Rockwell goes Rangefinder!

[Ade-oh]

I know Ken Rockwell's website isn't necessarily to everyone's taste but personally I've found his digital camera reviews to be a breath of fresh air. Today, however, he's taking a look at the Nikon SP!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

 

[breathstealer]

He's not new to rangefinders, though. Way before he got his D3, his favorite camera was his Mamiya 6.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

It's a nice change indeed, although his website is usually full of inaccuracies or very personal opinions, as is the case here. If he had read Robert Rotoloni's book (which I am going through at this very moment), he would not state that the "S3 were lower-cost models which skipped some features". Robert Rotoloni states that the only difference of the S3 is the viewfinder, all other features are exactly the same as on the SP (see page 139). Obviously, that was reflected in the original sales price. So Ken is not completely incorrect, but as usual he simplifies things to such an extent that they are not a true representation either. As for describing external finders as "idiotic finders", I think this only shows a very profound misunderstanding of the finder concept, or maybe his inability to use one properly.

 

[Ronald_H]

'A breath of fresh air'

I'd rather inhale deeply at a sewage farm...

 

[gavinlg]

'A breath of fresh air'

I'd rather inhale deeply at a sewage farm...

Agreed. The guys a plum.

 

[kshapero]

I think his entertainment value far exceeds his knowledge.

 

[rogue_designer]

And he's a wanker.™

 

[jan normandale]

hmm , nice thread... what is this a dump on an easy / high profile target day? C'mon show some class and don't.

 

[kshapero]

I read Ken Rockwell everyday. There I just confessed.

 

[Hacker]

Typos also. He mentioned 153 instead of the 135 frameline.

 

[Pherdinand]

For some of us external finders ARE a pain in the arse.
Maybe you like them - i hate them, and find them anachronistic, if not idiotic.

Of course he put s a personal oppinion up on his own website. It's his website🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

"I ordered one for myself to help me sort these out. "

Obviously he admits not to understand/know all about these and expects to "sort these out" from the book.
I see nothing wrong with the half page he wrote.

U guys are a bit too harsh on him🙂

 

[usagisakana]

meh, people rubbish him, but as long as you look at his writing more like a blog than a factual source of information then it can be entertaining. I've actually learnt a lot by reading his site, because he touches on a lot of interesting topics- then researching them elsewhere lets me find more concrete sources of information.

 

[sienarot]

I think his entertainment value far exceeds his knowledge.

That's probably true, but it's not saying much. I don't find him entertaining at all.

 

[photogdave]

Everything he says about computers and color calibration is spot on. Anything he says about making a photograph (ie. image stabilizers can replace your tripod, shooting RAW is a waste of time, third party lenses don't work properly on your camera) is a joke.
I think his photos are terrible but other people seem to like them as he's always claiming to win contests.
I look at his site a few times a week.

 

[Nh3]

Ken Rockwell has devised a theory of photographer hierarchy. According to him there are seven levels of photography and I won't be surprised that by going RF his planning to reach the seventh level. 🙂

If you don't believe me, click here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

 

[jan normandale]

Actually if you take the "Seven Levels" as the joke it's intended to be it's kind of amusing because there's some small grain of truth to it. Not a lot but some ;- )

 

[Pherdinand]

i found that funny🙂

 

[Al Patterson]

I think his entertainment value far exceeds his knowledge.

I agree. A lot of people dislike him, but we all know who he is. So maybe he's acccomplished something?

 

[cmogi10]

I found that funny too

Thanks 🙂