Ken Rockwell has gone gaga!

Steve M. said:
Ken gets paid money every time someone posts one of these threads and sends web traffic his way. He's probably bought a new car by now from all the help from this site and photo.net alone.
Click to expand...

How does that work, eh? I've had sites with affiliate ads. No one ever paid me for an incoming referral. I got paid -- a pittance -- when someone clicked through on one of my ads and actually bought something.
 
Double Negative said:
Hey, I'm just getting a kick out of his dramatic style - concerning the comparison of RF and SLR lenses. He shows a VC 4/21 and a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. Besides the fact that the lens on the left is a prime and the one on the right is a zoom... And the prime is also one of the smallest RF lenses available... Basically two extremes!

Don't compare, say, just two primes or anything. Or a more typical M lens.

He's just funny, in a Steve-O sort of way. ;)
Click to expand...


At the risk of being seen as a Rockwell agent (I'm not, really), I will say that almost everyone who shoots with a DSLR will use a zoom like that Canon to get to 21mm. Ditto 35mm and 40mm. As a dramatic way to illustrate the difference in lens size between lenses usually found on rangefinders and lenses usually found on DSLR's, it works, especially when the target audience is all those DSLR owners. Rockwell was writing to convince them, not us RF types.

The RF vs. DSLR size difference is exactly what attracted me to RF's in the first place, and it is what keeps me shooting film.
 
wgerrard said:
...
The RF vs. DSLR size difference is exactly what attracted me to RF's in the first place, and it is what keeps me shooting film.
Click to expand...

Ditto. When I got my first RF lens (50mm summicron) I was blown away at how small it was compared with my Canon AF lenses, and my Nikon MF lenses. It was eye opening, and awesome!
 
Just for yucks, I checked his domain in a few of the on-line domain value calculators (which I think are BS). Try it - it's amusing!

One site claimed his domain was worth $127, another $4.93 million. Har!
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I dunno. I think Keith should offer himself up to do Leica commercials as the "Leica Man." The rugged exterior. The leather Barmah. Surrounded by heavy metal. MIG welder in one hand, M9 with Noctilux .95 in the other. Commercials would have to be shot in Oz, of course. That much testosterone and heavy metal should sell a million M9s.

And, Keith, of course, gets to keep the props. :angel:
Click to expand...

OMG!!! Mad Max. When all the cameras of the world are dead the M9 will go on and on... :)

KR is fun. I read his site for entertainment. What I really like is his "real size of lens" photographs. I can hold my M6 against the screen and see how compact the kit would be. :rolleyes:
 
I read his articles from time to time when regarding old SLR gear (I still use Canon FD mount) and have no immediate objections.

Regarding his new stance on Leica--how is this a bad thing? If it helps Leica get 1 more sale that's an improvement, who cares if Ken Rockwell gets a kickback (or doesn't). I know that if I get a m9 it won't be for several years at the very least, and a great number of us here aren't in the market for brand new Leica gear due to feasibility and other reasons, so aything that could potentially give Leica revenue (and push their new products) is a good thing in my opinion, as it gives Leica the money that I can't, in hopes that in several years when this currently brand new gear becomes old I might be in the market for it and be able to pick them up 2nd, 3rd, or 4th hand.

The M9 and X1 announce was a big deal to us, since we follow Leica pretty closely, but realize to a lot of people (the majority of people) Leica's achievement was completely off the radar.
 
Ken should start sending kickbacks to all his affiliates that keep these threads alive, as this is driving tons of traffic to his site. :)
 
Strictly speaking, affiliate ads don't generate kickbacks. All that happens is that you insert a unique ID in the link so the vendor can identify the site that generated the referral. In my own experience, the payoff from Amazon on books is a very few pennies on the dollar.

Affiliate ads are a common and very widespread practice. Rockwell's "help support my family' pitch might annoy some, but, in fact, it is considered good blogging behavior to make your use of affiliate ads quite obvious. There are more than a few sites that collect affiliate fees and do not disclose that.

FWIW, Amazon is cutting off affiliate ads for sites located in states that actually do collect state sales tax on online transactions.

Whether or not the lure of affiliate fees tempts bloggers to skew their reviews and recommendations is an open question. Personally, I think the fees are too small to prompt much prevarication. The real threat to the integrity of online reviews comes from actual kickbacks to bloggers in pre-arranged deals with sellers and manufacturers. E.g., ship someone a $3000 inkjet for review with the understanding that the reviewer need never return it. It happens.
 
maybe we can bump his site out of the way and supplant rff when one googles his name?

come on everyone! ken rockwell, ken rockwell, ken rockwell!
 
I'm afraid I'm going to come down on Ken's side in this discussion. I think he provides very nice and comprehensive reviews, often of traditional photographic equipment, some of which has been long out-of-production. We need this since it no longer happens in the commercial photographic press.
 
My comment was in jest. :) Ken makes statements that generate threads, which generate more traffic to his site, which generate more threads. It's part of his scheme. He's very good at what he does. :)

wgerrard said:
Strictly speaking, affiliate ads don't generate kickbacks. All that happens is that you insert a unique ID in the link so the vendor can identify the site that generated the referral. In my own experience, the payoff from Amazon on books is a very few pennies on the dollar.

Affiliate ads are a common and very widespread practice. Rockwell's "help support my family' pitch might annoy some, but, in fact, it is considered good blogging behavior to make your use of affiliate ads quite obvious. There are more than a few sites that collect affiliate fees and do not disclose that.

FWIW, Amazon is cutting off affiliate ads for sites located in states that actually do collect state sales tax on online transactions.

Whether or not the lure of affiliate fees tempts bloggers to skew their reviews and recommendations is an open question. Personally, I think the fees are too small to prompt much prevarication. The real threat to the integrity of online reviews comes from actual kickbacks to bloggers in pre-arranged deals with sellers and manufacturers. E.g., ship someone a $3000 inkjet for review with the understanding that the reviewer need never return it. It happens.
Click to expand...
 
People reading and contributing to RFF are mostly experienced photographers. Think about those millions and millions of people who get their very first DSLR in their hot hands - and who know absolutely nothing about how to use their new toy. So they'll google "Nikon D40" and wha-la, there you are, the first meaningful site they'll find is Mr. KR's.

I heard that his site has ~100.000 unique visitors per day. That's a good number for a camera specific site.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom