Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D Locked

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
howardroark
Senior MemberPosts: 2,681Gear list
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience
In reply to JackM, 7 months ago

JackM wrote:

...seems to be the casual amateur, the soccer mom or dad, the newbie, the practical, the non-technical, the value conscious, or some combination of all.

The unfortunate aspect of that targeting is that he writes in such a way as to allow no room for further education.  There's not a well-rounded presentation of material, there is only his judgement and reducing real concerns to absurd levels to discredit them.  He's the type of guy that probably knows a lot about cameras in the office and when asked for a recommendation gets thrilled about having the chance to tell the layperson what he or she SHOULD think of photography and equipment rather than presenting options, explaining them, and allowing others to judge for themselves.  Mind you, I'm the guy in the office that knows a lot about cameras and gives thorough and balanced advice immediately before giving my opinion...although at least my opinion is stated as such, not as fact, and also gently without condescension or disdain.

If you enjoy pixel peeping, comparing lens/sensor test charts, and spending serious money to get that last 5% of performance, his site is probably not for you. If he were reviewing audio equipment, it would be for people who want to have music in their house for a cocktail party or while doing chores. It would not be for people who get a glass of wine, turn the lights down, sit in the perfect spot, and listen critically to their hi fi system.

It is possible to explain things without pixel peeping.  For example, where in all his rambling review does he say "but hey, having a large sensor with all those low noise megapixels is great if you ever need to do any cropping and still want great prints" or "high resolution prints are only really required if you're going to look at the photo from six inches away, but at a normal viewing distance you might not need all those pixels."  Maybe he says that SOMEWHERE, but somebody doing a Google search and popping right into that review is going to be subjected to some very concrete conclusions about things Ken has his own wacky opinions on.

He does make a good point though, that it is more important to focus on realistic, aesthetic results and image content from the perspective of actually printing/displaying and enjoying whole photos, than it is to pixel peep and worry about technical performance at 100% view on a computer screen.

I get your point and its a good one, but I'm going to present a counterargument anyway.  What about someone who enjoys the technical aspect more than the artistic?  What if someone wants to take really crappy shots, thinks they look awesome, and then print them at a huge size while retaining all that awesomely crappy detail?  Does one have to be a great artist in order to enjoy photography or expensive equipment?  Knowing how to use that expensive equipment is necessary to make the money worth spending, but I don't think a lack of the all powerful "eye" should make people enjoy the process any less (you know, "you really have a great eye" people say about photographers that can compose a shot, nevermind all the technical stuff that goes into expressing that "eye").

This is an underlying theme throughout his whole site and for that I applaud him.

That said, I cannot wait for his kids to get older and start playing field sports. He is going to change his tune big time.

Agreed.  I think he's too stubborn to ever admit it, but one day he'll be forced to admit to himself what a narrow minded view he's had up to then.

 howardroark's gear list:howardroark's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow