'Test review of D200' by Ken Rockwell

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Duncan J Murray, Nov 6, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
    Duncan J Murray, Nov 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Duncan J Murray

    Paul Furman Guest

    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!
     
    Paul Furman, Nov 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Duncan J Murray

    Kinon O'cann Guest

    "Duncan J Murray"
    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.
     
    Kinon O'cann, Nov 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Duncan J Murray

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Nov 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Duncan J Murray

    DD Guest

    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, Nov 8, 2005
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Duncan J Murray, Nov 8, 2005
    #6
  7. 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.
    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.
    What do you do?
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 8, 2005
    #7
  8. You sir, come across just as you accuse Ken.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Duncan J Murray

    Tony Polson Guest


    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.

    ;-)
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Duncan J Murray

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    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.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Nov 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Duncan J Murray

    Robert C. Guest

    And for that matter, our own NG has had how many opinions posted on this
    camera without anyone yet having touched it?
     
    Robert C., Nov 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Rockwell is worse than a hack. He's a fucking imbecile.

    What do you expect? After all, he's a photographer...
     
    uraniumcommittee, Nov 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Duncan J Murray

    Tony Polson Guest


    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!
     
    Tony Polson, Nov 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Duncan J Murray

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    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?
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Nov 8, 2005
    #14
  15. Duncan J Murray

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    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.
    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.
    I eat those fries.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Nov 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Duncan J Murray

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    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.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Nov 8, 2005
    #16
  17. Duncan J Murray

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    You must be Ansel Adams, Margaret Bourke-White, and Francesco Scavullo
    combined.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Nov 8, 2005
    #17
  18. No, I'm not a photographer. I'm beyond 'photographer'.

    I'm not stupid enough to be a photographer.
     
    uraniumcommittee, Nov 8, 2005
    #18
  19. Still apparently an imbecile though ... to use your word and ranking.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 8, 2005
    #19
  20. I cannot even talk to photographers, because they are so fucking
    stupid.....
     
    uraniumcommittee, Nov 8, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.