11 replies to this topic

[Tony]

I think you will like this.

 

Ken Rockwell 
 

TonyRemember:

• Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
• Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
• Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
• Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
• Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
• Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
• Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.•
• Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
• Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
• Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
• Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
• Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
• Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
• Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
• Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
• When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
• Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
• Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
• Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
• Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
• Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
• The term tripod was coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
• Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
• A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
• Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
• Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.

 

Tonytee.  )

[Ron]

[nikdood17]

And what makes you think you are some kind of expert? Go back to your Brownie Hawkeye and leave the rest of us alone.

[nbanjogal]

And what makes you think you are some kind of expert? Go back to your Brownie Hawkeye and leave the rest of us alone.

 

Duuuuuuude...one of my favorite things about the NikonForums is that people are generally pretty civil to each other, even when disagreeing, unlike some other photography forums I have visited and not bothered to stick around. This seems like a pretty harsh response to what was intended as a joke. (Unless there is a joke in your response that I'm not getting--in which case, carry on.) Ken Rockwell seems to be one of those polarizing topics that sets people off one way or another. I have no real opinion on or interest in him--saw the joke and saw a few things that made me smile and then moved on. But saw this response, and unless something has been deleted, it looks like it is directed at Tony, who makes positive contributions to these forums and doesn't deserve rudeness, no matter how strongly you feel about Ken Rockwell. So, uh, play nice, eh? 

[Tony]

Hi Nicole,

 

Many thanks for your positive feedback.  Well stated.  Here is the interesting part, I am a fan of Ken Rockwell, and I do contribute monthly to his cause.  Not joking now.  

 

Tony

[Marcus Rowland]

I find his site very useful, any time I sell a lens I check to see if he's reviewed it and link to it if he has. And things like the Nikon lens / body compatibility charts are priceless.

[Merco_61]

The problem with Mr Rockwell's site is that it is so difficult for the beginner to see the difference between his serious articles and those that are tongue-in-cheek. I think this is the reason so many try to steer people away from his site.

[dcbear78]

I have an opinion on Mr Rockwell. And if you go to my website and for a small contribution of only $5.99 per month, I'll let you know what that opinion is.

Excuse me, I'm off to get my Porsche serviced.

[Steve M]

When I first got into photography and had my Nikon D40X Ken's site was very resourceful.   Now that I have my D7200 I don't find myself over there much.  I  have no real or any reason why I don't go there. 

[ScottinPollock]

Ken is not all that different from hundreds of other "photographers" on the net trying to make a buck. Unfortunately, reviewing equipment they don't have puts a good number of these guys in a class 'C' of credibility. I think he is better than most, but his take on things is often times just paraphrasing the brochure.

 

I still visit his site from time to time as another opinion certainly doesn't hurt, so long as it is weighted with common sense.

[Tony]

Ken is not all that different from hundreds of other "photographers" on the net trying to make a buck. Unfortunately, reviewing equipment they don't have puts a good number of these guys in a class 'C' of credibility. I think he is better than most, but his take on things is often times just paraphrasing the brochure.

 

I still visit his site from time to time as another opinion certainly doesn't hurt, so long as it is weighted with common sense.

I believe I recall reading that Ken R., does have everything he reviews in his possession.  He stated clearly that he does not get any free lunches (if you will) so what he gets are paid for out of his own pocket.  The only items he does get for gratis are antique, out of commission film apparatus of all sorts and therefore these items are placed in his K.Rockwell Museum.  Perhaps he works on them occasionally.  He does have a B.S. in Civil Engineering so that pretty much explains his technical prowess.  Nobody's perfect, and like you I do look forward to his reviews and commentaries.  He has saved me a boatload of dollars and I do continue to support his efforts.

 

Thanks for reading,

 

Tony

[Brian]

I learned that the 80~200/4.5 Ai changed optical formula late in the run. Bought one for $50. Can't see a performance difference from the ealier version, but it was only $50. Had fun taking it apart and relubing the zoom action.

 

Some of his opinions differ form my personal experience, but there is sample-to-sample variation and subtle changes to optical formula through a run. The 85/1.8 Manual focus lens - I find to be very, very good. But- have only shot with 1. Some lenses- I've shot with 200 samples of the Jupiter-3, a side-benefit of working on them.