I'VE NEVER POSTED A NEGATIVE COMMENT ON KEN ROCKWELL'S ADVICE - BUT

NancyP · May 17, 2013

EVERY high-precision manufactured product has some item to item variance from "ideal" specification. If your copy is smack in the middle, as most copies should be, you won't need microadjustment. If your copy is towards one of the tails of the bell curve, you can benefit from microadjustment.

Also, if you shoot Live View magnified manual focus for landscapes, you Don't Care about AF microadjustment. If you shoot birds in flight, you may not care about AF MA, because the variance of placing focus on the desired part of the bird (eye/head) is enough to cancel out any minor microadjustment. Or so Arash Hazeghi says, and he's a grand bird-in-flight photographer. If you shoot weddings, AF MA may matter a lot.

AF microadjustment for EOS cameras

BingoCharlie · May 17, 2013

This is the guy who dismissed the new Ricoh GR as a toy without even holding one. Others are correct. If a camera doesn't fit into his narrow vision of photography, he trashes it.

Something tells me Ken doesn't shoot much street photography, so of course he doesn't "get" the GR.

JamesMortimer · May 17, 2013

Ho72 said:
Ho72 wrote:

Ho72 said:

Michael Harvey wrote:

SO - are we to then assume Nikon is selling us defective CAMERAS (or at least cameras with defective focus mechanisms)?

Click to expand...

No. Both the lens and camera have ranges of acceptable focus acquisition, akin to a manufacturing tolerance. If your lens is on one end of the spec and your camera body on the other then optimal focus may not result, hence the ability and need to fine tune.

Rockwell is best taken in small, infrequent doses.

very small and very infrequent doses.. (sometimes poor sentences can gave a meaning) :-D

Ho72 said:
He dismisses anything he does not understand or find useful.

I've always thought of him as the pointy-haired manager from Dilbert.. they both think that anything they don't understand is meaningless and irrelevant.

Ho72 said:
I give him credit for knowing how to pop to the top of a Google search; this seems to be his one and only shining talent.

http://www.anthonyhereld.com/buyer-beware-ken-rockwell/

goblin · May 17, 2013

Ho72 said:
Ho72 wrote:
...
Rockwell is best taken in small, infrequent doses. He dismisses anything he does not understand or find useful. I give him credit for knowing how to pop to the top of a Google search; this seems to be his one and only shining talent.

Amen to that. This guy has done more for photography's demise than the iphone, film APS and instagrIm combined

RudivanS · May 17, 2013

Mike Cialowicz said:
Mike Cialowicz wrote:

Ken Rockwell: as far as I can tell, he's a good guy. Like others have stated, he's excellent at SEO, and positioning himself right towards the top of Google search results.

However, his photography advice should be taken with a grain of salt - or maybe a gigantic salt lick. He's contradictory, and he gives silly advice.

Siths tend to deal in absolutes. ;-) The fact is that some camera-lens combinations will certainly require focus adjustment/fine-tuning for best performance. Most combinations probably don't require much adjustment (or any), but in my experience, many do in order to achieve the best results.

Read his website, but be sure to extract only the nuggets of goodness, and ignore the filler. If you can't tell one from the other, then my advice is to simply avoid his website altogether.

I highly recommend Thom Hogan's website, bythom, over Ken Rockwell's. Thom's reviews are much more thorough, he's a more experienced photographer, and his advice is more thoughtful. Also, he has some incredible industry insights, and he's just a better writer in general.

Naturally, these are just my opinions.

Regards,

Mike

Mike Cialowicz · May 17, 2013

RudivanS said:
RudivanS wrote:

Mike, you received 5 thumbs up and one of them's mine

Cheers!

tarmstrong · May 17, 2013

For the Ricoh GR review, he said an iPhone had the same quality as a compact with an APS-C sensor. Upon reading this, I wrote him off forever as nothing more than a hack who somehow has the ability to list his website on the top of Google searches and who surprisingly is capable to spawn a "growing family". Both of which is astonishing for anyone with a lack of intellect or ability to mate.

Mikhail Bogdanov · May 17, 2013

BingoCharlie said:
BingoCharlie wrote:

This is the guy who dismissed the new Ricoh GR as a toy without even holding one. Others are correct. If a camera doesn't fit into his narrow vision of photography, he trashes it.

Something tells me Ken doesn't shoot much street photography, so of course he doesn't "get" the GR.

Who is this schmuck? He got filters on all of his lenses.

Marvin Doering · May 18, 2013

That "adjustment" looks pretty complex to me and I don't find it listed in the camera manuals so evidently the manufacturers don't expect it to be necessary. Once you get it calibrated on one camera should it be good on other cameras as well or do you need to calibrate it on every camera?

afterswish1 · May 18, 2013

Hi Marvin,

The description is more complicated than perhaps it needs to be. My shortened version is as follows:

Pop your camera on a tripod and aim it at a suitable target say 5 to 10 metres away. Switch into live view mode and press whatever button will autofocus the camera. Now, switch off live view and autofocus once again. Did the lens move?

If not, no adjustment is necessary. If so, go into your AF fine tune menu and alter the settings until there is no movement. You will soon discover which way you need to make the adjustment by the amount the lens moves (turns). This method works because your camera uses two different methods of focus: contrast detection (in live view), and phase detection (something analogous to internal digital 'split screen' if I understand it correctly ). The adjustments you are making don't calibrate the lens, they calibrate the camera body. If you use the same lens on another body you may find a different AF fine tune, or none at all, is necessary.

When I say suitable target above, I mean one that has high contrast. Perhaps you should test that by focusing in live view then zooming in to make sure the image is as sharp as possible. Try it a few times to make sure the lock is consistent.

I hope that helps, and that I didn't miss anything. There are plenty of threads on this topic with people who are far more knowledgeable than me, all I can say is this methods seems simple to me and has worked nicely.

wasserball · May 18, 2013

hey, wash your mouth. I got filters in most of my lens, and I am not a schmuck.

wasserball · May 18, 2013

There are a lot of common sense in what Ken Rockwell says. A lot of photographers, and I am using this word very losely, are so insecure they treat their equipment like space hardware because lens can be expensive. I used to be like that. The fact of the matter is, the equipment you purchase should be used, but handled with the knowledge they are lens built to exact specifications. Now, I just go out and use the equipment rather than just talk about them. In a way, Ken's opinions are like that. For the consumer there is very little difference what better equipment can help in taking good photos. I am not sure if I am hijacking the thread, but Ken is a guy who speak for 99 percent of people who post to this forum. (flame suit on)

Mikhail Bogdanov · May 18, 2013

wasserball said:
wasserball wrote:

hey, wash your mouth. I got filters in most of my lens, and I am not a schmuck.

washed, rinsed... KR is still a schmuck... and I also use filters on some of my lenses...

and your point is?

Juergen · May 18, 2013

Mike Cialowicz said:
Mike Cialowicz wrote:

Ken Rockwell: as far as I can tell, he's a good guy.

We know he's a liar and picture thief - so obviously your and mine understanding of "a good guy" is very different.

AustinTed · May 18, 2013

As a general trend across more than one site I've noticed far less detailed technical reviews lately and more opinion based pieces. This is true of KR and others. I've got to imagine that it's getting increasingly difficult to generate revenue from what is undoubtedly a significant amount of work that needs to go into a meaningful technical review. I think that's partly why we see more editorial style posting that take far less time, since they are more a direct from brain to paper activity. These pieces are less work, keeps the site active, and any controversy only helps drive traffic at least for a while.

Dennis2958 · May 19, 2013

..............and I now wonder if calibration was ever needed on film based cameras with AF lenses? I have 2 D800 bodies and a variety of high priced Nikon lenses and have gone through the ritual of calabrating the whole lot on both bodies. They are all OK.

Mike Cialowicz · May 19, 2013

Juergen said:
Juergen wrote:

We know he's a liar and picture thief - so obviously your and mine understanding of "a good guy" is very different.

My opinion is that he believes his own BS, much like a salesperson. I've worked with plenty of salespeople whole lie, but do so entirely unknowingly... they just say what they believe the truth to be. They don't know any better. It kills their credibility, but I wouldn't say that they are awful people because of it.

I didn't realize he was a photo thief. If I were to see proof, then yes, that would make him a bad guy in my opinion. Especially if he did it knowingly and intentionally.

In any case, I still avoid his website, and suggest that everyone else does so too. That doesn't mean I hate the guy. Like I said, Thom Hogan does an infinitely better job covering the same topics with better writing and better insight.

Marvin Doering · May 19, 2013

Thank you very much for troubling to reply and explain this in more detail.

Placation101 · May 20, 2013

MikeInIndy said:
MikeInIndy wrote:

Methinks Ken assumes those who know better know better than to take his advice. And it's perfectly fine advice for those who don't. If you really didn't know much about a DSLR and wanted to buy one, most of his whacky advice is actually pretty sound.

--
-Mike

It's kindof sad though since he comes up first on google all the time. it really seems like he knows what he is talking about if you know nothing. The problem is people buy things and do things as a beginner without realizing his amazing wealth of information and photography knowledge on equipment contains about 40% link-whoring 40% self importance 15% spec sheet 4% accumulated other reviews and 1% hands on practical review.

you don't need a flash other than the sb400, great I love direct flash ken I'm able to replicate that on my smartphone too!!!

who needs 1.5x more reach its exactly the same. Three thumbs up ken minus the thousands of birders and wildlife who love their dx.

mabasa · May 20, 2013

d3xmeister said:
d3xmeister wrote:

Anyway, back to AF Tuning, I think it's a big BS and I blame manufacturers for that. It should never be needed. Resolution increased ? Good, tight those tolerances, increase the precision of AF manufacturing process. I pay lots of money for AF, it should work, that's what ,,A,, in AF stands for. I don't want to **** around with tests and stuff, when I can use that time for more important things.

I see you point but... A defect in a product costs typically manufactures many times more if the product ends up to the customer. So when people send their lenses for focus adjustment under warranty it costs them dearly. So why do they do it, why don't they just tight those tolerances. Simply because they can't, at least not without manufacturing costs going through the roof. If they did that, it would mean to the customer that lenses (and cameras, there are tolerances too) would be ridiculously expensive (even more so than some are today).

You are right of course in principle that things should just work. But I suspect not many people would be able and willing to pay for lenses and cameras that simply just worked. And this is the situation we are in now. Offering the customer an option to do the adjustment themselves is a good thing: 1) it helps to keep costs and therefore prices down if the customers make the adjustments themselves 2) you don't have to send your camera to a repair center "every time" you buy a new lens or camera (but you can if you can't or won't do the adjustments) 3) it attracts the geekier side of some people 4) you can fine tune lenses and cameras that are not under warranty anymore.

It's a shame that camera manufacturers are too greedy for their own good. They use micro focus adjustment as a mean to differentiate products: they want to get paid when the customers do their job. The feature should be in every camera. It's a baseless fear that it would add costs when clueless customers made adjustments. The option can be hidden enough and explained properly and there's always getting back to the default setting. And if they can't do it, they can send it in for service. There is really not much of a down side if it's an optional feature. If you want to, use it. If not, don't use it.

I'VE NEVER POSTED A NEGATIVE COMMENT ON KEN ROCKWELL'S ADVICE - BUT

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts