btgc
Veteran
I wonder if people really want entertainment reading (which are discussed here) to look like scientific tests (which they aren't) ?
Steve Huff's Reviews - The Anti-Ken Rockwell? :)
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 88
- Views 15K
furbs
Well-known
Nothing wrong with finding entertainment (even humor!) in a more analytical style - some of us take ours with cream and sugar, others black. And some have both, even in the same day!
nikkor-watching
Established
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Everybody has an opinion on Ken, but if you're into Canon or Nikon he's an entertaining stop when you're reading around. He says exactly what he likes and it seems good enough to fund his site through click-through sales. Just when you think he's gushing too much he throws in some casual deprecation, calling some of the handling "retarded" or "idiotic" and saying the other manufacturer does it properly. Do people seriously think a manufacturer would pay someone to write things like this?: "[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The final image quality is almost indistinguishable from the other Canon cameras, so don't worry if you can't swing a 40D.The final results will be the same; it just not quite as much fun with the older cameras."[/FONT]
shootar401
Unregistred User
Reid is useless - the only good thing is someone has mirrored his site and are making his review available for free so I don't have to pay.
Huff is also useless, does he ever review something that he doesn't like?
As much as I dislike Rockwell he reviews are the most fair, and if he doesn't like something he tell you, and usually why.
But really, when I look for a gear review I usually check the forums first and get some info from people who own it and have used it for a while and know the in's and out's.
Huff is also useless, does he ever review something that he doesn't like?
As much as I dislike Rockwell he reviews are the most fair, and if he doesn't like something he tell you, and usually why.
But really, when I look for a gear review I usually check the forums first and get some info from people who own it and have used it for a while and know the in's and out's.
Eastwestphoto
Member
Rockwell reviews on adapting old lenses
Rockwell reviews on adapting old lenses
While Ken Rockwell is a fine writer and covers most techniques of using a 50 year old manual lens on a modern digital camera; I noticed glaring mistakes in biased data. Since old film stock was NOT high resolution, lens makers countered the weakness with some really high resolution lens in the center of the field. I do mean very high, add to that a awesome 12 blade aperture or more and use this old lens on a smaller than full frame chip and you are getting the ultra center specs, 2x, or 1.5x, depending; on m4/3 or aps-C. These old lenses, if there clean, are much better than modern lenses in the center resolution lines/mm. Rangefinder lenses with the short back focus being the ideal lens, or Cmt. lenses. Ken seems to ignore this optical specification entirely and remark about color shifting. Old german made Rangefinder lenses are generally blue shifted due to the Purplish coatings. Put a 85c filter on & my testing reveals photos that look like Kodachrome l slides, stunning sharpness, stunning Boken, beautiful colors, what the heck is Rockwell smoking? I see a conspiracy of reviewers favoring modern just out lenses and cameras for sales reasons, Not photo image making reasons. Regards, Don@Eastwestphoto
Rockwell reviews on adapting old lenses
While Ken Rockwell is a fine writer and covers most techniques of using a 50 year old manual lens on a modern digital camera; I noticed glaring mistakes in biased data. Since old film stock was NOT high resolution, lens makers countered the weakness with some really high resolution lens in the center of the field. I do mean very high, add to that a awesome 12 blade aperture or more and use this old lens on a smaller than full frame chip and you are getting the ultra center specs, 2x, or 1.5x, depending; on m4/3 or aps-C. These old lenses, if there clean, are much better than modern lenses in the center resolution lines/mm. Rangefinder lenses with the short back focus being the ideal lens, or Cmt. lenses. Ken seems to ignore this optical specification entirely and remark about color shifting. Old german made Rangefinder lenses are generally blue shifted due to the Purplish coatings. Put a 85c filter on & my testing reveals photos that look like Kodachrome l slides, stunning sharpness, stunning Boken, beautiful colors, what the heck is Rockwell smoking? I see a conspiracy of reviewers favoring modern just out lenses and cameras for sales reasons, Not photo image making reasons. Regards, Don@Eastwestphoto
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have no opinion on KR ... I don't read his site regularly.
I do read Steve Huff's stuff now and then: his reviews are mostly too silly to be of any real value, but he's entertaining.
Sean Reid's reviews might be useful if I could tolerate the stupid way he'd tried to lock them down so nothing can be stolen from him. I can't deal with the access, don't want to deal with someone who trusts his customers so little.
DPR's reviews are generally pretty good on specs and show good photos of the gear. The opinions are worth whatever opinions are usually worth (not much in my book).
When it comes to evaluating what to buy, I rely on creditable people I know in various forums to comment about what they've bought and used, the manufacturers' specs and instruction manuals, and going to the store to try a product out (when possible). If I'm interested, I buy and do a thorough evaluation of my own. If I immediately don't like something enough, I return it for a refund. If I like it enough to use it for a while, and then realize it isn't for me, I sell it on Ebay and get most of my money back.
I find this is the best way, for me, to know that what I've bought actually serves me well. All the online reviews are for minimal information gathering and some entertainment purposes, ultimately.
G
I do read Steve Huff's stuff now and then: his reviews are mostly too silly to be of any real value, but he's entertaining.
Sean Reid's reviews might be useful if I could tolerate the stupid way he'd tried to lock them down so nothing can be stolen from him. I can't deal with the access, don't want to deal with someone who trusts his customers so little.
DPR's reviews are generally pretty good on specs and show good photos of the gear. The opinions are worth whatever opinions are usually worth (not much in my book).
When it comes to evaluating what to buy, I rely on creditable people I know in various forums to comment about what they've bought and used, the manufacturers' specs and instruction manuals, and going to the store to try a product out (when possible). If I'm interested, I buy and do a thorough evaluation of my own. If I immediately don't like something enough, I return it for a refund. If I like it enough to use it for a while, and then realize it isn't for me, I sell it on Ebay and get most of my money back.
I find this is the best way, for me, to know that what I've bought actually serves me well. All the online reviews are for minimal information gathering and some entertainment purposes, ultimately.
G
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I'd say KR tells you how to use old cameras and old lenses with film and the joy of it, but that's just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
I'd say KR tells you how to use old cameras and old lenses with film and the joy of it, but that's just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Having discovered Ming Thein recently in the fist part of January this year, I tend to read his thoughts first on gear. Likewise, I do like Reid and Huff and even Rockwell!
But I'd really rather read Thein on most things.
But I'd really rather read Thein on most things.
Huss
Veteran
Personally I have found our own Head Bartender's reviews of old gear on his site (cameraquest.com) entertaining and invaluable.
For real reviews of modern equipment, read the comments on fredmiranda.com
Many of those guys (most?) are pros who need their equipment to make their living.
Not 'reviewing' equipment to make a living. Big difference and guess who you should trust?
For real reviews of modern equipment, read the comments on fredmiranda.com
Many of those guys (most?) are pros who need their equipment to make their living.
Not 'reviewing' equipment to make a living. Big difference and guess who you should trust?
Similar threads
