# Ken Rockwell is an idiot: Your camera DOES matter.



## anubis404

After viewing Ken Rockwells test of a P&S compared to a 5DmII and a 17-40 F4 in disbelief, I thought I'd do a little test of my own. KR's test pictures look very similar in sharpness, contrast, etc. Mine don't.

Nikon D70s with Sigma 18-50 F2.8 is the first, the second is with a Casio Exilim 6mp PS. Both with the same exact settings except for F stop (D70s at F3.3, Casio at F3.1)












Need I say more?


----------



## OregonAmy

I'm not sure you'll get a lot of argument here. It seems pretty clear that Equipment + User makes a big difference; both contribute to the quality of photographs.


----------



## adolan20

Yeah I never did enjoy that article he had about it.  Most people on here take some of his advice and ignore the rest.  After reading that article, it made me think why does he have a D3 then?  Why doesn't he just use a $25 camera as he suggested it took better pictures than his D3.  It didn't make sense.  Oh and the camera actually doesn't matter it depends on the person behind it:mrgreen:.  Plus, the Casio doesn't have the metering capabilities that your D70s has.


----------



## elemental

adolan20 said:


> Yeah I never did enjoy that article he had about it.  Most people on here take some of his advice and ignore the rest.



I can't even say I'd recommend any of his advice, and I'll be a Nikon shooter as of tomorrow. I suspect even the things I agree with just because some of his other statements are so ridiculous. Even if Kanye came up with some great solutions to solve America's deep class, race, gender, and sexual orientation issues, it would be impossible for me to get the look on Mike Myers' face out of my mind ("George Bush does not care about black people"). That's how I feel about Ken Rockwell and photography. Ta=hat said, some of his out west shots are gorgeous.


----------



## adolan20

elemental said:


> I can't even say I'd recommend any of his advice, and I'll be a Nikon shooter as of tomorrow. I suspect even the things I agree with just because some of his other statements are so ridiculous. Even if Kanye came up with some great solutions to solve America's deep class, race, gender, and sexual orientation issues, it would be impossible for me to get the look on Mike Myers' face out of my mind ("George Bush does not care about black people"). That's how I feel about Ken Rockwell and photography. Ta=hat said, some of his out west shots are gorgeous.



Yeah I enjoy his lens reviews and some of his camera reviews but other than that I'm not too fond of any of his articles.  But, he did say in an article that I shouldn't waste my money on the D80.  As you can see I clearly didn't listen:mrgreen:


----------



## dEARlEADER

well.... the 1st one is underexposed, the second over exposed....

why don't you try a little harder?......

1st by matching the frames so they are identical

2nd by matching the exposure

then throw them both out there without labels...


----------



## Mike_E

Why do you take the guy seriously when he plainly states that he's joking?


----------



## nikonpreap

Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer


----------



## anubis404

OregonAmy said:


> I'm not sure you'll get a lot of argument here. It seems pretty clear that Equipment + User makes a big difference; both contribute to the quality of photographs.



I'm not debating artistic value, I'm debating image quality.



adolan20 said:


> Yeah I never did enjoy that article he had about it. Most people on here take some of his advice and ignore the rest. After reading that article, it made me think why does he have a D3 then? Why doesn't he just use a $25 camera as he suggested it took better pictures than his D3. It didn't make sense. Oh and the camera actually doesn't matter it depends on the person behind it:mrgreen:.  Plus, the Casio doesn't have the metering capabilities that your D70s has.



Both were on manual, both at 1/1000, F3.1 or 3.3.


----------



## anubis404

dEARlEADER said:


> well.... the 1st one is underexposed, the second over exposed....
> 
> why don't you try a little harder?......
> 
> 1st by matching the frames so they are identical
> 
> 2nd by matching the exposure
> 
> then throw them both out there without labels...



Minute differences in the exposure and framing do not invalidate my point. The differences are obvious.


----------



## dcclark

anubis404 said:


> I'm not debating artistic value, I'm debating image quality.
> 
> Both were on manual, both at 1/1000, F3.1 or 3.3.



Well, I'll make the rather obvious statement that the point of his article is _not_ that any two random cameras with the same settings will produce the same photos. It's that, in the hands of a user who knows what they're doing, two different cameras can both produce equally excellent (or poor) images.

Taking two cameras, fixing the settings, and saying "look, the photos are not equal" says nothing useful at all. If you are experienced enough to understand how both cameras take photos -- how they tend to over or under expose, etc. -- you can make both photos look just fine.

But more importantly, it's entirely up to YOU as to how well-composed, lit, arranged, etc. the photo is. No camera can do that, and that's the real point of that article. You just took two equally uninteresting sample photos using an expensive and a cheap camera. Did you need a $3000 camera to do that?

So while I'm not saying Ken is a god or anything, I am saying that you seem to be misinterpreting the point of that article entirely.


----------



## dEARlEADER

anubis404 said:


> Minute differences in the exposure and framing do not invalidate my point. The differences are obvious.




umm.... okay then...:raisedbrow:


----------



## anubis404

dcclark said:


> Well, I'll make the rather obvious statement that the point of his article is _not_ that any two random cameras with the same settings will produce the same photos. It's that, in the hands of a user who knows what they're doing, two different cameras can both produce equally excellent (or poor) images.
> 
> Taking two cameras, fixing the settings, and saying "look, the photos are not equal" says nothing useful at all. If you are experienced enough to understand how both cameras take photos -- how they tend to over or under expose, etc. -- you can make both photos look just fine.
> 
> But more importantly, it's entirely up to YOU as to how well-composed, lit, arranged, etc. the photo is. No camera can do that, and that's the real point of that article. You just took two equally uninteresting sample photos using an expensive and a cheap camera. Did you need a $3000 camera to do that?
> 
> So while I'm not saying Ken is a god or anything, I am saying that you seem to be misinterpreting the point of that article entirely.



You are so quick to accuse me of misinterpretation when you yourself fail to interpret my post. An intelligent monkey could've discerned that I am not debating the importance of the role of a photographer. I, like Ken, took and expensive camera and a cheap camera, fixed the settings, and took an uninteresting photo. A third grade science teacher could've taught you the importance of conducting a controlled experiment. So before you run in here screaming "No!! its da photographer that matterz!", maybe you should get your facts straight. If debunking Ken's picture test offended you in some way, then I apologize.


----------



## dcclark

anubis404 said:


> You are so quick to accuse me of misinterpretation when you yourself fail to interpret my post. An intelligent monkey could've discerned that I am not debating the importance of the role of a photographer. If debunking Ken's picture test offended you in some way, then I apologize.



My apologies, I assumed you were specifically referring to Your Camera Doesn't Matter, based on your posts and the title of the thread.

That said, the article you referred to clearly states that he adjusted the settings on each camera to give better results -- i.e., exactly what I said. The article I linked to, rather, makes the point that the photographer is more important than the camera -- this is just on example of _why_ that is true.

Please, no need to call names -- that's quite unnecessary.


----------



## anubis404

dcclark said:


> My apologies, I assumed you were specifically referring to Your Camera Doesn't Matter, based on your posts and the title of the thread.
> 
> That said, the article you referred to clearly states that he adjusted the settings on each camera to give better results -- i.e., exactly what I said.
> 
> Please, no need to get harsh. Calling names is quite unnecessary.



Then I should've been more specific. I optimized the point and shoot's settings for the occasion, just not the shutter speed and aperture. The LCD was very dim, and I didn't quite hit the exposure on the head. The point of this whole thread was to raise an eyebrow or two to the credibility of Ken's test.


----------



## tirediron

anubis404 said:


> Then I should've been more specific. I optimized the point and shoot's settings for the occasion, just not the shutter speed and aperture. The LCD was very dim, and I didn't quite hit the exposure on the head.* The point of this whole thread was to raise an eyebrow or two to the credibility of Ken's test.*


 
Don't mean to burst your bubble dude, but that ship sailed a long time ago!


----------



## Garbz

anubis404 said:


> I'm not debating artistic value, I'm debating image quality.
> Both were on manual, both at 1/1000, F3.1 or 3.3.



Yeah? Because there's clearly more than 1 stop difference between both frames.



anubis404 said:


> Minute differences in the exposure and framing do not invalidate my point. The differences are obvious.



Yeah the differences are obvious. The differences are not minute.

Please if you're going to test the validity of something then do it more scientifically. Identical frames, identical exposures, tripod.

I may as well say my mum's 5 year old Mitsubishi is better than a Ferrari if the Ferrari's gearbox is jammed and there's a 3 year old kid behind the wheel.


----------



## Dwig

anubis404 said:


> ...
> Both were on manual, both at 1/1000, F3.1 or 3.3.



But what ISO was used on each, duh!

One reports a Gain of 0 and one reports a Gain of 2. Also ISO calibration between differnent models and brands are not exact matches. Neither are the various sharpness, contrast, and saturation controls in any two different RAW converters, either those in the camera or those on an external computer.

The OP's comparison images are useless for a critique or response to Ken Rockwall's editorial.


----------



## JerryPH

In this "discussion", more than anything else, the level of challenge or difficulty we place on the camera will let the camera show "it's stuff".  If I am taking a picture of a pool or backyard in bright lighting conditions and I have a (let me use 2 cameras I own and am intimately familiar with for the sake of discussion) Nikon E8800 and a Nikon D700, I can make the 2 pictures near identical.  The conditions are so favorable, that someone with an etch-a-sketch could manage quite nicely!  

Now, let's all go to an evening concert and start shooting... I think the answer is obvious.  Shooting conditions are now difficult and challenging.  Camera limitations are being hit or surpassed and the camera with superior specifications will get the superior results.

Equipment *does* matter, unless you are shooting scenes that do not challenge the capabilities of either the camera and/or the photographer.  The photographer plays a large role in the sense that a knowledgeable photographer will be able to pull better results out of any given camera than someone that just sets it to "auto" and lets the camera make all decisions for them, but even the best photographer in the world would not be able to give you one decent shot in a truly challenging condition using a low quality camera.

A little common sense in this debate goes a long way to debunking the rantings of the very misleading Ken Rockwell and his weak sense of humor.


----------



## Iron Flatline

I like the second one better.


----------



## TamiyaGuy

I do see what you mean, although I can understand what Ken means as well. I suppose what Ken Rockwell meant to say was that the camera doesn't matter as much as people make it out to be; that lens choice and (much more importantly) experience make you a better photographer.

I suppose it's a bit like icing on a cake. If you take an awesome photo with a bad camera, it's like making a great cake with paraffin-flavoured icing. Sometimes you can scrape the icing off and it'll still taste nice, but sometimes it's buggered it up. A decent camera is the thing that tops it all off.


----------



## TUX424

They are exposing for two different things each camera is
D70s: Is Exposing for the sky so it underexposes the walkway by the pool
P&S: Is Exposing for the walkway so the sky in blown out
They need to be exposing for the same thing to make this test at all accurate


----------



## dcclark

TamiyaGuy said:


> I do see what you mean, although I can understand what Ken means as well. I suppose what Ken Rockwell meant to say was that the camera doesn't matter as much as people make it out to be; that lens choice and (much more importantly) experience make you a better photographer.
> 
> I suppose it's a bit like icing on a cake. If you take an awesome photo with a bad camera, it's like making a great cake with paraffin-flavoured icing. Sometimes you can scrape the icing off and it'll still taste nice, but sometimes it's buggered it up. A decent camera is the thing that tops it all off.



Exactly -- nobody's saying that all cameras are exactly equivalent, because that would be quite silly. Sometimes there are things you simply _cannot_ do with a P&S -- the OP's flickr stream has some good examples of that, too.

But in general, the idea is that the photographer is the major factor in how good a photo looks -- not his equipment.

I'm always amazed at the hostility that shows up with this topic... are people really so wedded to their equipment that they are unwilling to accept that it's not the whole story?


----------



## gsgary

Did you spot meter with the point and shoot ?, thats the problem you spot metered with the Nikon so user error


----------



## Joves

tirediron said:


> Don't mean to burst your bubble dude, but that ship sailed a long time ago!


 Actually I believe the ship came back from an around the world trip. Now it is going out again.


----------



## rufus5150

Is it this time of the month again?

Cramps, chocolate and Ken Rockwell discussions: they're almost like clockwork.


----------



## manaheim

Ken Rockwell Facts 

Contributed by liem, Epic|, Fufie, michel_v, neom, Wintre, Bas|k, lament, mattsteg__ and pal. 


Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography 
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. 
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers. 
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 ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one. 
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. 
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories 
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 
Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born 
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 
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine 
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d" 
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos 
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers. 
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 his silhouette 
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer 
A certain braind of hig-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


----------



## kundalini

^^  You forgot one there, Chris.  Much like the Queen, he doesn't come..... he arrives.

_(spelling exhibited for the masses) _


----------



## manaheim

hahah


----------



## Marc Kurth

rufus5150 said:


> Is it this time of the month again?
> Cramps, chocolate and Ken Rockwell discussions: they're almost like clockwork.



And all of the inherent grumpiness that seems to go with it


----------



## adolan20

"Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him."


Haha that's my favorite one!


----------



## goodoneian

i like reading ken rockwells stuff since he has "reviews" on almost every nikon lens, but i never really take any of it to heart.


----------



## lostprophet

Ken Rockwell said:
			
		

> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+4]*About    Me and My  Site*[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]*[SIZE=+3]Caveat Lector![/SIZE]* (reader beware!) [/FONT]​ [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.[/FONT]​ [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, *and a way for me to goof around*.[/FONT]​ [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, *I like to make things up and stretch the truth* if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, *it's all pretend*. *If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction*.[/FONT]​





[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]just a shame some people never seem to understand the above 
[/FONT]​About KenRockwell.com


----------



## Garbz

goodoneian said:


> i like reading ken rockwells stuff since he has "reviews" on almost every nikon lens, but i never really take any of it to heart.



This is good. You are one of us  It's the people who take his word as gospel and preach it on that should be banned from the internet, and unfortunately he's usually the number 1 google hit.


----------



## dcclark

Garbz said:


> This is good. You are one of us  It's the people who take his word as gospel and preach it on that should be banned from the internet, and unfortunately he's usually the number 1 google hit.



Then again, there are those of us who read his stuff, think about it, and realize that there's a kernel (or more) of really good ideas in there. Then we internalize it and use it to make good photos. It's equally ridiculous to claim that Ken is God or to claim that his advice is 100% worthless -- as with most things in life.


----------



## Garbz

Oh some of it is good. But some pages on his site a truly 100% worthless. I'm just upset because the people who can't sort the cheese from the chalk often take some really silly ideas of his site.


----------



## Mike_E

And after an interminable time listening to the griping you are reminded of a kid that's just found out about Santa Clause.


----------



## Battou

I don't like all this Ken Rockwell this Ken Rockwell that BS but....

Someone with an EXIF reader want to tell everyone what this was shot with
Straight out of the camera no processing





Bigger here

I already know what it was shot with but it sounds better comming from someone else. But I personally would be hard pressed to improve on that in any aria other than noise.

Additionally (My sister) the woman who took it is not a photographer in any respect, She would not know Photoshop from MSpaint.

Yes, I have permission to use it, if yall where wondering.

Conversely I don't believe a P-Shooter can do everything an SLR can do.

Seriously, People need to be less relyant on other people. Ken Rockwell this Ken Rockwell that...Bull, When someone sais "I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly." that means get up away from the computer and figure it out on your own.


----------



## JerryPH

That is the danger.  How is a newbie who knows little to nothing, able to differentiate between his (rare) good and (rampant) BS?  They cannot, and then they go around spouting this BS as exactly that... gospel.

Bottom line... KR, as a source of info, is completely unreliable.  They only people that have a chance of separating the wheat from the chaff are the ones that know what is BS on his site, and what is not... and therefore don't really need him in the first place.

I believe that he does more damage to the newbies than good.  Too bad for him, and twice as "too bad" for the newbies.

Battou, your EXIF data:
# Image Description = IM000444.JPG
# Camera Make = Hewlett-Packard
# Camera Model = Photosmart M305
# Picture Orientation = normal (1)
# X-Resolution = 72/1 = 72
# Y-Resolution = 72/1 = 72
# X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
# Software/Firmware Version = .06_NL
# Last Modified Date/Time = 2005:08:14 13:41:35
# Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)
# Copyright Owner = Copyright 2003-2004

But... it *really doesn't matter* who says what your EXIF shows, the picture, when compared to this ... as an example, shows things that no P&S will ever be able to do.  There is a reason we pay for the fast glass and fast cameras.  If there was no reason, we'd all be either chucking vast amounts of money out the window, or all be shooting with $50 cameras.

This is one terrible vicious circle that keeps going around and around.  If people think that they can do as well with P&S cameras as a good dSLR, go right on believing it.  I totally agree with you that people need to stop relying on KR as any form or reliable source.  That place, for a newbie... is so wrong on many levels.


----------



## Battou

JerryPH said:


> Battou, it doesn't matter what yours was shot with... becuase when compared to this ... as an example, shows things that no P&S will ever be able to do. There is a reason we pay for the fast glass and fast cameras. If there was no reason, we'd all be either chucking vast amounts of money out the window, or all be shooting with $50 cameras.



Well, I guess we dun figured that out on our own didn't we


----------



## JerryPH

Battou said:


> Well, I guess we dun figured that out on our own didn't we



We shoor dun did mah frend.


----------



## Battou

JerryPH said:


> We shoor dun did mah frend.





You cought me replying again too :lmao:


----------



## LWW

I went to his site to check this article out. Since there's no link in the OP I assume it is this --- > Your Camera Doesn't Matter article?

If so, I'm not sure what it is that you take issue with?

LWW


----------



## DScience

Garbz said:


> Please if you're going to test the validity of something then do it more scientifically. Identical frames, identical exposures, tripod.



It's interesting how you dis this guy and try and say he should be 'valid' when Ken, in his test, used a tripod for the expensive camera and not for the P&S. So, in essence Ken was not anymore scientific than the guy who posted this thread.


----------



## chip

If your camera does not matter, I wonder why should anybody read Ken Rockwell's many camera reviews? I means who cares which one to use or buy when the camera does not matter anyhow.


  If your camera does not matter, I wonder why does Ken Rockwell own more fancy cameras than most people? He may claim that he's only buying the cameras to review for us. Why doesn't he sell them as soon as he's done with his reviews?


If your camera does not matter, I wonder why he kept raving about his new $7000 Leica M9 body only when he could have bought a "true raw" 35mm disposal camera from WalMart for $7 with a lens?


  I think this guy is full of it. I read his articles with a grain of salt.


----------



## UUilliam

I CBA reading the rest of this forum... 
Basically What ken's experiment was
NOT setting 2 cameras to the same exposure setting, Even if you did this test with a Canon 500D and a Nikon D90 the results would be different...

The experiment was to EXPOSE ACCURATELY even if the camera was 5 stops lower then the P&S

At the end of the day, It was the final result he was comparing of 2 accurately exposed images
the reason ken doesn't use a large aperture in the test is cause P&S cannot shoot as quick as a DSLR so he used a middle Aperture 

not set 2 cameras to the EXACT SAME (which you haven't, Your EV on the compact may be different from the DSLR etc..) values
But expose the images correctly and compare the reuslts in terms of sharpness, Colour, bokeh etc...


----------



## Garbz

chip said:


> If your camera does not matter, I wonder why does Ken Rockwell own more fancy cameras than most people? He may claim that he's only buying the cameras to review for us. Why doesn't he sell them as soon as he's done with his reviews?



This one is easy. Either he's an idiot or he's in on the take from Nikon. He'll deny both but I'm sure both apply.



chip said:


> If your camera does not matter, I wonder why he kept raving about his new $7000 Leica M9 body only when he could have bought a "true raw" 35mm disposal camera from WalMart for $7 with a lens?



Because it's a Lecia man!



chip said:


> I think this guy is full of it. I read his articles with a grain of salt.


I agree but I simply gave up reading anything on his site.

Here's a question. Why did you resurrect this thread 6 months after it has died a well deserving death? Although thank you. I never did see DScience's response to my point. I am talking about scientific validity and he is bringing up how different the experiments were for both cameras. Good laugh.


----------



## Chris of Arabia

An old and long since dead thread. Start a new one if you really must.


----------

