the Canon 14L comparing to the Samyang:

The Canon EF 14 mm f/2.8L USM II lens comes with a price tag of at least 8,000 PLN. The rival Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC is available for a bit more than 1,000 PLN. The difference in price is so huge that we can speak here about a clash between a Goliath and a David. Like in the Old Testament the underestimated David wins that clash. The Samyang provides a better resolution in the frame centre and on the edge of the frame, lower chromatic aberration, lower coma, astigmatism and vignetting. In the case of the work against bright light we have almost a draw although you still can find slight Samyang’s advantage there. The Canon is better in the category of distortion, autofocus and build quality. However, with such an enormous price disparity, those are not strong assets at all. The small focal length makes autofocus, by and large, redundant and the decisively better build quality is nothing important when for the price of one Canon you can have eight Samyangs; even more if you haggle about it. After all, buying eight lenses is almost a wholesale deal and every shop is going to give you a discount.

and from Photozone's review:

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED Aspherical UMC may be the surprise product of the season. It's very affordable yet performing up there with the very best big boys. However, it's not a flawless lens, of course. Its primary strength is an extremely high resolution across the image frame combined with minimal CAs. There're few if any lenses which can rival the Samyang here which is nothing short of sensational for such an low cost product (again - see the provided sample images if you question our findings)

 

[JohnnyRebel]

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

Ken tells you to skip the lens entirely

he tells you to skip the Samyang for the Canon/Nikon version if you care about sharpness

His recommendation is

If you're a pixel-counter, skip this lens...

, 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:

have by now gone through 3 different copies of the Samyang 14mm. None of them was good. First copy had a de-centered element (right part of the frame was out of focus, no matter the aperture). Other two copies had an issue with focusing distance - if the lens was set to infinity everything was out of focus, and if it was focused on roughly 0,7m most of the frame was in focus. Never was the entire frame properly focused. Rocking the focus slightly back and forth helped bringing the left bottom edge, or right upper edge of the frame in focus (those were the problem areas). I'm not a technical expert by any means, but it seams that the elements were not aligned well in those copies. All testing (extensive) was done on the tripod with MLU.

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

 

[alkemyst]

My last swing at this particular dead horse.

What he actually said was...



JR

QFT, the people that don't get Ken Rockwell are those that I feel are functionally literate. These types are the same most likely to be grammer nazis here.

I like Ken's recommendations even though I am a Canon guy.

 

[tdawg]

I don't get the hard-on to prove that KR is worth reading or not. If you like him, read it, if you don't, skip it. JR, why so bent on trying to prove to everybody that his site is worth reading?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I don't get the hard-on to prove that KR is worth reading or not. If you like him, read it, if you don't, skip it. JR, why so bent on trying to prove to everybody that his site is worth reading?

It's not about KR anymore, i just want to win the argument.

JR