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

I have the exact opposite experience on his lenses reviews, he is quite spot on for the lens I've used, not to mention that he seems to be a rather nice person from his writing and not egoistic, unlike many reviewers out there. The flash site? Not my favorite...

Another particular helpful reviewer is a frequent poster on another forum:

http://admiringlight.com/blog/


semilog said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
To me this is like asking, do you think Andy Kauffman or Hulk Hogan is the better wrestler? Sometimes, it is difficult for some to differentiate entertainment from reality...
 
I used to find Rockwell amusing but he's either insane or having a laugh. The joke's old and what's left is useless.

Huff is actually OK even though a lot of what's on his site is not to my liking. When he does pick up a camera and writes about it I feel he's honest and you get a good sense of the pros and cons.

It's worth noting that before the internet age neither of these two would have had a job reviewing equipment. Both are only semi-literate and lack a critical mind.

Lloyd Chambers is interesting. Rigorous, demanding, and a decent writer. I'm not a subscriber but have thought seriously about it on a few occasions. If I really wanted to know about a camera I would read him.
 
I'm just fascinated that any thread with the words 'Ken Rockwell' in it hasn't been banished to the dungeon ... but it's only been six hours. Even mods have to sleep I guess! :D


ps ... I don't like either of them personally.
 
Keith said:
I'm just fascinated that any thread with the words 'Ken Rockwell' in it hasn't been banished to the dungeon ... but it's only been six hours. Even mods have to sleep I guess! :D
Click to expand...
They allow and contribute to endless threads on: 'What's wrong with RFF', 'Someone was mean to my Leica', 'Why Flickr is evil', 'The bear trap fake thread', 'Why is RFF being invaded by Flickr types','Why can't RFF return to the good old days' and piles of other useless crap. At least this thread has some interesting views on the current state of play with regards to online review sites. The title is unfortunate though :D
 
I used to support Rockwell while acknowledging that he was quirky and had to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. But he was amusing and occasionally informative. That was then!

I think back then I was just annoyed that over at Photonet some forums (maybe all) blocked his site - you could not put a link to his site one of your threads This smacked of censorship and I did not like it. Just because some meglomaniacal moderator said so did not make it right!

But over time I think dear old Ken has gotten worse - more annoying, less evidence based and less relevant to the point that I now mostly avoid using his site. So maybe the mderator was right all along.

All blogs have their strengths and weakenesses.

Steve Huff is pretty good as is Ming Thein and Thorsten Overgaard (the latter is particularly good on Leica kit if you have not discovered him already...................warning his site can be a little quirky to navigate but its worth persisting.)

http://www.overgaard.dk/thorsten-overgaard-photography-lounge.html

Another blog site well worth visiting is photography life.com. It can be a little patchy in terms of how often its updated but the quality is usually there when postings are made especially in their reviews (be warned its mainly a Nikon focussed blog but other gear is not wholly neglected).
http://photographylife.com/

And if you want to watch something just for fun try digital rev TV on youtube. Kai - the usual presenter goes out of his way to be over the top. But he usually ends on a serious note. He can be annoying though with his juvenile jokes. But on a good day I do get a laugh out of his antics.
 
 
Rockwell has some useful reference data, and sometimes he uses 'reference vegetation.' :) He does have an engineering background, so he knows exactly what he is saying, and why. Much of how he posts is by design -- to generate traffic. It works, he has LOTS of traffic.

Huff is a super nice guy, more of a cheerleader and non-technical.

Reid definitely needs to find a better format than flash. :)

Kai is like watching reruns of Laverne and Shirley. You already know exactly what's going to happen. It's not funny anymore.

CameraStore: not bad, but his arm motion while talking is extremely distracting. No straps; at any moment the camera in question will soon fly out of his hands. :)
 
Reid reviews are an acquired taste. I tried it for a year and did not renew the subscription. YMMV but I dont see the value of reviewing lenses for color work using crops of black and white pictures. The only color tests are crops of leaves for purple fringe/sensor blooming comparisons. The text is long winded and reads like padding. The interface and fixed size of the viewable area is annoying and limits the types of devices that can be used to view the site.

I'd rather look at Raid's reviews (our Raid) and Jonmanjiro's test comparisons right here on RFF. Short, illustrative, and to the point. I'd pay money if they were accepting contributions for their reviews/comparisons.
 
Ken Rockwell has strong opinions, that doesn't make me hate him. I like to read what Ken Rockwell writes, he doesn't "beat about the bush". I don't understand the KR haters - what a waste of time. I like to read Steve Huff's blog - he tests the lenses wide open most of the time, great! Mr Huff is more lighter reading for me, and great when I want to see practical lens tests. Everyone is different, everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Learn from them, test yourself. Put a roll in your Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Box Brownie , whatever - enjoy and shoot! :eek:)

And I like reading here at RFF - reading from everyones experiences and applying them myself makes me a better photo taker. Thank you all!
 
I don't think I'll read another Rockwell review after the abortion of a none review that was the Ricoh GR debacle.

Steve Huff is more likeable, but as has been said before, he could do with a good editor and he probably could do with being a little more critical. Pretty much everything he reviews is gushing, to some extent, even when he highlights flaws.
 
While we are on the subject, if you are into video blogs and DSLRs go to "That Nikon Guy". The name says it all. He has a nice relaxed style and is interesting to listen to for the most part but you will not get much hard core information from him.
 
As long as Rockwell stays objective his stuff is quite useful. All the fluff around the facts I just ignore. It's a weird act, probably just to lure readers. Huff does a different act, without any of the facts that Rockwell provides. In that sense, I guess he is an Anti-Ken.
 
I generally prefer Huff, he is a little Bokeh obsessed for my liking, i.e. wide open is the only way he seems to use his lenses.
Rockwell is OK if you take it with a pinch of salt, he tries to be controversial, that's how he gets his page views.
Huff is friendly, Rockwell is little closed minded, but that's his thing.
 
Steve Huff's ok if I've nothing better to do.

Ken Rockwell is amusing but I don't agree with everything he says.

Sean Reid - I've no idea as I don't believe anyones opinion is worth paying for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom