really KENnot ROCKWELL

[AReality]

This guy... really fickle minded.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
"I see no reason for CCDs to bother with the old 35mm size, nor does Nikon as far as we've seen. Since Nikon makes short lenses for the smaller sensors of DSLRs unlike anyone else I see no reason to bother with the old size. You could pay $8,000 for the old-CCD-size Canon 1Ds, or one-eighth as much for a shorter lens for a Nikon to get the same wide angle views."


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
"Canon curses us with three incompatible sensor sizes."


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm
"Personally, I prefer full frame."


Those fans of his, pls don't take it to heart.. :bsmilie:

Ok, I was bored...

.

 

[Prismatic]

Go AReality Go!
Give me a A-R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!

 

[Kit]

Is this individual supposed to be taken seriously?

 

[advrider]

he sounds like a flip flopper. cannot be trusted.

 

[TerryOng]

Personally, I like Ken Rockwell's website and find his equipment specs and some techniques useful. Also, I do like quite a number of his photos. Yes, he does takes better photos than I do and I'm in not a good position to say about his pics. However, I concur with you on this. I find his reviews opinionated but sometimes I do like to know what he thinks. To tell you the truth, I do like reading his website.

 

[binbeto]

AWAR tio si AWAR.. hee heeee

 

[jlchong]

i have always read ken rockwell's articles with a pinch of salt la... hmm.. make that a bucket! haha

 

[CYRN]

Now he says 12MPFF is enough... can't wait what he will say if/when 3Dx somes up with high rez sensor.:angel:

 

[giantcanopy]

His opinions are pretty biased and at times contradictory, but is nevertheless worth a good read :bsmilie:

I am sure people who slams his website would still want to read whatever he writes next

Ryan

 

[NikonShooter]

I would not call him as a reviewer. All of his comments are too personal without technical tests.

 

[TerryOng]

He calls himself a photographer and not a lens reviewer.

 

[tato]

I would not call him as a reviewer. All of his comments are too personal without technical tests.

Aren't reviews suppose to be personal and opinionated??? :dunno:

 

[tato]

he sounds like a flip flopper. cannot be trusted.

did he sell you anything and got conned? :bsmilie:

 

[azul123]

This guy... really fickle minded.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
"I see no reason for CCDs to bother with the old 35mm size, nor does Nikon as far as we've seen. Since Nikon makes short lenses for the smaller sensors of DSLRs unlike anyone else I see no reason to bother with the old size. You could pay $8,000 for the old-CCD-size Canon 1Ds, or one-eighth as much for a shorter lens for a Nikon to get the same wide angle views."


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
"Canon curses us with three incompatible sensor sizes."


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm
"Personally, I prefer full frame."


Those fans of his, pls don't take it to heart.. :bsmilie:

Ok, I was bored...

.

I am no fan but I read his reviews occassionally from time to time.

If I get this correctly, first he is saying, no need to pay so much more... for a smaller CCD and shorter lens can give equivalent in 35mm range.

Skipping second one.

Third, with new FX, of course everyone prefers it lah :bsmilie:

../azul123

 

[pai]

consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds

 

[oswin]

Hehe, I guess everyones view will change from time to time. Too bad for him, all his views a re "recorded" on his website.

I can understand why he flip flops. Full frame used to be very ex and elite. Its getting more and more affordable now, so why not?

My own flip flop story: DSLRs are too expensive! PnS can shoot good pictures too.

A couple of years later...D40 cost almost as much as I paid for my first PnS ;p well maybe $200 more hehe

 

[gooseberry]

Hahahah... Ken tells everybody not to take his website seriously, but everyone seems to.

Have a read of the About page (emphasis mine)

About Me and My Site
Caveat Lector! (reader beware!)

This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. This site is purely my personal opinion. I have the playful, creative and trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

I started this site as a joke after I took a community college class in webmaking as a place I could share each weeks' photos with my friends.

I then started putting up my personal notes about my personal tests of my own equipment so that I could access them even if I was in the field. I've been doing these experiments since I was a kid, and used to journal them in books and then on my computer.

Search engines quickly found these techie pages, and it bugged me that more people were looking at photos of my lenses instead of the photos I made with these lenses.

I've never promoted this site. I love to share what I love, but with my friends.

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself.

Read this site at your own risk. I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds.

 

[huggable]

It's pretty entertaining to read KRW's reviews actually.

 

[canonikon]

He speaks for the one who pays him. It is all about $$$.

P.S. hahaha..."KENnot ROCKWELL"

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Maybe his house is fully sponsored... thats y he only support 1 camera...

maybe got a shop in his place also, and a altar for daily prayers...