# Ken Rockwells "best cameras"



## Solarflare (Oct 19, 2012)

Wasnt there at some point a complaint that Ken Rockwell has so many "best camera" ?

Well he explained it recently:



> *Where we stand*
> 
> Loads of new cameras came out in the past weeks, and have changed the pecking order.
> 
> ...


----------



## panblue (Oct 19, 2012)

...That clears THAT up then!...


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 19, 2012)

why do we care?  And this is coming from somebody who actually doesn't mind Ken Rockwell.  But really, why the heck does it matter which cameras Ken Rockwell thinks are best?


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 19, 2012)

Same reason why one would care any forum member thinks a camera ist best ?

Or Ming Thein, Steve Huff, Thom Hogan (also here) and a lot of photographers who dont have a blog or other kind of website.

In the end, it helps choosing your own camera, doesnt it ?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 19, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Same reason why one would care any forum member thinks a camera ist best ?
> 
> Or Ming Thein, Steve Huff, Thom Hogan (also here) and a lot of photographers who dont have a blog or other kind of website.
> 
> In the end, it helps choosing your own camera, doesnt it ?



well, I mean most people read those sites for IN DEPTH reviews.  Not just "I think this is the best of this type".  Knowing Ken Rockwell thinks something is the best is completely unhelpful to me.  I use teles a lot for sports, Ken doesn't shoot any sports and hates teles.  Ken's best cameras are sorta kinda, maybe useful if you shoot exactly like Ken.  The problem with Ken is he doesn't do a whole lot of explaining about what's good and bad with cameras.  It's just a bunch of attention grabbing headlines, that ultimately just point to what his opinions for the way he shoots are.  

For instance, I trust Sw1tchfx and Derrel's opinions on gear, but I'd never really pay attention if they made a list of 'best gear'.  But they don't.  They tend to list out the pros and the cons, which allows you to figure out how well the given piece of gear will fulfill your needs.  This 'best' list ken has doesn't do that at all.  

He lists the 5DIII as the best digital there is.  I don't know any sports shooters who think that.  They're either shooting the 1DX or the 7D canon side or the D4 or D300S Nikon side.  

Another issue is that it's impossible to decipher if he thinks that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX.  He calls the 5DIII the world's best digital camera, and the 1DX the world's best professional digital camera?


----------



## panblue (Oct 19, 2012)

I read KR's general articles on photography (Ken's philosophy, so to speak). Other than that, I would Google "item X + Rockwell" for reviews of what I see around, second-hand (lenses). For cameras, I'd look instead at DPReview or DXO etc.

On the whole, I think Ken's an asset to photography on the net and so is Hogan. His tendency to be erratic or contradictory is maybe a quirk of being both passionate and experienced, technician and artist. IMO, you'll get gems from Ken's website that you won't get anywhere else..and then there's also info that you'll want to get anywhere else, other than Ken's site 

The irony is..by the time you know enough to vet what KR has to say.. you probably don't need to listen to him anymore lol.!!


----------



## Buckster (Oct 19, 2012)

panblue said:


> The irony is..by the time you know enough to vet what KR has to say.. you probably don't need to listen to him anymore lol.!!


Which is exactly what makes him and his site useless.


----------



## Mully (Oct 19, 2012)

His lighting sucks... Sort of flamethrower style.


----------



## fmw (Oct 22, 2012)

The best camera is the camera that is in the hands of the best photographer.  A good photographer can make good images with any camera.  A poor photographer can't make good images with any camera.  I think the issue of a best camera is fairly nonsensical.


----------



## panblue (Oct 22, 2012)

Except the lens reviews.


Buckster said:


> panblue said:
> 
> 
> > The irony is..by the time you know enough to vet what KR has to say.. you probably don't need to listen to him anymore lol.!!
> ...


----------



## panblue (Oct 22, 2012)

The best camera is .. the one Kenneth has just bought (with his own money), just before he sells it on ebay.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2012)

panblue said:


> Except the lens reviews.
> 
> 
> Buckster said:
> ...


Plenty of reputable lens review sites render him and his site useless.


----------



## panblue (Oct 22, 2012)

What makes you regard his lens reviews as useless?



Buckster said:


> panblue said:
> 
> 
> > Except the lens reviews.
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Oct 22, 2012)

^^ i think the only part of his website that isn't useless is the aliens and supernatural stuff.

at least that's entertaining.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 22, 2012)

panblue said:


> What makes you regard his lens reviews as useless?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just spelled it out once, but here it is again, in different words: Other sites that are well respected and not full of crap information and self-aggrandizing egomaniacal crotch-grabbing have lens reviews well-covered already, so his site and views are superfluous, unnecessary, not needed, irrelevant, pointless.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 23, 2012)

panblue said:


> What makes you regard his lens reviews as useless?



Given several cases he's reviewed lenses he's never actually used you have to take everything on his site with a grain of salt. A review site which needs to be taken with a grain of salt is useless.


----------



## unpopular (Oct 23, 2012)

More like one of those new agey salt lamps but with a burned out lightbulb than a grain...


----------



## fmw (Oct 23, 2012)

He does make some sense though.  He obviously has a preference for rangefinder cameras and there is no doubt rangefinders have better optics, particularly at shorter focal lenghts.  It's hard to design a short lens that needs to leave room for a swinging mirror.  My very favorite lens back in the film days was the Leitz 21mm for the M series Leica rangefinders.  It was amazingly rectilinear and contrasty.  It was a noticeably better lens than the Nikkor 20 f3.5.  So I agree with him on that.  As to best camera, I couldn't care less.  I've always used what I liked and have never really had a bad one.  His opinions are no worse or better than mine or yours.


----------

