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

Started Sep 13, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 14,839
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos.  What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys?  One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition,  and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

 skanter's gear list:skanter's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +1 more
Limburger
Limburger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,812
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Both of you make the very point imo.

If you buy something costing $1000 and you have $1000 of fun (given you can afford spending it) it's alright.No matter what the output is.This is enjoying your gear.

In the old days when equipment wasn't as high tech as today the masters of photography took amazing shots imo boiling down to composition and light.This is mastering your equipement and subject.

A while ago (believe it was Craig/Guidenet correct me if I am wrong) posted a youtube link about studium and punctum, for me quite an eyeopener though subliminally that's what I was after, not knowing this was already figured out

This year I went to Paris and had a look around in Galeries Lafayette. They had a €175.000 pig ugly watch on display (and other cheap ones costing no more than €49.000). If your watch is nice nobody will bring it up, but if it's oversized and ugly it will draw attention.This is braggingrights (big ugly watch> big camera).

So, enjoying the technical side of things, the artistic and status.

Think we got most things covered

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha a7 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +3 more
artlmntl Senior Member • Posts: 1,804
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Sam, I agree with you; but whoever has the money to buy the equipment can buy the equipment. What they do with it is their business.

I know someone who has a 60D with 18-135 kit lens. She uses it in full auto to take snapshots. I can't have a discussion about photography with her. She has no interest in that or in changing any settings. I doubt she ever read the manual, but she likes the camera.

I know someone else who buys a lot of really old, cheap 4/3 gear and even older film lenses with adapters. It's not really good stuff, but he uses that to seriously practice photography. He knows there are technical limitations of his equipment, but he won't spend any money on newer bodies or better lenses. I suggest it to him and he laughs. He shoots what he wants to shoot! It's weird. You never know what someone will buy or how they'll use it.

And I don't see this Ken Rockwell as a very credible source.

-- hide signature --

Hunter

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

No, buying anything just because you can isn't all that wise or fair to those who would make good use of it, but fair isn't something that can be regulated. I'm sure some people don't ever really intend to even learn how to use it properly, much less try to develop their artistic skills. That's a shame. Even though I am personally a bit sentimental about my things, when I stopped using my 10D I couldn't stand to have it sit around unused so I sold it....it was almost like trying to find it a good home like a I would a puppy. I gave my 30D as a gift to someone who ended up not really deserving it, but it made sense at the time and I'm sure it's being used.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

Yeah, people SHOULD appreciate what they have and make use of it to the utmost of their ability.  Unfortunately there are a lot of morons that don't get it and never will.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,590
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Well Sam, does that also apply to people who buy expensive fast cars, i.e they should 'earn' the right to drive such vehicles?  Or to people who buy expensive watches.  How do they 'earn' the right?  Tell the time better? Or people who wear handmade suits?  How do they 'earn' the right?  Go to deportment classes or learn to look like Brad Pitt?

I think you'll find that most of these people have 'earned' the right to buy this stuff and do what the hell they want with it by having earned the money in order to do so.

fishy wishy
fishy wishy Senior Member • Posts: 5,554
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

It's not difficult to read inbetween the lines for what Ken Rockwell is. His comments can only hold true for a hobbyist Father With A Camera. His idea of action is photographing his children outdoors, and his idea of high iso is photographing his children indoors without flash. Mainly he will diddle about doing random landscapes. Ironically this is probably also true for 80-90% of DSLR users but this puts his demands and expertise on the level of the Canon Digital Rebel.

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 17,013
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

fishywisht wrote:

this puts his demands and expertise on the level of the Canon Digital Rebel.

OUCH!  Do you realize you've just disrespected Every One of the umpteen million rebel owners in existence???

Bwahahahahahaha

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 70D Canon EOS M5
Canoman21 Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

That's a pretty envious statement to make, about people having to ''earn'' the quality of their equipment.

So what if they have a fancy camera and take crap pictures. Hopefully these twits will sell their gear later on and we will be about to bag a bargain.

The technology is ourslave. We are not slaves to technology .....unless you like being tied up and chained to the machine.

 Canoman21's gear list:Canoman21's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +13 more
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 5,590
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

Canoman21 wrote:

skanter wrote:

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

That's a pretty envious statement to make, about people having to ''earn'' the quality of their equipment.

So what if they have a fancy camera and take crap pictures. Hopefully these twits will sell their gear later on and we will be about to bag a bargain.

And if only the 'superior' photographers ever purchased this equipment the volumes manufactured would then be considerably less and very few would be able to afford it in any case.  The 'twits' actually do us all a favour.

rdspear Veteran Member • Posts: 4,480
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

I've ignored his clueless/inaccurate criticisms in the past, so it would be hypocritical to pay much attention to any positive reviews now.

 rdspear's gear list:rdspear's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +19 more
dave61 Regular Member • Posts: 199
Re: Here's all the insanity you need.

I like to view the galleries of DPR posters to relate/compare their images to their comments -- always interesting.

 dave61's gear list:dave61's gear list
Canon EOS M5 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
Prixnobeldefoot Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

Every time I read his reviews I feel like in front of a salesman in a megastore,  who's trying to sell you every last piece of technology by telling you this new camera sets a new benchmark, toping the brand's flagship, for a lower price and lower weight...(plus it has a pop-up flash...)

t.c. marino Contributing Member • Posts: 663
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

skanter wrote:

howardroark wrote:.

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").

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

i hear you,i understand what you're saying.i'm seeing this more and more.i do a lot of paid gigs,i shoot nikon,my esteemed colleague and best friend shoots canon we get along GREAT.on my most recent outdoor shoot a young lady with a canon 7d/70-200 2.8 v2 combo shooting next to me was having all kinds of problems and simply could not get her exposures right..."my camera is not working right"..the exposures are all wrong.."can you help me"..i dont know what i'm doing wrong.OK..took a peek at her 7d..and quickly noticed her iso was dialed all the way up to iso 3200..on a bright sunny day,took a peek at the viewfinder info and saw she's at 1/8000 ss f22 in "p" mode..OK..dialed iso way down to 100,exposure set to manual,ss at 1/500- 1/640 set aperture to f4.0,took  multiple shots..and VOILA..perfect exposures and crystal clear sharp images.gave her a crash course on proper camera technique and the basics on exposure/metering/iso etc.etc. she listened and DID  capture some very nice images..i found out later that she did some interior work several nights ago and had the iso up to 3200..and forgot..dont get me started on the "average joes" we see all the times with their super duper nikon d4's and canon 1DX's blasting away at 10fps/12 fps..simply because they can

-- hide signature --

nikonshooter

dale thorn Senior Member • Posts: 1,758
Re: When will that troll go away?

Matt wrote:

Ken Rockwell has been trolling the internet for years now. Many things he writes make my eyes bleed.

-- hide signature --

Canon EOS 400D
Sigma 24-70 HF
Canon 50 f1.8

A child can see through the "controversial" remarks Ken makes, and then read on for the most fact-filled and informative articles on the Web.

 dale thorn's gear list:dale thorn's gear list
Leica D-Lux 6 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS40 (TZ60) Leica T
tabloid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,000
Re: When will that troll go away?

Matt wrote:

Ken Rockwell has been trolling the internet for years now. Many things he writes make my eyes bleed.

-- hide signature --

Canon EOS 400D
Sigma 24-70 HF
Canon 50 f1.8

Brownie 127

D76

Flash gun with flash bulbs

I like what he writes.

I dont have any problems or issues, i think that he is a very clever and intelligent man.

tabloid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,000
Re: Here's all the insanity you need.

meland wrote:

howardroark wrote:

"Digital cameras have been mature since about 2007. Today, they all look fantastic — if you know what you're doing, and if you don't, well, good luck. Resolution is far more than anyone will ever need for anything, and hyper-ISO performance is more than good enough to photograph anything on Earth hand-held.

Here are some snaps at the lowest 5 megapixel setting in the smallest JPG Normal compression setting, shot with Canon's cheapest lens, and they are sharp enough to see the dirt on each eyelash!"

"The Canon 6D is extremely popular because it has a larger image sensor, which honestly doesn't make images that much different except for having less depth of field than the other cameras — and having to use much larger and more expensive lenses to match that larger sensor. Yes, the 6D works a little better at stupid-high ISOs in no light, but those differences are minor and you shouldn't be shooting in starlight handheld anyway. More significant is that the 6D has no built-in-flash, which is a significant disadvantage in real shooting in daylight unless you also want to use a shoe-mounted flash. Daylight fill-flash with the built-in flash of the less expensive cameras is far more important than stupid-high ISOs, so you may as well get the 70D."

"The 70D is the least expensive full-performance Canon there is. Paying more for a camera isn't going to get you anything more, unless you really want a larger camera or auto LCD backlight control or all three "C" preset settings as I do — but I shoot every day."

He really doesn't get it.

But why does it concern you so much? It may not be your point of view but that's all it is - a point of view. And everyone is free to discount it, or not even bother to read it in the first place.

Agreed....people knock him for literally no reason.

I always read what he sez .....and agree with most of it.

tabloid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,000
Re: Here's all the insanity you need.

howardroark wrote:

meland wrote:

howardroark wrote:

"Digital cameras have been mature since about 2007. Today, they all look fantastic — if you know what you're doing, and if you don't, well, good luck. Resolution is far more than anyone will ever need for anything, and hyper-ISO performance is more than good enough to photograph anything on Earth hand-held.

Here are some snaps at the lowest 5 megapixel setting in the smallest JPG Normal compression setting, shot with Canon's cheapest lens, and they are sharp enough to see the dirt on each eyelash!"

"The Canon 6D is extremely popular because it has a larger image sensor, which honestly doesn't make images that much different except for having less depth of field than the other cameras — and having to use much larger and more expensive lenses to match that larger sensor. Yes, the 6D works a little better at stupid-high ISOs in no light, but those differences are minor and you shouldn't be shooting in starlight handheld anyway. More significant is that the 6D has no built-in-flash, which is a significant disadvantage in real shooting in daylight unless you also want to use a shoe-mounted flash. Daylight fill-flash with the built-in flash of the less expensive cameras is far more important than stupid-high ISOs, so you may as well get the 70D."

"The 70D is the least expensive full-performance Canon there is. Paying more for a camera isn't going to get you anything more, unless you really want a larger camera or auto LCD backlight control or all three "C" preset settings as I do — but I shoot every day."

He really doesn't get it.

But why does it concern you so much? It may not be your point of view but that's all it is - a point of view. And everyone is free to discount it, or not even bother to read it in the first place.

Because this forum is designed for both beginner and experienced photographers. Ken says things in his reviews without any context and without any qualification. For example "you shouldn't be shooting in starlight handheld anyway" is a reductionist and dismissive absurdity that does nothing but promote Ken's own very limited and self-centered point of view. If he goes out in the daylight and does nothing but shooting in sunlight then that's great for him. The fact that he doesn't understand and take into consideration that many people need low noise high ISO settings for indoor low light shooting without the use of a flash is enough to completely ignore everything else he has to say, his point of view or not. Point of view is one thing, but his conclusions are written in absolute terms with zero qualfication that can be misleading and deceptive to the uninitiated. Again, he has the right to be a pisspoor writer and to be self-centered. I also have the right to point out these aspects of his conclusions and his writing to those who may not know any better.

Rubbish.

He's test more camera than you've ever handled.

Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro Veteran Member • Posts: 8,701
Earning it... really?

skanter wrote:

People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want. But I find it inappropriate for people with little understanding of the creative aspects of photography to buy expensive, top flight equipment. Some people buy gear and just keep testing it, without taking any real photos. What's the point? Just collecting high-tech toys? One needn't be a "great artist" to start learning about the principles of composition, and what makes a good photograph.

IMO people should "earn" the quality of equipment they use by putting in the time and effort needed to achieve some level of skill and understanding.

Sam, I agree that there are an awful lot of people out there with near zero skills who buy expensive equipment because they can and really haven't a notion how to use it.  That said, your comment about "earning" the quality of equipment comes across as elitist and arrogant, though I doubt you meant it that way.  Frankly, people can spend as much as they want on camera equipment and it's no business of yours or mine.  It might seem like a terrible waste, but to use a parallel example, should someone well-heeled enough to buy a Lamborghini have to "earn" the privilege to do so by being professionally trained as a driver?  Don't think so.  I guess one can wish they had the same means.

In my own case, when I started with DSLRs over 10 years ago (Canon 10D), I probably bought well above my skill level.  For a lot time, my subject matter (mostly vacation shots) could easily have been handled by a decent P&S.  But, having the additional features encouraged me to learn more about photography and all the features I really hadn't been using.  While my skills are probably below many (if not most) of the enthusiasts populating this forum, I feel like I grew into my camera over time.  Maybe that's your notion of earning it, however, sometimes you put yourself into a better position to do so by buying a little above your needs and growing into it.

Back to the OP's topic: far as Rockwell goes... a total blowhard IMHO.  The only time I visit his site is when someone posts a link (such as this thread) and I decide to waste a little more time reading his blather.  Good for a laugh... little more IMHO.

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +1 more
Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro Veteran Member • Posts: 8,701
Re: When will that troll go away?

tabloid wrote:

I like what he writes.

I dont have any problems or issues, i think that he is a very clever and intelligent man.

Well, that makes one of us. Complete blowhard and waste of time IMHO.  Glad you like it... you won't find a lot of strong supporters here on that issue anyway.

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 OIS WR +1 more
tabloid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,000
Re: When will that troll go away?

Jerry-astro wrote:

tabloid wrote:

I like what he writes.

I dont have any problems or issues, i think that he is a very clever and intelligent man.

Well, that makes one of us. Complete blowhard and waste of time IMHO. Glad you like it... you won't find a lot of strong supporters here on that issue anyway.

Im not looking for supporters.....and I'm most certainly not getting on the hysterical anti Rockwell bandwagon.

I like to read what he writes.

My choice.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads