'Test review of D200' by Ken Rockwell

"Robert C." wrote:

"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?


That's true. However, I don't think anyone has even implied that they
touched the D200, whereas the two sites I looked at contained
"reviews" that not only implied, but stated that they had used the
camera in question (not the D200), even though none had been released!

wrote in message
k.net...
In article , "Kinon O'cann"

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.

I never see magazine reviews that claim to test a lens without ever
touching, even by the worst of them. Perhaps you could provide an example?

Nikon has endorsed Ken? To do what? When?

As far as style goes, oversaturated color without any hint of decent
composition is style all right, bad style. I'll pass. I'd bet he doesn't
sell a lot of still pix. And exactly what does he do for a living?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
t...

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. There is nothing
wrong with most of what he writes. He indicates how he does things and
why. That doesn't mean you have to do it the same way. That doesn't
mean he is wrong to do it his way or that you are wrong to do it your
way. Just because he shoots JPEG and you [presumably] shoot RAW,
doesn't make either you of you a crackpot.

If he's never touched the camera, or seen the output, what qualifies him to
offer an opinion beyond what's in Nikon's press release? And if he advocates
shooting JPEG, he clearly does not understand the benefits of shooting RAW.
That's his loss.



You don't think he knows the difference? I suspect he is referring to
the fact that there is only 35mm of zoom on that lens, so that the field
of view doesn't vary all that much to make the zoom worthwhile [to him].
Anything wrong with believing that? Keep in mind that there are a lot
of alternatives and he offered up using a 50mm and a pair of feet as
just one option. You don't have to do it.

I don't think he understands the difference in the perspective change
provided by a change in the angle of view from 35mm to 70mm. Anyone who
suggests that a 50mm lens can replace a 35-70 zoom has no clue. None.



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


What do you do?

I eat those fries.


--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"Robert C." wrote in message
. ..

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

Nobody in this NG has claimed to have performed a "test review" of that
camera, they have only commented on the specs and descriptions. There's a
huge difference.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Rockwell is worse than a hack. He's a ****ing imbecile.

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


You must be Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, and Francesco Scavullo
combined.

No, I'm not a photographer. I'm beyond 'photographer'.

I'm not stupid enough to be a photographer.

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Rockwell is worse than a hack. He's a ****ing imbecile.

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


You must be Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, and Francesco Scavullo
combined.

I cannot even talk to photographers, because they are so ****ing
stupid.....


Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
wrote:

No, I'm not a photographer. I'm beyond 'photographer'.

I'm not stupid enough to be a photographer.


Still apparently an imbecile though ... to use your word and ranking.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In article ,
bow says...

wrote in message
k.net...
In article , "Kinon O'cann"

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.

I never see magazine reviews that claim to test a lens without ever
touching, even by the worst of them. Perhaps you could provide an example?

You have never worked as an editor. It is unfortunately quite a common
practice. Has to do with a little thing called time and another called
money from advertisers. I once had the unfortunate experience of
marketing software and learned the hard way about these things. No one is
going to mention that they never really used a product when their
livelihood is at stake. It is pretty easy in a lot of cases to just write
something close enough to work.

Nikon has endorsed Ken? To do what? When?

They use to list him at there site and in brochures as a Nikon Pro but
this was years back. They also gave him gear to beta test. Do your
homework.

As far as style goes, oversaturated color without any hint of decent
composition is style all right, bad style. I'll pass. I'd bet he doesn't
sell a lot of still pix. And exactly what does he do for a living?



That is a matter of personal opinion in all areas you mention. Not sure
what Ken is doing exactly these days. A friend of mine worked with him on
a couple of films about 3 years ago. Sounded like at the time he was
doing something with unit direction.

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote:

If he's never touched the camera, or seen the output, what qualifies him to
offer an opinion beyond what's in Nikon's press release?


There is a precedent for this. 'Moose' Peterson wrote "reviews" of
equipment he had never used in the "Nikon System Handbook".

Having spent quite a lot of money on that reference book, I was
disappointed to find that some of the reviews it contained had little
or no basis in fact.

"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.

;-)


This is the phenomena called PCR, or psychic camera reviewing. Together with
ESP and PSK, it completes the field of the known paranormal effects.