Steve Huff's Reviews - The Anti-Ken Rockwell? :)

semilog said:
And for all their detail (and the obvious and vast amount of effort they entail), Reid's reviews have not actually helped me get the right gear for my work in any meaningful way. I let my subscription lapse and don't miss it.
Click to expand...

Me, I am just the opposite. I have found Reid's equipment insights extremely useful and they have influenced my purchases in a useful way (one, in fact, I made last week). However, the real value value in his site for me is his thoughts and observations on the art of photography. Those articles are worth the price of subscription alone. For me, anyway.
 
I know that there are a few out there who, for whatever inexplicable reason, just don't like Rockwell. Precious petals! Rockwell knows what he's talking about. Obviously, whether deliberately or not, he presses people's buttons. If you let him do that, it is really your problem. Like everything else you read on the net, you gotta have your old noggin' screwed on.
 
i really like Ken Rockwell.To the point, easy to read, informative and opinionated.Steve Huff sometimes finds fault where none, in a make he doesn't use/own. A certain camera/ lens comparison a case in point. The "poorer" camera/ lens actually recorded powerlines in background, where as the super priced one didn't..Steve ignored my observation.
Erwin Puts is superb. is tests often way above my head. Definitely worth reading. The complaint about his English, like mine, influenced, by similar languages..Well Oh!
Reichman lost all credibility when he chose to "ignore", "bury" and hide the magenta issue on the M8. I saw my magenta issue on an inexpensive Kodak camera immediately... The colors though can be stunning. On good days..
Strangely only now with release of newer Leica M digital cameras, do we hear about poor White Balance and need to adjust each frame in RAW. Only Ken made that observation.. He also proved how much nicer film can be.
At a recent Nikon Photographer slide show, a few photos stood right out from the superb action, sharp as razor blades.These were shot on film..
I love both film and digital. Each has it's own merits, as do different testers.
icon10.gif
 
kbg32 said:
Huff is definitely more likeable, but I always feel, that to get something published on his blog, one has to stroke his, ...er....em.. ego, quite a bit.
Click to expand...

....like them TV evangelists.
.
.
add Sean Reid to that list...he wants money.
 
Reid's reviews have not actually helped me get the right gear for my work in any meaningful way. I let my subscription lapse and don't miss it.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing with Reids reviews is that quite alot of people dont. Long before the M9 came out many were pitching his site encouraging others to sign up to read his lens reviews. What I took exception too was that little emphasis was being placed by him and others doing the encouraging to join was that his lens reviews were being done on M8's and RD-1s. His reviews were more about what lenses work well on those particular cameras (with crop factors) rather than a complete overview of a particular lens but people were coming away saying this lens or that was good or bad when in fact the lenses were great. Quite a number of film people joined not realizing and took his conclusions as gospel. Even today a review he did with a M8 has no great relevance to a M9 user as we have seen lenses react vastly different between 2 cameras from the same Leica stable. With the manner in which M mount lenses react to certain digital sensors being mounted so close, unless the review is with the camera you specifically own then you may be writing off a lens that would be great for you. I have seen people even on this forum slag off a lens based on a Reid review when it would be a great lens on any other camera. I believe this point is purposely omitted so the unwitting get caught for a subscription.

It is free. These two guys offer their opinion, I mean free, you do not have to pay to review their post, what are you looking for from free review?
Click to expand...

Yes I do get perplexed why people really jump on Ken Rockwell when its free. He even makes the caveat that it is his opinion and loves stirring the pot a bit if you read the fine print on his site. He gets enthusiastic about something and prefers something different when something new and better comes out but its just free jibe on the net. If anything he has highlighted negative points of certain products I hadnt considered myself and got me started to research the truth of it. That was helpful and dare I say it, free. You have to take everything with a grain of salt. I have seen the opinions of some reviewers treated with almost reverence yet their reviews are appallingly thin on actual information. At least Ken tells you up front to not take his opinions too seriously but to his credit he does often say this lens is good on one camera but crap on another. Not many do that.

I always used to wonder if Erwin and Dr Walter Mandler didnt like each other because none of his lenses ever seems worthy of the Leica name. It took me ages, reading many of his side comments and articles to make me realize Erwin has an anti Elcan bias. So dont think even a bought and published review dont have their little slants either. (But there is something about the Leica brand that brings out some bias in us all, I have no idea why. I often see terms like a "Leica Apologist" or a "Leica Hater" for those that always cover for the brand and the latter for anyone, even 20 year users, if they ever dare critisize the brand on anything. I dont see that often with the other brands so its something Leica elicits. :confused:)

I agree with what someone earlier in this post said the best reviewers are here on RFF. Over time you get to learn who uses the same cameras and style that you do and their advice is more valuable than any review. For example If I wanted to know if a 40mm RF Sonnar worked well with a Fuji X then I would be sure to listen intently to what Joe (Backalley) had to say.
 
Ya know.. I really only started this conversation because of an observation and nothing more but I see a lot of folks actually appreciate the "reviews" that are done right here.

Is there (or could there be) a "Reviews" forum? (not like we don't have enough forums to begin with and I'm not the Head Bartender or a mod... so it's just a suggestion at best right now). Joe does have his "All In The Bag" forum... which covers off Bags (accessories?) but what about lenses?

Just a curiosity now.

Cheers,
Dave
 
I ad Reid reviews for a while till I tried some lenses he reccomended and hated them. Huff likes everything so I trust very little of what he says. Rockwell I can laugh with. if you want to know how a lens is buy it from a place that allows you to return it and try it for your self.
 
I give credit to Ken and Steve for spending their time to review without subscription. Of course they need to support their family so buy from their sponsors. Not bad I would say sometimes it helps as a heads-up for availability info as well.
 
IMHO:

Reid is for extensive information. (= The 7 O'Clock News, BBC)
Huff is for great nice-to-read overviews (and interesting user-reviews!). (= Liquid News, BBC)
Rockwell is for entertainment. (= Not the Nine O'Clock News, BBC)


;)
 
i think they're both useless for anything more than entertainment. neither of them have taken photos that i particularly like, and they both seem to spend way more time talking about photography than doing photography.

which is not a problem really, but i do feel like they've basically just successfully captured the market and are using the money they get from that success to buy more gear and quit their day jobs..!
 
semilog said:
Rockwell is trained as an engineer and although he writes with a great deal of bluster, his technical opinions are generally quite sound. Read his reviews of audio equipment or older Nikon gear. He really does know his stuff, even if his style can be breathless and off-putting.

On the qualitative side he has opinions, too many of them, and they sometimes are not consistent.
Click to expand...

I never said the man was an idiot. I'm saying:

• He hasn't made a photograph that i admire. I don't take advice on gear from people who haven't used that gear to create something i admire or respect. That would be like having a guy who drives a Porsche only to get the groceries advising me on which car to buy for track day. And Audio Equipment? There's so much black magic and hoodoo in that industry that it's almost embarrassing to call oneself an audiophile.

• He writes that his own writing should not be trusted:
"I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.... like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke.... I have the... sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun...."

Some people don't require that the internet hold itself to journalistic standards. Here's an example of one of those people. If he wants to treat his audience to this manner of 'humor,' i see no reason to validate it for any other purpose.
 
I like the fact that during the last 10 years when it was oh so tres cool to mock Ken, he keeps right on doing what he's doing just the same. Also, his opinions on Nikon lenses that I've owned line up with my experiences. What else do I want from the guy? Wipe my little nose for me?
 
HI,

Baffled or intrigued by this thread I've just picked at random and read KKR's review of the Leica 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. You'll find it here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/90mm-f28-tele.htm

and I'd love to know what people find so objectionable about it.

OK, he gives his opinion of it but that's what a review is and he tells you in his own words with a few useful and practical asides about prices, lens caps and hoods. So why all the fuss?

Or is it because he asks for a donation? So he'd like to be paid for his work. Oh the horror...

Regards, David

PS It's also interesting that a lot of people don't like KR giving his opinions and, as that's their opinion, I wonder what to make of it if all opinions are bad.
 
I started reading Steve's reviews a month or two ago but haven't gotten much out of them. They're unfocused and too wordy for me - I feel like telling the guy to go easy on the coffee. I do prefer his real-world shots to Ken's neverending palm trees, though Ken's opinions often fall in line with my own. I think there are far more similarities between them than there are differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom