If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd
over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work, much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark. But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse, and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600 pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D. There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3 commercial partners... By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
frederick wrote:
He's got you covered on that: "I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better. The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more important than the camera" I missed that! (O: Words fail me..... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
On 30 Nov 2006 02:11:26 -0800, wrote:
A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work, much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark. But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse, and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm Nope, it's you that's wrong, unless the article's title trumps its content. Before looking at the website I guessed what the discrepancy between $3000 and $5000 would turn out to be, and I was right. First, the P&S can't be bought without its lens, and the 5D can't take pictures without one, so the cost of the lens would have to be added to the cost of the 5D. Second, prices may be cheaper today, but the prices Ken quoted were probably accurate at the time he wrote it, and the costs of the camera, lens and memory card did add up to a bit over $5000. It's unreasonable to expect writers to constantly update articles that mention prices, and if it's done, it's rare. Just read a few of the old full reviews on dpreview.com. The only fudging he might have made would be that he didn't quote the MSRP for the A530, but its actual selling price. Still, if he had quoted the MSRP, the magnitude of the price difference wouldn't have changed all that much. Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600 pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D. A boring scene is actually better for these purposes as it has little or nothing to distract us from the point Ken is trying to make. He did *not* offer "a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s versus the . . . Canon 5D". The treatise was on the relative ability of a $150 p&s vs the 5D to make the typically small snapshots that most people take. While it's probably true that many 5D owners won't limit their shooting to 4" x 6" snapshots, many DSLR owners do, so it might have been more reasonable if Ken's comparison had been between Canon's A530 and a budget DSLR such as the 350D. There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3 commercial partners... You may be assuming too much. I didn't see Ken end his treatise by saying "I was really amazed to discover that a little P&S is just as good as a far more expensive DSLR. As a result I'm selling all of my DSLRs and will henceforth use only the more convenient A530". I think that he's well aware that most of his readers know that DLSRs have more to offer. And for the few that aren't aware, he really may have saved them some money. Whether it amounts to $3000, $5000 or something in between is mere quibbling. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Where would this ng be without quibbles to keep it alive and active? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
wrote: A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work, much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark. But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse, and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm Here, on the basis of a boring daylit scene presented at about 800x600 pixels, he offers a treatise on the relative ability of a $150 p&s versus the $3000 (no, Ken, NOT $5000) Canon 5D. There is no mention of such trivial issues as af speed, low light performance, lens flexibility etc.., al though he does at least refer to enlargability. I understand his 'point' - hey, I often shoot with a cheap little 4Mp compact myself... but does anyone else think this is the bottom of the barrel? Or that, just perhaps, he might be figuring where his best audience might be, for his hit counters to his 3 commercial partners... By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it? Ken never ceases to amaze me with the crap that he comes up with. In this test not only did he miss expose the 5D shot but as normal Ken he shot in jpeg mode. Had he shot the 5D in raw mode he would have been able to easily get the photo back, but then it was Ken who was telling people that raw was a waste of time. And if he is trying to tell us that the A530 will make as sharp 12 x 18 prints as the 5D, as he seems to be, then he really needs to have his eyes checked. And I would love to seem he redo the test using available light shooting indoors in low light. Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
wrote in message
ups.com... A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work, much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark. But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse, and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece: What other articles have gotten, as you put it, "progressively worse. as time has gone by?" And when did his articles begin to miss the mark? Or are you using one page out of hundreds on his site to discredit him? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
"jeremy" wrote in message news:4NBbh.12808$ki3.10736@trndny01... wrote in message ups.com... A few years back I quite enjoyed reading Ken's stuff. Despite the odd over-the-top comment/article, and his supersaturated disneychrome work, much of it was interesting and fairly close to the mark. But as time has gone by, imo his articles have got progressively worse, and now seem to be reaching new lows. Witness this masterpiece: What other articles have gotten, as you put it, "progressively worse. as time has gone by?" And when did his articles begin to miss the mark? His articles began to miss the mark when he published "review tests" of gear he's never even held, when he saw no need to shoot RAW as opposed to JPEG, and when he flaunts his expensive gear and then publishes an article that says that the camera doesn't matter. Sorry, the credibility level on that site is absolute zero. And now he compares a 5D to a P&S? Why? What's next? a Yugo/BMW shootout? Or are you using one page out of hundreds on his site to discredit him? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:0UBbh.12254$gJ1.8298@trndny09... His articles began to miss the mark when he published "review tests" of gear he's never even held, when he saw no need to shoot RAW as opposed to JPEG, and when he flaunts his expensive gear and then publishes an article that says that the camera doesn't matter. His comments on one's camera not mattering were right on the mark. He was commenting on the fact that far too many owners of photo gear were agonizing about their equipment, and dreaming of how much better photographers they would be if they just got that next technological marvel, rather than concentrating on using what they had and making great images. The manufacturers and the whore photo magazines don't press that argument, because the name of the game is to keep selling equipment. And too may people have been suckered into that constant-upgrade scene. We all know people that have more individual pieces of equipment than they had photos. They can recite technical specifications from memory--but ask them to show you their work and it is either nonexistent or is nowhere near the level of sophistication of their shiny new photo gear. Rockwell shows images made with really cheap equipment that won awards or were featured in exhibitions. And he links to several other sites that also feature award-winning work that was produced by cheap cameras, just to make the point that this is not as rare as one might expect. He reminds us that it is about images--not whether you shoot them on film or digital, not whether your camera outputs in JPG or RAW, not whether you edited it in the current version of PS or one from three years ago. For pointing us back to reality, Rockwell is to be congratulated. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
jeremy wrote:
His comments on one's camera not mattering were right on the mark. He was commenting on the fact that far too many owners of photo gear were agonizing about their equipment, and dreaming of how much better photographers they would be if they just got that next technological marvel, rather than concentrating on using what they had and making great images. There is some truth to that, but equipment DOES matter. All the article showed was that a cheap P&S can - in one specific situation - make photos that look similar to photos from a Canon 5D. If all you ever shoot are well-lit outdoor scenes that you print out really small or view on the web, then yeah, you're better off with a P&S. But if you want to shoot in other situations, then his argument that a $150 camera is as good as a 5D is completely insane. As I'm sure you know, you'll get waaaay better sharpness, dynamic range, and low-light performance with a 5D. Not to even mention the ability to use different lenses and external flashes. Rockwell shows images made with really cheap equipment that won awards or were featured in exhibitions. And he links to several other sites that also feature award-winning work that was produced by cheap cameras, just to make the point that this is not as rare as one might expect. He reminds us that it is about images--not whether you shoot them on film or digital, not whether your camera outputs in JPG or RAW, not whether you edited it in the current version of PS or one from three years ago. For pointing us back to reality, Rockwell is to be congratulated. I don't think anyone here claims that cheap cameras can't take great pictures. It's just that better, more expensive cameras are simply more flexible and better at more things. Let's see a comparison of a P&S and a 5D in low light, at 800 ISO. Do you still think the P&S would take great pictures then? -Gniewko |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Maya Unlimited 7, and Alias MotionBuilder Pro 7, Maya Plugins Collection, Gnomon Maya eTutorials & Manuals, Maya training, ARTBEATS, Art Beats, | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 06 06:53 AM |
Canon Kit Lens beats Nikon in every test. | Steve Franklin | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | August 19th 05 10:31 PM |
ARTBEATS, Art Beats for LightWave & Maya, COREL professional PHOTOS, Mixa Pro, Datacraft Sozaijiten, Datacraft Otojiten, ImageDJ, PHOTODISCS, and EYEWIRE CDs | futa | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 05 07:50 PM |
Considering Coolpix 5000 | Larry R Harrison Jr | Digital Photography | 3 | February 16th 05 02:59 AM |
Minolta AF 5000 | Tom McGarr | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | July 2nd 03 04:49 PM |