Ken Rockwell's review of the D7100

Started Feb 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
eddyshoots Senior Member • Posts: 2,176
Re: Why Ken Rockwell gets Denigrated.

Guidenet wrote:

Frank, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying here. Rockwell is saying that the proof of his remark about mid-focal lengths not being needed is that "pros don't use mid focal ranges." This is an untrue statement, an untrue claim and he's making this up about what pros do or don't do to validate his opinion. It's something he does quite a bit. That's what I'm talking about, not anything about kit lenses or what amateurs should do.

This is generally a true statement. He ain't making this up. I've read variations of this for many years. Sports photographers use mostly long zooms and throw in occasional wide angle stuff for effect. Wedding photographers seem to live and die with the 70-200 and 85 1.x lenses. One example below.

( ).

The page I linked to is a compilation of the Reuters photos of the year (presumably by pros). It showcases what gear and settings were used for these pictures. It's almost always wide and long. The 50mm sneaks in at the top of the prime list but the aperture chart suggests that zooms were used more often than primes were. The point is....Ken wasn't necessarily pulling this out of his ass. Pros do seem to mostly use the extreme ends of focal lengths. I find I do too (but I'm not a pro so please forgive my audacity for speaking up).

Ken commonly makes those type remarks throughout his blog. He often claims whatever his opinion is is the way the "pros do it" and I personally resent it because I've been a working professional for many years and dislike an amateur blogger claiming to know what we do, then using that made up claim in attempt to seem credible.

LOL! Really, is this a joke? Look buddy. Any pro who "resents" an amateur blogger for claiming too much knowledge, isn't likely to be much of a pro. I don't know you or your pictures but I think I'm getting an understanding about your online forum personality. Look, a pro is someone who gets paid to take pictures...end of story. There are good professional photographers and there are sh*tty professional photographers, the only thing that binds them together is the pay check. There are plenty of so called "pro" photographers who don't know jack about photography. There are "amateur" photographers in our world able to shoot circles around me and (I'm almost certain) you. This kind of "if you are not a pro you should just keep your mouth shut" attitude isn't going to fly around here.

I know Ken Rockwell is talking to many novice and other levels of amateur photographers. I wish he'd keep it that way and not try to talk with made up authority where he claims to have some inside track with how professional photographers do things. He's often very wrong.

More of the "professional photographer" magic club crap here.

I also know he goes on various group events, but rarely as a coordinator. It's mostly as a guest even though he often claims to be some kind of special guest. I don't think he's credible or knowledgeable enough to actually teach these club meeting afairs and I think he probably knows it.

I'm sure the guy is a nice guy. I too have communicated on occasion with him. He seems to be a fun person. I'd probably enjoy going on a photo fun shoot with him. I like most people anyway. That's my personality. I also read Ken Rockwell and enjoy and agree with him a lot of the time.

I just get super annoyed at the many extemely misleading things he often tosses into his blog.

Like what? The anti-Ken lobby usually says this and fails to back up the "dangerous" or "extremely misleading" things he writes. It's usually just a difference of opinion where Ken is on the other side. I disagree with Ken's JPEG stance but I'm unlikely to suggest that he's dangerous to novices by suggesting this.

Above in this thread, you cite three things. Putting filters on lenses. Forgoing the use of big tripods. Finally, pros use wide and long lenses. Which one of these things is extremely misleading?

It very much appears that the wide and long statement is largely true. Backed up by that Reuters poll. I had read something similar from a lens rental company but can't seem to find it here.

Many people suggest than filters are the best way to protect lenses, surely this can't be considered extremely misleading?

As for the tripod. It is a long accepted adage that if you leave your big tripod in the closet it isn't much good. The most useful tripod that I own is a $17 tripod that I bought at Walmart. I took a pair of channel locks and snapped off the head and then replaced it with a $30 Manfrotto ball head. So why is this crappy little tripod the most useful? I can put it in the back pocket of my jeans.

I used to think it was just to be contensious to get clicks but in the past few years I've realized that Ken is just very unknowledgeable about many aspects of photography and therefore doesn't know any better sometimes. Nothing at all wrong with this unless he tries to boost credibility in the way I suggested he does. That's all.

OK. Where is he "unknowledgeable"? Where is he extremely misleading? He's got thousands of pages. Surely you can find something more dastardly than a couple of relatively small differences of opinion about UV filters or optimal size of tripods? For some around here, a small difference of opinion is enough to make someone "extremely misleading" or dangerous.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow