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

Started Sep 13, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 11,020
Re: When will that troll go away?

tabloid wrote:

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.

Of course, clearly your privilege.  But out of curiosity, is your definition of "hysterical anti Rockwell" someone who just strongly disagrees with you on this topic?  His writing tends to bring out strong opinions and you have yours, others have theirs -- both expressed with conviction.  That's hardly hysterical IMHO.

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +2 more
TTMartin
TTMartin Veteran Member • Posts: 7,304
Re: Earning it... really?

Jerry-astro 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.

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.

Ummm, well actually, Yes!

Lamborghini winner crashes just hours after he won the expensive sports car

High end sports cars like pro cameras aren't meant to take care of everything for you. Good sports cars don't understeer like everyday cars. You need to know how to drive them.

And actually the Lamborghini can kill someone. That's much less likely with a camera.

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.

 TTMartin's gear list:TTMartin's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot SD1000 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 400D +26 more
Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 11,020
Re: Earning it... really?

TTMartin wrote:

Lamborghini winner crashes just hours after he won the expensive sports car

Sorry, but totally LMAO after reading that article.  Thanks for posting the link.

High end sports cars like pro cameras aren't meant to take care of everything for you. Good sports cars don't understeer like everyday cars. You need to know how to drive them.

And actually the Lamborghini can kill someone. That's much less likely with a camera.

Yeah, more likely someone might "kill" the camera out of sheer frustration.  Nice analogy.

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +2 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: Here's all the insanity you need.

tabloid wrote:

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.

When I said qualification I meant he did not qualify his statements.  He states absolutes with no context.  In college professors were quite fond of saying "qualify your statement" because without any boundaries, background, or even a list of your assumptions then your conclusion is absolutely meaningless and/or useless to others.

Perhaps Ken is qualified to use a camera, but passing himself off as an impartial expert photographic journalist is what he's doing.  He has experience, but that doesn't make him qualified to tell others how to think.

Kudos to him. That long experience has reinforced his own egocentric point of view. He has determined how all those camera suit him and him alone then he reports to everyone without the slightest thought for what might be pertinent to others on the planet. Important to him is not important to me, but that's exactly how he writes. If he were somewhat impartial then I could respect his reviews, but he's obnoxious and deceptive and anyone reading his reviews when getting into photography for the first time are being led down only one path with no options for personal judgment. "Yeah, it's got this and that but you don't need it because it's stupid." I paraphrase, but that's basically what he says time and time again without qualifying THE STATEMENT. Not helpful.

Josh152 Senior Member • Posts: 2,018
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

Rockwell just tells beginners what they want to hear.

Roughly paraphrasing:

"No no you don't need to lug a tripod around IS/VR and continuous shooting is good enough. Just shoot a burst and pick the best one."

"Sharpness? Distortion? CA? Only NERDS worry about that stuff. Forget those expensive lenses and just stick a super zoom on your camera and never worry about which lens to use again."

"What!? Buy a newer, more expensive camera with more megapixels!? You're crazy those pixel dont' do ANYTHING!. They're just a scam those evil camera store clerks use to try to sell you a more expensive camera. 6 megapixels is all anyone needs for anything! You are losing nothing by buying last years model on the cheap. The D3100 can handle every kind of photo situation. Besides only real camera geeks would want or know how to use anything better so don't worry about it ."

MarshallG
MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: Here's all the insanity you need.

It doesn't matter how many ceras he's tested. The problem is that he doesn't test them well, and he only considers his own use scenarios.

For example, if you want to shoot a track meet or football game, and produce Sports Illustrated-quality results, you will have requirements that Ken Rockwell doesn't consider.

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +2 more
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

artlmntl wrote:

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.

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.

Artlmnyl, did you not see that the first line of my post was "People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want."

The rest was totally my feelings and opinions about the subject.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: When will that troll go away?

Jerry-astro wrote:

tabloid wrote:

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.

Of course, clearly your privilege. But out of curiosity, is your definition of "hysterical anti Rockwell" someone who just strongly disagrees with you on this topic? His writing tends to bring out strong opinions and you have yours, others have theirs -- both expressed with conviction. That's hardly hysterical IMHO.

Although Ken Rockwell can be annoying at time, I tend to agree with tabloid. He knows his stuff and is quite opinionated about it.  It's not like he makes things up. So you don't like him but I'll give more weight to his reviews than many commenters on this site.

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

howardroark wrote:

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.

Who said anything about "regulating"? Do you think I meant novices buying expensive gear should be illegal?

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.

You're being a bit harsh IMO.  Most are not morons, but well-off people who mistakenly think that one becomes a good photographer by buying the most expensive gear, sort of like buying a $10,000 guitar and expecting to  sound like Eric Clapton.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
What???

He actually does a pretty good job with his reviews. He mixes them with a lot of personal opinions but that's not that hard to filter out.

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

meland 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.

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.

Cars, watches and clothes are not in the same category as cameras. Only cameras are tools designed to achieve an aesthetic goal, and take a considerable amount of skill, creativity and experience to achieve that goal.

The word "earn" was in quotes. Of course, anyone can buy anything they want, but a novice who buys the most expensive gear and isn't willing to work at it is, in my opinion, foolish, inappropriate, and wasting his time in thinking he will achieve success in photography. If he wants an expensive toy, fine, but I don't have to like it.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

meland wrote:

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.

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.

Good point!

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

howardroark wrote:

Depth of field advantages from full frame are practically meaningless.

For 80% or more of photographers (meaning, anyone with a camera), this is a basically accurate statement.

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

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.

I'm not sure about that. He seems to review a lot of professional equipment, including all of Canon's and Nikon's pro cameras. And his favorite, Leicas, aren't exactly amateur, practical, or beginner.

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Earning it... really?

Jerry-astro 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.

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.

Why is it that no one seems to have read the first sentence of my post, "People certainly have a right spend large sums of money on equipment and use it however they want."

As far as being none of  our business, I see nothing wrong with giving opinions about it. I'm not appealing to congress for a law making it illegal to do so, but I can speak out against this type of foolishness.

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.

The word "earned" may not have been the best, but it was the best I could come up with at the time.  I think any intelligent person, even if wealthy, should realize that it might not be appropriate to spend huge amounts of money on expensive cameras and lenses without knowing the first the first thing about photography.

Again, i don't see it the same as buying expensive watches, clothes or cars. These are not tools for aesthetic expression. I do see a parallel to people who buy an $80,000 Steinway grand to play chopsticks.  They have every right - but what a waste!

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

fishywisht wrote:

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.

that's laughable since he owns a large collection of Leica cameras and lenses.

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
skanter
skanter Forum Pro • Posts: 18,030
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

fishywisht wrote:

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.

What's wrong wit the Rebel? They are very capable cameras.

-- hide signature --

Sam K., NYC

Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Oh My!...Rockwell's Review on the 70D

Prixnobeldefoot wrote:

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...)

Isn't that what all reviewers of new photographic equipment do -- tout the new features and explain why they're improved over the old equipment?

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
Jerry-astro
Jerry-astro Forum Pro • Posts: 11,020
Re: When will that troll go away?

Cam Jones wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

tabloid wrote:

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.

Of course, clearly your privilege. But out of curiosity, is your definition of "hysterical anti Rockwell" someone who just strongly disagrees with you on this topic? His writing tends to bring out strong opinions and you have yours, others have theirs -- both expressed with conviction. That's hardly hysterical IMHO.

Although Ken Rockwell can be annoying at time, I tend to agree with tabloid. He knows his stuff and is quite opinionated about it. It's not like he makes things up. So you don't like him but I'll give more weight to his reviews than many commenters on this site.

Knows his stuff?  Really?  His comments on the 5DmK3 alone in that article are almost ridiculous.  If you like his stuff, great... everyone is entitled to their opinion.  It's not a matter of "making things up".  More a matter of someone who seems to be more interested in yammering on and "listening to himself talk" (figuratively) than one who speaks with credibility.

Interestingly, there are many folks here who would carry a lot more weight with me in terms of their opinions than what Rockwell has to say.  Again, YMMV.

 Jerry-astro's gear list:Jerry-astro's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +2 more
Cam Jones
Cam Jones Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Rockwell's Target Audience

howardroark wrote:

s

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.

This is akin to someone imposing their will on others. This is not for you to decide. Not for you to dictate what they do with their equipment or how they should use it.  I have a friend who is not a professional photographer or even a serious amateur who recently purchased a brand new Leica M plus an $11,000 50mm Noctilux lens. The cost didn't even bother him. Other than the fact that he could easily afford the cost of these equipment, he believed his photography skills would only improve. I wouldn't arbitrarily call people like him clueless or "morons".

 Cam Jones's gear list:Cam Jones's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D700 Leica M9 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800E +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads