So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?

jeremy wrote:
"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.

Somehow reality and Rockwell just don't seem to go together.

In this case he is way off the mark and he should know better. We had
friends visiting the last week and they brought their Sony Cyber Shot
P200 and I was using the Canon 350D. We both had our cameras with us
most of the time and shot in the same places under the same conditions
and you know what? The 350D takes better photos. In some cases the
Cyber Shot did fine but the problem was we were not just photographing
a tree that was in bright light, close up and standing still. We were
photographing at all times of day and night and gee photographing
moving subjects at a distance.

This does not mean he did not get some very nice photos, but the
limitations of the camera became pretty clear and the advantages of the
350D were hard to miss. Had I been using a 5D instead the differences
would have been even larger yet.

Scott

wrote:
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.....

Those leaves would sure look a lot better with a polarizer.

wrote:
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.


Of course equipment matters. What Ken was saying and what can not be denied,
is if the photographer is the limitting factor, hardware will not help one
bit. Marching troops can only be as fast as their slowest member. If the
limitting factor is the photographer ... than so be it, don't waste the money
on a better camera until the photographer gets better.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Scott W wrote:

Somehow reality and Rockwell just don't seem to go together.

In this case he is way off the mark and he should know better. We had
friends visiting the last week and they brought their Sony Cyber Shot
P200 and I was using the Canon 350D. We both had our cameras with us
most of the time and shot in the same places under the same conditions
and you know what? The 350D takes better photos. In some cases the
Cyber Shot did fine but the problem was we were not just photographing
a tree that was in bright light, close up and standing still. We were
photographing at all times of day and night and gee photographing
moving subjects at a distance.

This does not mean he did not get some very nice photos, but the
limitations of the camera became pretty clear and the advantages of the
350D were hard to miss. Had I been using a 5D instead the differences
would have been even larger yet.



Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.

I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
photographer.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

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.

It's not that his articles have become worse, it's that your knowledge
of photography has grown and you now realize that what he posts is
crap.

I suggest you go back and re-read some of those articles you thought
were interesting and see if you feel the same way. But don't blame me
if you develop a severe urge to beat some sense into Rockwell with a
2x4.

:-)

Witness this masterpiece:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm

By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?

Ken suggests that he messed it up. But likely it was on purpose during
post-processing to demonstrate how a cheap camera can take an equal or
better photo out-of-the-box:

"If I had left the 5D set as it came out of the box the results would
have been much, much worse."

No kidding. But since the EXIF data is conveniently stripped from
every single one of the images, we have no way of knowing any facts
about the controls or settings, or even if the images were made on a
5D.

Personally, I don't believe that he made an exposure error, if he used
a 5D at all...even he's not that stupid. Instead, I believe he is
trying to show that a newbie should buy a P&S because they might screw
up shots with an SLR system. That's the only thing he's somewhat
managed to get right. And newbies are the only people who should read
his site at all.

The rest is very questionable sensationalism. And let's not forget
that Rockwell is a known liar and moron.

:-)

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:


Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.

I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
photographer.

I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
and he will get better photos.

Scott

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Ken's a ****en moron!

Can't wait for his next article about how a Kia beats the hell out of a
Lexus.
After all, they'll both get you to the grocery store.

With the type of crap that Rockwell shows, a cheap P&S might be just
the ticket, so long as it has a means to boost the saturation about
100%.

Scott W wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.

I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
photographer.

I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
and he will get better photos.

I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with the
D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
shootin' instead of grab shots.

Cynicor wrote:

Those leaves would sure look a lot better with a polarizer.

If you set out to do a camera test what would you choose as the
subject?
Why, moving leaves, of course!

Look at the close-ups (the 4' wide rollover shot). The trunks of the
trees are sharp in the 5D pic and are a blurry halo'd mess with the
P&S.

Seems like Rockwell is shooting himself in the foot these days.
He downplays the importance of better gear, thus making his own
opinions of gear meaningless. So why would anyone go to his web site?

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
wrote:

By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?

Ken's a ****en moron! Though the image taken with the 5D and 16-35/2.8 is
clearly sharper than the one taken with the P&S it is still **** poor even
for web viewing.

Please. If you must swear, at least star out some of the letters so as
not to offend people. Call him a *****ng moron.