Proof of inferior optics

M

mfunnell

Shaken, so blurred
Local time
12:34 PM
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,595
I'd not come across Ken Rockwell's opinions regarding Konica RF lenses before.

I especially liked:

"Don't confuse this Konica lens for a second with a LEICA lens, even if it's a deliberate counterfeit in appearance. The fonts look dinky and the optics are inferior, if you're counting pixels."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/konica/hexar-rf/35mm-uc.htm

So I decided to illustrate the inferior optics like so:


A 100% unconverted, unsharpened crop of this:

[hand-held; shot casually at f4]

I apologise for the inferiority of the shots, but at least I now have proof that Mr Rockwell is, indeed, a super genius!

...Mike
 
btgc said:
I find it funny to respond to K.R.'s "essays" even if they contain a corn of truth.
Click to expand...
Quite so, but sometimes I feel small-minded, and so in need of small amusements.

...Mike
[and, of course, he has mouths to feed and so needs traffic driven to his web-site]
 
I must be dull witted this morning. What am I to conclude from this post? The fonts at the bottom, at 100% and unsharpened, don't look dinky to me at all. Of course, the red is not in the original B&W image, but...

I suspect this is humor directed against this person Rockwell. Am I completely out of the loop? BTW, I own a Hexar RF and, in my view it's a fine camera, with excellent optics.

So, go ahead, embarrass me.

HFL
 
hlockwood said:
I own a Hexar RF and, in my view it's a fine camera, with excellent optics.
Click to expand...
It is, indeed. I own two Hexar RFs (just in case one of them breaks; I wouldn't want to be without one) and four fine Konica RF lenses (including the one used to take the above photo). You might even note that the "signature" photo I use here on RFF is of a Hexar RF with M-Hexanon 35mm/f2 fitted.

My post, however, was aimed at The Mighty Ken (Google, or follow the links; he's not hard to find) motivated by a mild touch, perhaps, of pique while providing a true illustration of His Self-Appointed Brilliance, and taking an opportunity to abase myself before The Master. :angel:

...Mike
P.S. You might also note the Wikipedia article on the Hexar RF which I originated and where most of the text is still as I wrote it, as are the photos - which are of one of my cameras and three of my lenses. Ken obviously has a soft-spot for Konica cameras, along with their lenses. My favourite take-out "By comparison to either any LEICA or the Contax G2, this Konica is a crude contrivance." The Great Man is truly an unbiased and independent observer. Again by way of full disclosure, I have a Contax G2 - which I also like rather a lot, yet cannot see the obvious superiority noted by our internet Super-Genius. That, no doubt, is further illustration of my lack of taste. And for any who propose that I'm a "Leica-hater" I also own, enjoy and often use a Leica M3 and M type 240, along with a number of Leica lenses.
 
I have the lowly Konica C35, it has always amazed me. Both with it's fine optics, and how they could make them for the original price they charged. One of these genius physicist types that has worked in optics all his life told me that the lenses are important but that a solid mounting is more so. He said that is why zooms and AF lenses are not always as sharp as primes.

Here is some information about the camera he built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigapxl_Project

http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/24/the-gigapxl-project-images-of-up-to-four-billion-pixels/
 
Y'all know that Rockwell states over and over and over in his posts that lens sharpness has little or nothing to do with good photography. Even the quoted bit in the OP's post mentions "counting pixels" in a very definite pejorative tone.

I recommend everyone read his take on The Leica Man, it's hilarious. In the meantime, his writing/photography is keeping a roof over his and his family's heads in a pricey state like California. Not bad at all, and a damn site better than most of the breathless adulation given to anything-Leica by most of the self-proclaimed web critics out there.

Oh, he does breathless adulation too, also better than most: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

thanks!
s-a
 
semi-ambivalent said:
Y'all know that Rockwell states over and over and over in his posts that lens sharpness has little or nothing to do with good photography. Even the quoted bit in the OP's post mentions "counting pixels" in a very definite pejorative tone.

I recommend everyone read his take on The Leica Man, it's hilarious. In the meantime, his writing/photography is keeping a roof over his and his family's heads in a pricey state like California. Not bad at all, and a damn site better than most of the breathless adulation given to anything-Leica by most of the self-proclaimed web critics out there.

Oh, he does breathless adulation too, also better than most: http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3.htm

thanks!
s-a
Click to expand...

Oh, but he is absolutely dead on the money in that article. Its the rest where he gets a bit shaky. Particularly the Nikon articles.

(sarcasm alert) :D
 
Mike, do you even really disagree with him? You know that he says that the Konica 35/2 UC is better than any 35mm Leica have made ... except the ASPH.

Even the experts at the (infamous) RFF think it has barrel distortion: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120067

Ken's stock-in-trade is giving an "edge" to basic photography discussion. Sometimes you need to filter him closely to find the grains of truth mentioned earlier. Sometimes (as in the Hexar RF slamming) there's no grain to be found.

My greatest amusement with him has been his gradual, begrudging and pretending-its-not-happening move from a Canikon (well, Nikon) fan to a LeicaMan.
 
Scrambler said:
Mike, do you even really disagree with him?[...]

Ken's stock-in-trade is giving an "edge" to basic photography discussion. [...]
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. It depends. While I'll admit that I started this because my personal ox was gored, I also got a nasty whiff of something fairly "off" in his reasoning. Some examples found in about 15 minutes poking around his site:

"When you shoot a Contax G2, you'll always have Zeiss power shooting for you, You'll never be tempted by junk from Sigma, Voigtländer or Tamron."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/g2.htm]

"Don't confuse this Konica lens for a second with a LEICA lens, even if it's a deliberate counterfeit in appearance. The fonts look dinky and the optics are inferior, if you're counting pixels."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/konica/hexar-rf/35mm-uc.htm]

"By comparison to either any LEICA or the Contax G2, this Konica is a crude contrivance."
"Everything is a little cheaper and more crude than the Contax G2 from which most of it is copied."
"I was quite disappointed: the Japanese are great at copying, but sadly, the optical inferiority of all the Konica lenses I tried as compared to the genuine LEICA lenses is quite obvious if you're picky."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/konica/hexar-rf/]

"I'm offended. This lens is an outright copy of the LEICA SUMMICRON-M 50mm f/2, yet not a very good copy."
"If there's one thing the Japanese do well, it's copy other people's work."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/konica/hexar-rf/50mm.htm]

"This f/1.5 Zeiss lens is as good optically as LEICA's previous (1961-2004) 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX..."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/50mm-f15.htm]

"...this Voigtländer lens is great for use on the Zeiss Ikon, Leitz Minolta CLE and the nasty little Voigtländer bodies."
[http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/28mm-f2.htm]

"Fuji has made cameras for Hasselblad, and sold under the Hasselblad name, like the X-Pan."
[http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-pro1.htm]
Click to expand...
One might almost get the impression that these Japanese chappies are OK, but clearly inferior - Cosina Voigtländer, Sigma, Tamron, Konica - unless they're supervised by proper European types (preferably Germanic types from Germany itself or Sweden) - Cosina Voigtländer (but only when supervised by Zeiss), Kyocera (Contax), Fujifilm (Hasselblad).

But that can't be so, not in this day and age and not from someone who made his name, initially, by being the most over-the-top Nikon fan-boy on the interwebs.

Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive.

...Mike
 
mike, you better just get over it.
you might need a brain integrated "ignore" filter for the cases whenever the name Ken-or-Barbie-Rockwool occurrs.

;-)
 
If you guys don't stop this right here, I'll post an article expounding the virtues of the 43 mm filter thread! Yes, this is a threat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom