'Test review of D200' by Ken Rockwell

How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

I thought I'd give you a summary of his findings to save you boosting his
ego on his hit-counter any more.

"It just feels better. "
and
"People rightfully ask why I ordered a D200 sight unseen.... "
His imagination must be incredible.

"and similar in feel and features to the D2X and adds a built-in flash. "
because he has both these cameras in hand to compare, of course.

Though his advice is at times a bit contradictory:
"People rightfully ask why I ordered a D200 sight unseen if I love my D70 so
much. "
followed in the next paragraph by...
"If you're happy with your existing D50/D70/D70s then of course there's no
need to upgrade."

"I've never even wanted a D2X; it's too darn heavy."
Ken - It's not a crime to not be able to afford some things.

"Most people are still trying to understand white balance and exposure, and
this great majority of people will be as elated with a D70s or D50"
...which is why Ken doesn't like using Spot and Centre-weighted, but prefers
"The latest Matrix meter II attempts to improve on the previous Matrix
meters, which for 20 years have given me consistently spectacular results."

"I use my cameras so much and get so much out of them that the dollar cost
is irrelevant"
Of course.

"I want the best quality without regard to price in the smallest and most
convenient package with built-in flash"
Looks like you got what you wanted - or will be getting what you wanted?

"It has absolutely nothing to do with the 3-1/2 year old D100"
but in the photos they look quite similar?

What would the internet do without Ken?

Duncan.

I thought it was a nice summary. Ack, he got the new AF-S Nikkor 18 -
200 mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR to go with for $700. It's hard to believe
that will be a great choice but affordable enough to test & I'm sure
lots of folks will get it but more likely on a D50 than D200!

Duncan J Murray wrote:

How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

I thought I'd give you a summary of his findings to save you boosting his
ego on his hit-counter any more.

"It just feels better. "
and
"People rightfully ask why I ordered a D200 sight unseen.... "
His imagination must be incredible.

"and similar in feel and features to the D2X and adds a built-in flash. "
because he has both these cameras in hand to compare, of course.

Though his advice is at times a bit contradictory:
"People rightfully ask why I ordered a D200 sight unseen if I love my D70 so
much. "
followed in the next paragraph by...
"If you're happy with your existing D50/D70/D70s then of course there's no
need to upgrade."

"I've never even wanted a D2X; it's too darn heavy."
Ken - It's not a crime to not be able to afford some things.

"Most people are still trying to understand white balance and exposure, and
this great majority of people will be as elated with a D70s or D50"
..which is why Ken doesn't like using Spot and Centre-weighted, but prefers
"The latest Matrix meter II attempts to improve on the previous Matrix
meters, which for 20 years have given me consistently spectacular results."

"I use my cameras so much and get so much out of them that the dollar cost
is irrelevant"
Of course.

"I want the best quality without regard to price in the smallest and most
convenient package with built-in flash"
Looks like you got what you wanted - or will be getting what you wanted?

"It has absolutely nothing to do with the 3-1/2 year old D100"
but in the photos they look quite similar?

What would the internet do without Ken?

Duncan.



--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com

"Duncan J Murray"
is.bit.uk wrote in
message ...
How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

Ken is the same guy who advocates shooting in JPEG rather than raw, since
you're going to end up with JPEGs anyway, has "review tested" lots of gear
he's never touched, and knows how to oversaturate just about any scene. This
guy is a hack, and I see people referring to him all the time. Do they read
what he writes? When they see the phrase "review test" or "test review" what
do they think when the learn he's never even touched the gear? How in God's
name can they take this clown seriously?

One of my favorites was his review of the Nikon 35-70 2.8 zoom, which he
simply didn't get. He suggested buying a 50mm lens and then "foot zooming"
to get the same effect and framing. Right. Ken doesn't know there's a
difference between a 35mm lens and a 70mm lens. Foot zooming cannot exist,
but that doesn't stop Ken.

If you want good info, better to ask the guy dishing out fries at the local
fast food.

In article , "Kinon O'cann"
Yes.it's.me.Bowser says...

"Duncan J Murray"
is.bit.uk wrote in
message ...
How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

Ken is the same guy who advocates shooting in JPEG rather than raw, since
you're going to end up with JPEGs anyway, has "review tested" lots of gear
he's never touched, and knows how to oversaturate just about any scene. This
guy is a hack, and I see people referring to him all the time. Do they read
what he writes? When they see the phrase "review test" or "test review" what
do they think when the learn he's never even touched the gear? How in God's
name can they take this clown seriously?

Same as most of the reviews in the mags you read. They never touch half
the stuff. Ken is an OK guy and has done some great artistic work. He
just has lot's of opinions that he feels compelled to write. This is not
always a good thing but in many cases it serves a purpose. Ask any busy
editor. He is by no means, as many in this group truly are, a hack, and
has been endorsed by Nikon in the past. Not easy. Now he works mostly in
film in LA area so people try to put him off. So he likes over saturated
pics. That is called style. I do agree that it would be better if some
ot the reviews were hands on but many of his are and he does have his own
way of doing things but that again is style really. No need to compare
him to a guy selling frys when he truly is much better than most in this
group, judging by what you all post as pics here. Sometimes the real
clowns are those that call others clowns. If you don't like his reviews
then simply look elsewhere. If you don't like his style make up your own.


One of my favorites was his review of the Nikon 35-70 2.8 zoom, which he
simply didn't get. He suggested buying a 50mm lens and then "foot zooming"
to get the same effect and framing. Right. Ken doesn't know there's a
difference between a 35mm lens and a 70mm lens. Foot zooming cannot exist,
but that doesn't stop Ken.

If you want good info, better to ask the guy dishing out fries at the local
fast food.

In article t,
says...

Same as most of the reviews in the mags you read. They never touch half
the stuff. Ken is an OK guy and has done some great artistic work. He
just has lot's of opinions that he feels compelled to write. This is not
always a good thing but in many cases it serves a purpose. Ask any busy
editor. He is by no means, as many in this group truly are, a hack, and
has been endorsed by Nikon in the past. Not easy. Now he works mostly in
film in LA area so people try to put him off. So he likes over saturated
pics. That is called style. I do agree that it would be better if some
ot the reviews were hands on but many of his are and he does have his own
way of doing things but that again is style really. No need to compare
him to a guy selling frys when he truly is much better than most in this
group, judging by what you all post as pics here. Sometimes the real
clowns are those that call others clowns. If you don't like his reviews
then simply look elsewhere. If you don't like his style make up your own.

Okay, maybe he's not a hack. Maybe he's just a dork?

Problem with this guy is that he talks out of his pie-hole and people
lap it up as being gospel. Like his insistence that the 70-210mm zoom is
better than the 80-200mm f/2.8.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

wrote in message
k.net...
In article , "Kinon O'cann"
Yes.it's.me.Bowser says...

"Duncan J Murray"
is.bit.uk wrote in
message ...
How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank
rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means
him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

Ken is the same guy who advocates shooting in JPEG rather than raw, since
you're going to end up with JPEGs anyway, has "review tested" lots of
gear
he's never touched, and knows how to oversaturate just about any scene.
This
guy is a hack, and I see people referring to him all the time. Do they
read
what he writes? When they see the phrase "review test" or "test review"
what
do they think when the learn he's never even touched the gear? How in
God's
name can they take this clown seriously?

Same as most of the reviews in the mags you read. They never touch half
the stuff. Ken is an OK guy and has done some great artistic work. He
just has lot's of opinions that he feels compelled to write. This is not
always a good thing but in many cases it serves a purpose. Ask any busy
editor. He is by no means, as many in this group truly are, a hack, and
has been endorsed by Nikon in the past. Not easy. Now he works mostly in
film in LA area so people try to put him off. So he likes over saturated
pics. That is called style. I do agree that it would be better if some
ot the reviews were hands on but many of his are and he does have his own
way of doing things but that again is style really. No need to compare
him to a guy selling frys when he truly is much better than most in this
group, judging by what you all post as pics here. Sometimes the real
clowns are those that call others clowns. If you don't like his reviews
then simply look elsewhere. If you don't like his style make up your own.

Don't get me wrong - I do like Ken, but that doesn't stop him being high
opinionated, with little base, and often self-contradictory! As Oscar Wilde
said "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." and "It is
absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or
tedious."
But still, those poor people who are looking for a review of the D200,
coming across that?! He's probably right about the D200 being an excellent
camera, it's just that he's only done the same as all of us - look at the
brand, specs and the price.

Duncan.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Clearly, he has not touched a D200. Nobody outside of Nikon has. That
doesn't make his opinion bad. I like reading his "reviews". By no
means is he my only source of data, just one source.


Recently, while carrying out a review of a new digital camera prior to
its release, I looked at two very well known web review sites to see
if anyone had made comments on the same camera.

One web site had five reviews, and the other had twelve. Yet none of
the seventeen reviewers had even seen the camera, let alone held it or
used it.

;-)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Clearly, he has not touched a D200. Nobody outside of Nikon has.

How was Phil Askey able to do a "hands-on preview" for dpreview.com then?

One thing I'll say about Ken Rockwell: he's an expert in Google rankings.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Clearly, he has not touched a D200. Nobody outside of Nikon has. That
doesn't make his opinion bad. I like reading his "reviews". By no
means is he my only source of data, just one source.


Recently, while carrying out a review of a new digital camera prior to
its release, I looked at two very well known web review sites to see
if anyone had made comments on the same camera.

One web site had five reviews, and the other had twelve. Yet none of
the seventeen reviewers had even seen the camera, let alone held it or
used it.

;-)


And for that matter, our own NG has had how many opinions posted on this
camera without anyone yet having touched it?

Rockwell is worse than a hack. He's a ****ing imbecile.

What do you expect? After all, he's a photographer...


Kinon O'cann wrote:
"Duncan J Murray"
is.bit.uk wrote in
message ...
How on earth does Ken Rockwell's 'test review' of the D200 get to first
place on google? I thought google worked by counting the number of
cross-referenced links to the web page to calculate it's page rank rating,
and not the number of opinionated sentences per page.

Before you search out the site - 'test review' in Ken's sense, means him
drooling over the pictures of the camera he's currently got on order.

Ken is the same guy who advocates shooting in JPEG rather than raw, since
you're going to end up with JPEGs anyway, has "review tested" lots of gear
he's never touched, and knows how to oversaturate just about any scene. This
guy is a hack, and I see people referring to him all the time. Do they read
what he writes? When they see the phrase "review test" or "test review" what
do they think when the learn he's never even touched the gear? How in God's
name can they take this clown seriously?

One of my favorites was his review of the Nikon 35-70 2.8 zoom, which he
simply didn't get. He suggested buying a 50mm lens and then "foot zooming"
to get the same effect and framing. Right. Ken doesn't know there's a
difference between a 35mm lens and a 70mm lens. Foot zooming cannot exist,
but that doesn't stop Ken.

If you want good info, better to ask the guy dishing out fries at the local
fast food.