18-135 ken rockwell

He got the D80 camera and 18-135 lens about 24 hours ago according to him and he has taken over 500 photos, timed the camera -> Mac download speed, run tests and come up with len distortion correction charts, done image comparison tests, confirmed battery life, checked out all the other features of the camera and lens including comparisons with his D200 and 18-200VR, written the web site up complete with images, eaten food and slept.
Maybe he doesn't sleep?
Maybe he pre writes his tests and just fills in the blanks?
 
I took 300 shots of trees and potted plants in the first 12 hours, so it could be possible. I don't agree with some of his views, but this analysis of the 18-135 is very useful I think. nikon has thrown a real curveball with this lens.
 
Indeed, he is hilarious. What's even more hilarious is the fact that he takes himself so seriously, nevermind the fact that all his "reviews" end up with a donation plead. I guess people should give him money... for the entertainment.
 
I've never read much from Mr Rockwell, but this made me a little puzzled :

The below taken from his website:

-----
ALPHABET SOUP EXPLAINED

Nikon calls this the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18 - 135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

DX: Only works on digital cameras, not film.

-----

I should mean, that DX was optimized for Digital cameras, but could also work with film camera (however, the 18 mm setting could not be used, but only from the 36 mm position ??) Or am I wrong ??

--
Jesper S. Jensen
Denmark
C P 4 5 0 0
 
I don't get it. Whenever this guy writes a 500 word review of some piece of equipment, it's like a major event in the photography community.

Why?!

Nick
--
Nikon D50
 
I should mean, that DX was optimized for Digital cameras, but could
also work with film camera (however, the 18 mm setting could not be
used, but only from the 36 mm position ??) Or am I wrong ??
It depends on the lens. The 17-55mm and 12-24mm DX lenses can cover a full frame at certain focal lengths. I don't think any of the others can. I'd be surprised if the 18-135mm would do it, but maybe.
 
I don't get it. Whenever this guy writes a 500 word review of some
piece of equipment, it's like a major event in the photography
community.

Why?!
Yesterday I saw someone telling the D50 owners to stop bashing on the D80 because they were jealous / insecurity. Is it the same thing happening here? =) Could not resist to this post! :D

--
Nicolas Bouchard
http://nbouchard.smugmug.com
 
ALPHABET SOUP EXPLAINED

Nikon calls this the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18 - 135mm
f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

DX: Only works on digital cameras, not film.

-----

I should mean, that DX was optimized for Digital cameras, but could
also work with film camera (however, the 18 mm setting could not be
used, but only from the 36 mm position ??) Or am I wrong ??
I think you're confused. The lens won't work right with film cameras since the image circle is small --> you get black corners (or more than only the corners in some cases). He is right, it doesn't work... or at least it doesn't work properly. You can set it to 18 mm, but it'll be useless, or close to it.

Basil
 
Thank God that the review is so poorly written. Full of inaccuracies and contradictions.

Here's my review of his review:

" I laughed so hard I peed."
 
He is not a superman. He must have some production model to test on before he got "his own."

--
Harry
 
Any one else notice the hot pixels on the photo that you can download (grey Saab)?

I see a cluster on the hood (passenger side), one below the headlight (passenger side) and one on the windshield (passenger side).

I can't believe that Nikon would send the cameras out with these not mapped out. I had two clusters on my D80 and returned it to Ritz. My D50 is fine.

I don't think this is acceptable.

I'm not expecting a perfect product, but Nikon should have mapped them out at the factory.
 
I keep reading about hot pixels. Of all the problems/features/default settings that might confound me, it is the pixel problem that has kept me from buying the D80 so far. If it just takes a few in camera settings to get D50-like pictures without having to make these adjustments for every shot and I don't have to post process every shot to brighten it up, then the D80 is for me. But, I don't want to have a camera with bad pixels. I don't recall seeing this problem posted over and over on various forums with the D70/s, D200 or D50.

Did I miss previous discussions about bad pixels on other Nikon models or has the company rushed the product out without doing a final QC review of each camera?
 
As I interpret distortion and sharpness, an object can be sharp and in focus, but not completely straight, as in a telephone pole or the side of a building. I can see something being clear, but not straight, therefore being distorted. Maybe it is a matter of language usage.
 
You know, I don't agree with every word KR writes, but the man does a service. Last I looked, yesterday in fact, nobody else had a review of either of the new zooms. His opinion, you may question. But it's good to know about the distortion. That seems to be a fact, at least for the individual lens he tested. He certainly seems to be a real A-type personality. But the guy's in media. To succeed, you need to be. Plus, he's self-employed. That probably means he'd rather work than eat or sleep, most of the time. I enjoy his style. I hope his review of the new 70-300 VR is son to follow; I'm looking forward to it.
-
All the best,
Kit
Please see my pictures at
http://www.parazz.com/albums/kithg
 
Sorry - to clarify, the pic is in his D80 review page.

Anyone get a D80 without hot pixels?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top