# Air blow or Eye blow... have seen this term being used on Ken Rockwell's reviews



## mikoh4792 (Feb 18, 2014)

How much faster do external zoom lenses with airblow/eyeblow cause your dslr sensor to start showing dust spots than internal zoom lenses(ones without airblow/eyeblow)? just wondering if I'm going to be doing a lot more cleaning when I take my dslr outside to shoot wildlife when I use externally zooming lenses.


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2014)

Eh I wouldn't worry about it. 

Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.

Furthermore most dust won't even show up until you're shooting small apertures. F8 - f10 - f13 and smaller are where you'll start to see dust if its present; at wider apertures you just won't see it at all unless you really have serious dust problems (and that's far beyond what would get sucked into and out of a lens). 

About the only lens that I'm aware of that might have some significant dust sucking is the 100-400mm L and most of the time I hardly read of people commenting on that aspect (its more one of those "fears" people who don't own it think about).


----------



## Derrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Overread said:


> Eh I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> Dust is part of DSLR life and whilst you can take a few precautions to help avoid it you'll still get dust in there unless you go around it with a hot glue gun and seal up every entrance. Most modern sensors have vibration/static auto clean modes that help drop a lot of light dust - whilst natural air blowers (like a Rocket Blower) help clean out loose dust. Wet and dry cleaning swabs can normally deal with the rest.
> 
> ...



*"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it."  *(needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)


----------



## mikoh4792 (Feb 18, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Eh I wouldn't worry about it.
> ...



lol


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2014)

Oh and wait just saw the source of the quote - Ken Rockwell is an expert in marketing himself. His views are, however, somewhat on the extreme side half the time and many of his guides are very much written for him by him and often take a very singular view to how to do photography whilst being dismissive of other valid approaches (eg he hates tripods). 

His is a fun site but not really the best for worthwhile information; although a few of his tech reviews are ok.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 18, 2014)

Overread said:


> Oh and wait just saw the source of the quote - Ken Rockwell is an expert in marketing himself. His views are, however, somewhat on the extreme side half the time and many of his guides are very much written for him by him and often take a very singular view to how to do photography whilst being dismissive of other valid approaches (eg he hates tripods).
> 
> His is a fun site but not really the best for worthwhile information; although a few of his tech reviews are ok.



I had heard similar things about him prior, and initially took his views as gospel. Then, I stumbled upon this website and learned a thing or 50. 

I read some crazily contradictory statements on his website today. He was comparing a Canon 5D and talked about how great it was and he loved it's vivid color and it's image quality is greater than that of a Nikon D3. I love my 5D. Like think it's the greatest thing I've ever had. _HOWEVER_, I'm a totally scientific guy. And DXOMark tells me that the D3 has better color depth, dynamic range, and ISO. Those are facts. But then he goes on to say that the D40 is always in his hand. I'm not sure what all of it means. There are drastic inconstancies on his website that drive me mad. Unless I'm going specifically for facts, I try to stay off of the website.


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2014)

Ken is a fantastic reason why "just google it" is not a suitable reply to many inquiries. Because his site ranks high and yet isn't a good source of information once you actually start learning. I'm sure his site is fine for the crowd who really just want a beefed up DSLR for point and shoot style photography and have no desire to really push the boundaries further - for others though its a detriment at times to take his word as anything but opinion.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 18, 2014)

It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'


----------



## Derrel (Feb 18, 2014)

reavesce said:


> It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'



You do realize that Ken leaves OLD articles up on his pages, right? At one time, years ago, he was in fact, infatuated with the Nikon D40. And the Canon 5D. And the Nikon D3. And the Leica M3 and film for a while. And then the Nikon D800. Then the Canon 5D-III. And the Fuji X100. Ken is in fact, a serial camera polygamist. Searching through Ken's many pages, one can construct an argument based on "Ken says!" for almost any camera that was ever a decent seller!


----------



## 71M (Feb 18, 2014)

The D40 is Nikon's best camera ever. Period. No.. sorry, I mean the Coolpix 995...with the white balance set to cloudy..all the time...for that warmer look.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 18, 2014)

71M said:


> The D40 is Nikon's best camera ever. Period. No.. sorry, I mean the Coolpix 995...with the white balance set to cloudy..all the time...for that warmer look.



71M, you forgot such classic Rockwellianisms as, "RAW images are a waste of time--shoot everything in .JPEG mode--it's easier, faster, and if you want images that will LAST, then shoot FILM!" And, "Shoot everything in the smallest JPEG size, using medium compression--it's plenty good." And of course, a classic Rockwellian bit of advice: "When you eat out, do not buy soda, but instead ask for water. Most restaurants have triple-filtered water. The money you save by drinking water will allow you to buy a big house in the suburbs."


----------



## 71M (Feb 18, 2014)

Derrel said:


> And of course, a classic Rockwellian bit of advice: "When you eat out, do not buy soda, but instead ask for water. Most restaurants have triple-filtered water. The money you save by drinking water will allow you to buy a big house in the suburbs."



 I'm truly in awe of the man. Seriously. His capacity to crank it out.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> reavesce said:
> 
> 
> > It was a total slap in the face when I realized that he said one thing on one page, and then the opposite on another. It's only taken me how long to figure it out? Dang ol' dang ol'
> ...


 

Yes, I did realize he left old ones up. For someone who "lives" off of the site, he needs to update it. 

The other thing I realized, and this was a while ago when I started questioning his opinion, was that his pictures were less than mediocre. I have this thing about taking advice from someone, despite their wealth of knowledge on the subject, fails to execute a great picture, much less a good one. It's the same way with C&C on here. Unless you have pictures up to tell me how "good" you are, I rarely take their advice. And I definitely don't take composition advice from gear heads. It's kind of like going to a doctor for surgery, who has the book knowledge to do it, and could recite every vein, muscle fiber and bone, and surgical technique, but has failed to complete a successful surgery. No. Effing. Thank you.


----------



## D-B-J (Feb 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Eh I wouldn't worry about it.
> ...



How pedantic of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Feb 19, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Why, thank you, my good man! Air-blow me! (Bwah-haa-haa-haa!)


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Why, thank you, my good man! Air-blow me! (Bwah-haa-haa-haa!)



get a room 
There's kids on this site 'ya know ...


:lmao:


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 19, 2014)

Derrel said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




*shakes head like Lee Trevino in Happy Gilmore*


----------



## 71M (Feb 19, 2014)

In defence of Ken - as if he needs it - what i like about him:

He's been seriously into photography since he was knee-high.
His great passion is colour, and he's devoted to that.
He's very informed about technology.
He prints and he loves to print big.
He's very undogmatic - a sign of an independent mind and spirit.
He's a family guy.

Ken's cool!


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 19, 2014)

> Because his site ranks high and yet isn't a good source of information once you actually start learning.


I have actually started learning and use his site all the time. It is a great source of information.

ANY review site is useful that has built up a large body of reviews, simply to have comparisons in the same voice if nothing else.
And 90% of what he says is perfectly reasonable, once you realize (fairly quickly) what his few weird hangups are that you can just ignore (like "you don't need anything more than 6 MP" etc.)

Yes, 10% is bizarre crap, but guess what? Most reviewers say MORE bizarre crap than that.

Ken Rockwell knows his stuff in general and does an excellent job. He is by no means perfect, but I don't see any evidence of him being dramatically *less *perfect than other reviewers, and so I use him all the time, and just like every other site, sift out the stuff that sounds dumb, and learn from the rest before buying things.



If you're a total green n00b, then you're going to be led astray a little bit. ANYWHERE you go. That's not Ken's fault. That's the universe's fault. Think of it like handwriting. A kid who just learned to read can only read clear, block letters. But once you get good at it, you can learn to sift the important core elements out from the noise of the person's own style, even if you've never seen that hand before, after a few sentences. Similarly, a seasoned photographer should pretty easily be able to figure out which claims are BS on a review site after a few reviews. And then the reviewer's faults become not so relevant, because they're just being ignored.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 19, 2014)

Ken's site is most useful for people who already have a good deal of personal experience and a relatively deep, developed understanding of photography. For the real beginner-level shooter, I think the task of filtering the B.S. and the personal prejudices from the photographic "truth" is a daunting task. Part of the problem comes from Ken leaving sooooo many old reviews and old posts up for years on end; noobs are exposed to a goodly number of exceedingly out-of-date "opinions" and "proclamations of truth", which while perhaps valid back in say, 2006, or 2008, might very well be hopelessly out of date, or even flat-out incorrect and "wrong" in today's market. For about the first five years of the digital movement, Ken was VERY anti-digital, then he was pro-JPEG-ONLY, anti-RAW, and p;ro-JPEG/pro-FILM, then he was ALL-film, all-Leica, for a year or so, even inventing the term "REAL RAW" as his way of saying "shot-on-film". His flip-flopping and outright lunacy used to be much more prominent than today.

I read his lens reviews, which I think he does well. But I have Nikon camera and lens experience dating back to the early 1980's, so I know when he's dishing up bull****, but I think a LOT of people do not. Over the last few years, he's been on a real China-bashing streak, where if a lens is made in China, he bitches and whines like a little bitcX, on and on, and on. One of his WORST traits is "reviewing" lenses that he has never used, and which are NOT EVEN RELEASED!!!! He did that with the Nikkor 45-P, and his review was soooooo far off the mark it wasn't even funny.

One thing about Ken and his eye-blow and air-blow stuff and all that other B.S.--he gets a lot of clicks by being a deliberate fool/tool/jewel. He is all three things, in equal measure.


----------



## Coasty (Feb 19, 2014)

[/QUOTE]



The other thing I realized, and this was a while ago when I started questioning his opinion, was that his pictures were less than mediocre. [/QUOTE]

Well shucks! Ken has always said my pictures are pretty good. You dont suppose that the $15.00 I PayPal him every time I ask him something so he can feed his growing family has anything to do with the kind reviews he gives me, do you?


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Feb 19, 2014)

I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned but Rockwell's site is not an un-biased, unsolicited review service to help the consumer. It's a money generating source for the author.

I read somewhere that he makes on the order of thousands of dollars a week in click-through revenue. Therefore it's literally his job to get you excited enough about a product to get you to click one of the external product links in the article. When you do Adorama, B&H, Amazon, whoever pays Mr. Rockwell for the referral to their site.

That's why he has so many favorites and must-haves. The only ones that he doesn't hype are items that aren't eligible for his revenue network.

And yes, his photography skills are weak... at best.

Edit: The current monthly advertising revenue of his site is $13,147. (!!!)
Kenrockwell.com Estimated Traffic Net Worth $319,920 by Freewebsitereport.org


----------



## AlanKlein (Feb 19, 2014)

I read him all the time. He's funny, cheap (well frugal), informative and realizes that good photography has little to do with gear. And tells you so. If a visitor doesn't know a D40 is an old piece of camera, then that person isn't going to get anything out of anyone's site.  His jacking up saturation +5 on his OOC jpegs is not my style, but heck, I don't like a lot of what I see here either.

His comment about the 6mb as being big enough is because most people post on-line, in their iPad's or print 8 1/2 x 11" max on their home printer, maybe 4x6. They have no use for anything bigger; he knows it's just ego, you know, who's got the bigger one.  You have to read him regularly to understand where he's coming from.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 19, 2014)

> His comment about the 6mb as being big enough is because most people post on-line, in their iPad's or print 8 1/2 x 11" max on their home printer, maybe 4x6. They have no use for anything bigger; he knows it's just ego, you know, who's got the bigger one. You have to read him regularly to understand where he's coming from.


I don't disagree with his math and the internet logic. The problem is that "6 MP is all you need" is just another way of saying "pros get it right in the camera 100% of the time lol!" since it implies never cropping, which is obnoxious and silly.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 20, 2014)

18.percent.gary said:


> I read somewhere that he makes on the order of thousands of dollars a week in click-through revenue. Therefore it's literally his job to get you excited enough about a product to get you to click one of the external product links in the article. When you do Adorama, B&H, Amazon, whoever pays Mr. Rockwell for the referral to their site.




Don't buy the 70-200 2.8 the 55-200mm does the same thing for less.  It's lighter and cheaper, buy it here...


----------

