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

On 2 Dec 2006 07:22:46 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

If anyone is wondering, I'm not referring to Rita or Annika. No no,
it couldn't be either of them now, could it?

I knew you just wanted to spank me.

Better a spanker than a ******.

On 2 Dec 2006 07:31:07 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

There is no comparison between the two. Reichmann is a professional and
is a respected photographer. His site provides valuable information
based on facts and personal experience with the products being tested.
You may not agree with all his articles (he is definitely pro-Canon),
but he would never say somethig stupid like "your camera doesn't
matter."

By contrast, Rockwell writes like a 12-year old who just discovered a
camera and how to make a website so is now an expert at both. He's a
joke.
There are many great sites on the web where one can learn about digital
cameras and photography, but Rockwell's site isn't among them.

I understand your point, but while there is a little overlap,
they're not writing to the same audience, and Reichmann (whose
writing also appears in magazines) probably has to maintain a more
serious, respectable image. Rockwell, like you at times, is a much
looser (not loser) kinda guy.

LuvLatins wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:17:44 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

Rockwell specifically mentioned grain and sharpness. I interpreted nothing.
I just read the words. You intreperted. Not me.

Watta maroon! You've now made my "good for a laugh" list.

This News Group was so impressive, and I have only been reading now
for 3 days.

If it went three days without childish antics, that is truly
amazing! ;-)

Learned quite a bit about RAW and some great new software
and Histograms and some people even porvided some great links to.

Its ashamed that it also can be reduced to this crap. Imagine a flame

You've just tripped over one of the worst offenders. Note the
continued lack topical discussion, and instead little other than
personal attacks that characterize ASAAR's response to this same
article that I am responding to. He isn't the only one who
does that though...

war over a stupid poorly written article about Point and Shoot vs
Canon 5D and Rockwell. Astonishing that this one area has produced
how many posts now ?? Really sad and takes away from the positive
postings and valuable informaton and experience shared here. Get one
with it already and leave this Fuc***g nonesense behind already. Its
so lame and boring at this point.

Well, to be honest, you've missed the actual point of
contention. It may appear to be about that particular article,
but it isn't. It is about whether Ken Rockwell is a credible
resource for information about photography. That article just
happens to be one example, and this thread is just one of an
ongoing stream of such discussions.

Rockwell's lack of credibility annoys some, and it is mentioned
every time anyone makes reference to Rockwell's website. Sometimes
that will develop into a bit of contention, like this one did,
and sometimes not.

Be aware that there are other topics like this. Rockwell, Nikon
vs. Canon, DSLR vs. film, amateur wedding photography, and a few
others are ones you'll see references to with regularity.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:12:01 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

I think some of you guys are reading Rockwell in a different and far more
critical way than I read him. My impression is that he writes a great
deal, writes it hastily, does not always phrase things in the most
thoughtful or accurate way, and is very opinionated about some things.

The problem with KR is that he has a stupid vendetta against the 5D that's
simply wrong technically. He's on the wrong side of the argument from a
physics (noise and dynamic range considerations), optics (degree of
enlargement from the sensor image required to make a print), and art (the
beauty of quality prints (12x18s from the 5D are flipping gorgeous; sure
some APS-C cameras get close _some_ of the time; but those cases are
limited)) standpoints. And it's not just that page, he has snide (and
technically incorrect) cheap shots at the 5D all over his site.

You're dead wrong about Ken having an anti-5D vendetta. I'll
re-quote here part of a reply I made about 10 hours ago in this
thread that absolutely contradicts your vendetta theory.

Even though Ken is a Nikon kinda guy, he doesn't have the extreme
brand bias than some here display. Take a few of his recent remarks
about the 5D, recalling that some here have accused him of being a
habitual liar and extremely biased against anything non-Nikon:

. . . I couldn't resist my own curiosity now that Canon has dumped the price on
these in the USA with $600 worth of rebates if you also buy an appropriate lens.
(The rebate is only $300 if you don't buy a lens, so even if you own every lens,
buy another 75-300mm USM for $180 and take the extra $300 rebate on the 5D!)

From what few thousand shots I've made so far, image quality is spectacular. I
have my usual gripes about Canon's user interface compared to my Nikons, but
looking at the images the 5D gives the highest quality images of any digital camera
I've used under $5,000, so since after rebates it's only $2,199 today it's the deal of
the year.

If you have a fast connection and the tools to look at it, have a look at this 5MB
original JPG file. This is crazy, I've never seen anything as good as this out of my
Nikon D200 in terms of definition.

Colors look great, too. Want low noise? The 5D goes down to ISO 50!

Colors are about the same, with the ability to crank them up to more vivid levels
than any of the Nikons. The Rebel XT, 20D and my Nikons all go to one level of
saturation when pushed, while the 30D, Rebel XTi and this 5D allow the
saturation to be set even higher (or lower) than the other cameras.

That said, the incredible image quality of the 5D may make me want to wrestle
with my whiny complaints about the 5D's handling. Like my 4x5, the results are
worth it.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/5d.htm

Either Rockwell never had a vendetta going against the 5D or
someone made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Do you still see a
vendetta?

LuvLatins wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:17:44 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

Rockwell specifically mentioned grain and sharpness. I interpreted nothing.
I just read the words. You intreperted. Not me.

Watta maroon! You've now made my "good for a laugh" list.

This News Group was so impressive, and I have only been reading now
for 3 days. Learned quite a bit about RAW and some great new software
and Histograms and some people even porvided some great links to.

Its ashamed that it also can be reduced to this crap. Imagine a flame
war over a stupid poorly written article about Point and Shoot vs
Canon 5D and Rockwell. Astonishing that this one area has produced
how many posts now ?? Really sad and takes away from the positive
postings and valuable informaton and experience shared here. Get one
with it already and leave this Fuc***g nonesense behind already. Its
so lame and boring at this point.

Yeah but we can't leave the thread until someone mentions Hitler, opps
I just did.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

[ . . . ]

Yeah but we can't leave the thread until someone mentions Hitler, opps
I just did.

I don't think you can end it that way. I think you have to call someone a
Nazi or a Hitler lover.

Does anyone know what the rule is, exactly?

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

[ . . . ]

Yeah but we can't leave the thread until someone mentions Hitler, opps
I just did.

I don't think you can end it that way. I think you have to call someone a
Nazi or a Hitler lover.

Shoot, I thought it was enough to have his name come up, but thinking
about it I believe
you are right.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
[ . . . ]
Yeah but we can't leave the thread until someone mentions Hitler, opps
I just did.
I don't think you can end it that way. I think you have to call someone a
Nazi or a Hitler lover.

Shoot, I thought it was enough to have his name come up, but thinking
about it I believe
you are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Cynicor wrote:
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.

Or at least spell "****ING" properly... the original is even more offensive as
an abomination of the language. :P

LuvLatins wrote:
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:08:55 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
And you know for a fact that this is how he makes his living? Can you prove
this?

I don't know a damn thing about how he makes his money, or how many pictures
he take [other than that he claims to have taken thousands of photographs with
various cameras], I don't know what he does with his photographs. If you want
to know, ask him. Otherwise, just stick with your tiring rhetoric, because
you aren't enlightening anybody with insight.

At last another voice of reason, who cares

LL-

Have you not been with us before, posting under a different identity?

--
john mcwilliams