[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope, his opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

ROFLMAO! So much for any objective view of "opinions". That is exactly like saying any audio source is good.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa /img/forum/go_quote.gif ROFLMAO! So much for any objective view of "opinions".

I don't see what's so funny. Maybe it's best that I don't?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is exactly like saying any audio source is good.

You think so?
Hm.............

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

KR is ridiculed for going against the norm. I don't find him to be a fool, nor a genius. You must evaluate his opinion from a skeptical and detached position, as with anyone, and take what is or isn't relevant to yourself. I personally find the advice of Thom Hogan quite a bit more personally relevant, but YMMV.

 

[AudioNoob]

no motox you're right Ken Rockwell has lot's of junk in his website, the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions. He has some good things on there too but in general, he isn't reliable

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioNoob /img/forum/go_quote.gif no motox you're right Ken Rockwell has lot's of junk in his website, the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions. He has some good things on there too but so did hitler, in general, he isn't reliable

And Godwin's Law is invoked. The Rockwell bashers have just lost the thread.

Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots. Unless you're out shooting sports or birds, your equipment doesn't matter. And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. You could make some strong analogies to certain Head-Fi members with a lust for equipment over music.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally would stick with the D50 kit. I mean the D200 is cool and all, but I'd rather wait for the D3/D300 goodness to trickle down onto a consumer level body. Also, manually metering doesn't bother me, so I probably wouldn't even worry about using Ai/Ai-S lenses on a D50. ymmv on that one though. Would you sell the 35mm 1.4?

Yeah I guess preference varies from person to person. For me, manual metering takes too long to get a shot exposed to my liking. If you're shooting stationery objects it's not so bad but if you or your subjects on the move, it's a bit of a hassle as I don't really remember how to calculate ev for different light conditions. I like the D300 but the only thing I really want from the D300/D3 would be the high ISO performance and to be honest, I really only shoot that high a couple times of year. For the most part, all my shots are done at ISO 200. About the 35mm, nope, I love this lens! It used to be my dad's and it is the primary reason why I was considering the D200. It took me a while to learn how to shoot at 1.4 (My first pictures with it were terrible) but the bokeh is so creamy, I love it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Ken Rockwell supposed to be some kind of joke in the photography world? (not to undermine the quality of the Tokina; I've read good reviews about it elsewhere).

Rockwell has some very good reviews, they are just extremely opinionated. I usually check out his reviews first when I'm shopping for new glass or a new body but he's not the only site I go to for info. Like any review, the thoughts inside need to be taken with a grain of salt, its just that for me, I usually take his words with a little more caution. Other than that, his reviews are generally very insightful and much less elitist than most reviewers who care only about bare performance specs and not price to performance, etc.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots.

That's what I do too, so his reviews work very well for me. He also does great comparison shots, like the ones in his comparison of the Nikkor wide zoom and the Tokina. His examples perfectly illustrated what I needed to know to make my decision.

Here's the review, in case you're interested... Tokina 11-16mm

See ya
Steve

 

[nineohtoo]

Quote:

And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography.

I wholeheartedly agree

People like that take the fun out of photography. IMO It's not about posting what tools you have, but the process in which you use whatever tools are at your disposal, and your end results. And by no means am I a KR fan, I just feel his opinions are no more absurd than the people who go out and shoot charts and stuff.

Nice equipment doesn't equal nice pictures. I'd think knowing how to use what you've got is much more important. I see so-so pictures all the time on flickr, or on other boards posted by people with bodies and lenses up into the thousands of dollars.

BTW, I also love your comment about the same applying for people on this board(not this post, just head-fi users in general).

skyline889, the D200 probably wouldn't be such a bad idea for you then. Especially at its current value. Weather sealed, metering with Ai/Ai-S lenses, more AF points, better AF tracking, etc.

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif You must evaluate his opinion from a skeptical and detached position, as with anyone, and take what is or isn't relevant to yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioNoob /img/forum/go_quote.gif the main problem is things that he serves on a plate as facts but in reality, they're mere opinions.

Somebody gets it.

 

[AudioNoob]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif And Godwin's Law is invoked. The Rockwell bashers have just lost the thread. Fact of the matter is, Rockwell pisses people off because he doesn't analyze tiny imperceptible technical differences in distortion and falloff - he goes out and shoots. Unless you're out shooting sports or birds, your equipment doesn't matter. And that pisses off the rest of the camera-reviewing world, who care more about equipment than photography. You could make some strong analogies to certain Head-Fi members with a lust for equipment over music.

a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count

b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point

c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care?

 

[bigshot]

Opinions are not all created equal. Some are baseless and others have experience and research to back them up. It's pretty obvious that Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about. He's a pro and he shares his experience on the internet. That's something to thank him for, not a reason to criticize him.

The people that take shots at Rockwell are usually discussion forum know-it-alls who are speaking entirely from theory, not from practical experience. They get mad because all of their armchair quarterbacking gets blown away by someone who clearly knows his stuff. The criticism I've read about him says more about the person doing the criticizing than it does about Rockwell. People just react to his tone and totally miss the content.

The review of the Tokina lens was brilliant. I don't know any other internet resource that provides info like that as clearly and puts it in better perspective than Ken Rockwell does.

See ya
Steve

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioNoob /img/forum/go_quote.gif a) I don't agree, I honestly don't care or talk about equipment, you can make a good image with a point and shoot. but I know their limitations or errors. When you are doing professional enlargements or on the field as a photojournalist, certain things actually count

Funny that you mention that.... Quote:

b) I, as repeated below in a quote, already have told you what I find wrong about him and if you care to look, it wasn't anything about what you've said I would also argue that he isn't a good photographer but that's beside the point

Come back when you can take anything nearly as good as these. And those aren't even his best. Quote:

c)why is he bothering to review if he doesn't care?

I never said he didn't care. I said he cared about the parts that actually make a difference in real-world performance, not the stupid technical arguments debated by people who only know equipment, not photography.

Keep in mind that he has a degree in Engineering and has worked as an Engineer. He's capable of comprehending the technical points well enough to know what does and doesn't matter.

 

[Towert7]

[size=large]Guys and gals, STOP talking about kent rockwell.[/size]

I, as well as many others, want this thread to be related to Nikon equipment, not a website owner. Create a new thread to discuss this.

Dam I hate it when people bicker. whiny kids!

 

[perplex]

Hmmm when will Nikon release a 24 f1.4 and/or 35 f1.4 prime? Like Canon have had for a while now