CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I continue to be surprised by the volume of people who consider Rockwell to be an 'authority' on anything. What qualifies his opinions? It's one thing to find specs on his site, but lending credence to his assessments seems idiotic. Can someone show me instances of his photography that might lead one to believe his opinions matter? I've never seen an interesting image from him. Secondly, he professes, on his site, that some of what he writes isn't even true.
Huff, on the other hand, wears his allegiances on his sleeve. His biases are borne of genuine enthusiasm. While that doesn't make him objective, at least you know from the beginning that he's just a guy who loves gear and wants to share his experiences. Good natured bias is fine by me, even though it sometimes gets annoying. As the OP says, he's more like a friend who might bother you with his constant fandom, but hey, we all have our 'things.'
Huff, on the other hand, wears his allegiances on his sleeve. His biases are borne of genuine enthusiasm. While that doesn't make him objective, at least you know from the beginning that he's just a guy who loves gear and wants to share his experiences. Good natured bias is fine by me, even though it sometimes gets annoying. As the OP says, he's more like a friend who might bother you with his constant fandom, but hey, we all have our 'things.'
Vobluda
Well-known
Haf has a better marketing, he caught it much better then Rockwell with the mirrorless and M new coming after 9.9.1999.
Rockwell missed it and stayed way to long with the DSLR.
Also Haf has positioned himself at the market as a "pal", while Rockewll is a "teacher".
I guess that those days on few internet freaks like them you could do at least a bachelor thesis in marketing.
I am curious about their www monthly turnover. I guess that Rockwells has to go down once when the Haf showed up.
Rockwell missed it and stayed way to long with the DSLR.
Also Haf has positioned himself at the market as a "pal", while Rockewll is a "teacher".
I guess that those days on few internet freaks like them you could do at least a bachelor thesis in marketing.
I am curious about their www monthly turnover. I guess that Rockwells has to go down once when the Haf showed up.
GaryLH
Veteran
One of the things that actually attracts me to Huff's site is it s not just him posting on his blog... He posts blog entries from other people. Some good, some soso.. But it lends variety...
Anyway it really is just another form of entertainment for me.
Gary
Anyway it really is just another form of entertainment for me.
Gary
aizan
Veteran
while they both express attitudes that appeal to different audiences, neither of them say anything particularly useful.
gear reviews at the online photographer, luminous landscape, reid reviews, bythom, diglloyd, and so on have a lot more traction with me.
gear reviews at the online photographer, luminous landscape, reid reviews, bythom, diglloyd, and so on have a lot more traction with me.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
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.
Huff never met a piece of gear that he didn't like, and much of his review equipment is from the manufacturers. I have no use for that sort of soft boosterism. His site is totally useless to me.
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.
lcpr
Well-known
They're both the same to me, huge sites with a lot of useful info amongst all the fluff and referral links. Rockwell's writing style is much clearer and concise though.
GaryLH
Veteran
The only ones that have traction past entertainment value are the blogs of working photographers for me. If they have an issue w/ a price of equipment, then for me it an issue that will make me think about it more then someone who is just out there blogging.
Gary
Gary
aizan
Veteran
not even his lens reviews?
Monochrom
Well-known
Both
Both
Hi, i like both reviewers...they have different styles but to me both are very useful...
I regret rockweel for not having the day to day reviews huff does...so hope ken rockwell make more reviews...i´d love to see his reviews on the dp merrill series...
Both
Hi, i like both reviewers...they have different styles but to me both are very useful...
I regret rockweel for not having the day to day reviews huff does...so hope ken rockwell make more reviews...i´d love to see his reviews on the dp merrill series...
Vobluda
Well-known
Same as for example McDonalds - you payed for the meal and you do their job when you are putting away the tray after you finish your meal (same model can be found in other businesses as well, not only fastfood).
That is an excellent business move from Huf - he is getting payed this way without doing the work.
That is an excellent business move from Huf - he is getting payed this way without doing the work.
ellisson
Well-known
I think Rockwell does a good job in his reviews. They have been helpful to me over the years.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
All the "reviews" I've read on-line are more entertainment than information. Who's style you like more, and what quirks and foibles they have, are the more important parts of why one might read their stuff other than for the specs and pretty pictures.
- Reid's idiotic subscription-only, firewalling, and "flash text display only" horror puts him on my "not worth the trouble" list.
- Ken's blowhard status, reviews of products he's only ever seen a picture of, etc put him on my "total waste of time" list.
- Steve's 'friendly and excitable labrador retriever' style is occasionally amusing. I read his stuff when he has something interesting to say.
- Ming Thein's "I'm a professional therefore I know what is right and what isn't" style is occasionally too abrasive to be bothered with. Fer pete's sake, he's been a pro for fewer years than I've owned half of my cameras. He's at best a talented journeyman photographer. But I do like some of his blog posts, he at least tries to be honest and informative.
There are others out there whom I do enjoy reading:
- David duChemin writes well and talks about photography.
- Brooks Jensen is prolific, writes well, and talks about photography and the creative life.
- Kirk Tuck writes well and recently stopped talking so much about equipment, talks more about his work as a photographer and the joys/travails of being in the business. His blog has improved a hundred percent since he did that.
I've never found equipment reviews to be of much value, neither on-line nor in magazines. The only way I get to know and evaluate a piece of equipment is to use it to do what I have in mind. I read reviews, any reviews, for the specifications when I'm researching something. Whatever the reviewer's opinions might be, they're mostly just entertainment to me. I'm much more likely to believe what the people in my photo workshops have to say when they buy and use a piece of equipment than anything I read on line.
So someone is inevitably going to ask, "So how do you figure out what you should buy? I don't have a lot of money to spend and make a mistake."
Simple: First off, I don't really need to buy much anyway. I have way more equipment than I need or use. Second, I talk to other people who have used the equipment I'm interested in to hear what they have to say about it. I download and read the manuals. Then I buy what I think will work, and work with it until I'm either sure it's exactly what I need or not. If not, I sell it and move on, recouping 70-90% of what it costs. That's the price of education.
G
- Reid's idiotic subscription-only, firewalling, and "flash text display only" horror puts him on my "not worth the trouble" list.
- Ken's blowhard status, reviews of products he's only ever seen a picture of, etc put him on my "total waste of time" list.
- Steve's 'friendly and excitable labrador retriever' style is occasionally amusing. I read his stuff when he has something interesting to say.
- Ming Thein's "I'm a professional therefore I know what is right and what isn't" style is occasionally too abrasive to be bothered with. Fer pete's sake, he's been a pro for fewer years than I've owned half of my cameras. He's at best a talented journeyman photographer. But I do like some of his blog posts, he at least tries to be honest and informative.
There are others out there whom I do enjoy reading:
- David duChemin writes well and talks about photography.
- Brooks Jensen is prolific, writes well, and talks about photography and the creative life.
- Kirk Tuck writes well and recently stopped talking so much about equipment, talks more about his work as a photographer and the joys/travails of being in the business. His blog has improved a hundred percent since he did that.
I've never found equipment reviews to be of much value, neither on-line nor in magazines. The only way I get to know and evaluate a piece of equipment is to use it to do what I have in mind. I read reviews, any reviews, for the specifications when I'm researching something. Whatever the reviewer's opinions might be, they're mostly just entertainment to me. I'm much more likely to believe what the people in my photo workshops have to say when they buy and use a piece of equipment than anything I read on line.
So someone is inevitably going to ask, "So how do you figure out what you should buy? I don't have a lot of money to spend and make a mistake."
Simple: First off, I don't really need to buy much anyway. I have way more equipment than I need or use. Second, I talk to other people who have used the equipment I'm interested in to hear what they have to say about it. I download and read the manuals. Then I buy what I think will work, and work with it until I'm either sure it's exactly what I need or not. If not, I sell it and move on, recouping 70-90% of what it costs. That's the price of education.
G
Platinum RF
Well-known
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?
Prest_400
Multiformat
Both for me are a form of entretainment. Nowadays even more so as I've got all the gear I could want (except some 120 RF that aren't casually reviewed anymore 
)
As of Steve, I liked his site orientation more a year ago or so. Nowadays I find it almost all gear oriented. Seems to me.
Knew Ken at the dawn of my photography hobby, back in 2008. Steve from reading around.
Agreed.
Infact, he is the reason/trigger of why I started shooting film. He was quite enthusiastic about it back in '08 and I had an old Nikon AF SLR...
I tried the advice and there I am, with a film obsession inside me.
Newbies should take care of his opinions. It's quite easy to be sucked into following him! (especially as a curious teen)
I like sites that write about photography.
)As of Steve, I liked his site orientation more a year ago or so. Nowadays I find it almost all gear oriented. Seems to me.
Knew Ken at the dawn of my photography hobby, back in 2008. Steve from reading around.
Agreed.
Infact, he is the reason/trigger of why I started shooting film. He was quite enthusiastic about it back in '08 and I had an old Nikon AF SLR...
I tried the advice and there I am, with a film obsession inside me.
Newbies should take care of his opinions. It's quite easy to be sucked into following him! (especially as a curious teen)
Nice to see some unknown names to me. Checked out David's site and seems really interesting. Kirk's an usual in my visit list, knew him from Mike Johnston's TOP, interesting blog as well.
I like sites that write about photography.
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Especially not his (Reid's) lens reviews.
It's odd. There's nothing really off about Reid's conclusions and he is genuinely scrupulous and careful.
But I've bought three lenses based on what I thought I'd learned on his site, and sold or will sell them all. Not one was a keeper. Lesson: there is simply no substitute for actually getting a camera or lens and using it for a while.
So -- speaking solely for my quirky ol' self -- subscribing to Reid's site was a less-than-sum-of-parts experience. Just my $0.02. I can see how many other folks would find his reviews enormously useful.
I also loathed reading the reviews-as-delivered in their flash-formatted form. I understand why he feels that he needs to copy-protect his stuff, but as a paying customer I don't much enjoy being treated as a criminal.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One site I've found enormously useful over the years, and almost always spot-on:
http://dantestella.com/technical.html
http://dantestella.com/technical.html
jackbaty
Established
Rockwell's "reviews" are seemingly based on his mood at the time, but they usually contain enough useful information to be worth the effort.
And he should always be taken with a bit of salt. The following used to be on his "About" page:
And he should always be taken with a bit of salt. The following used to be on his "About" page:
DougK
This space left blank
Indeed. I bought a Fuji GA645i after reading his write-up because I really got a sense of what it was like in real-world usage. It doesn't hurt that he's a good writer, either.
aizan
Veteran
sometimes it seems like he's just playing devil's advocate, but dante is the bee's knees.
tomtofa
Well-known
This is about the closest you can get to what his locked reviews are like:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/fastlensreview.shtml
From a few years ago, but most of the lenses still exist ;-)