The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Ken Rockwell resolution test (M9 vs D300s vs 5DII)
- Thread starter Mike Hatam
- Start date
N
nei1
Guest
and unlike many he manages to show humour and intelligence,a little of which is needed by the reader.
M
Mango
Guest
Ken is actually a very nice person; I've exchanged emails with him in the past. His writings are provocative, but that can be said of many. If one doesn't agree with him, it's easy to move on, rather than get a coronary over it. The same can be said of Erwin Puts.
robertwright
New member
truth be told I am not sure I could argue with the "test": my 50 pre-asph lux at 1.4 is pretty soft on center. It has that "glow" of spherical aberration all over. I have no idea about the nikon glass, but I do know that the canon ef 50 1.4 is softer wide open, to the point imo of being unusable at 1.4. And I probably would not shoot it at f2 either. The lux is good at f2 and great at 2.8.
He notes the lux is diffraction limited at 5.6 which I would also agree with.
As for the 5DmkII which I have the autofocus has been working fine for me, in critical situations I use the live view. But I still prefer a rangefinder for low light focusing of wide lenses. Autofocus wide open in dim conditions is a ymmv situation.
I think the point was to show how poor 50mm lenses are from canikon. In this I agree, the only lens I really like is the L 50 1.2 which is better imo than the old noct.
but yeah, the guy's a nutter.
He notes the lux is diffraction limited at 5.6 which I would also agree with.
As for the 5DmkII which I have the autofocus has been working fine for me, in critical situations I use the live view. But I still prefer a rangefinder for low light focusing of wide lenses. Autofocus wide open in dim conditions is a ymmv situation.
I think the point was to show how poor 50mm lenses are from canikon. In this I agree, the only lens I really like is the L 50 1.2 which is better imo than the old noct.
but yeah, the guy's a nutter.
etrigan63
Active member
Ken reminds me of Chris Pirillo (whom I personally know). Very secure in his opinions and is not afraid to let every else know this. Chris is the kind of person that evokes two emotions in general: laughter at his antics (though he does get his point across) or a strong desire to strangle him on the spot. Ken strikes me as being cut from the same cloth.
I just don't know why he don't use a Leica R 50mm f1.4 with an adapter on Canon while modify the rear mount for Nikon. It is justify to use same lens on 3 machines.
Just see it as a joke. Leica won't get a better market share after the test. The sensor on M9 is till behind the quality of Canon or Nikon.
Just see it as a joke. Leica won't get a better market share after the test. The sensor on M9 is till behind the quality of Canon or Nikon.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I don't know how you can say that as fact. IQ says otherwise. I would say it's at least the equal if not better than the sensor in the D3X and 5DmkII in most situations (read: everything except high ISO.)
If his site has misapplication of facts or lack of accuracy whether through ignorance or deliberate act it is not good marketing. There is another term for it and and it is not provocative. And you don't have to be smart to accomplish it. It is a disservice to those who don't know better. If a site is going to :lecture: it should attempt to have its facts straight and make corrections when errors become known.
Last edited:
Now that was darn funny!
Oh man! This reminds me of a guy I knew way back in the 70's that had empty egg-cartons stapled in strategic places on the walls of his apartment for that very reason
Lars
Active member
Ken is a close friend of a friend of mine. From what I hear, Ken's writing style on his website is quite different from what he's like in person. He just found a provocative style that makes his website work.
So when you criticize, remember that you are criticizing the site rather than the person.
That said - what a crappy test!
So when you criticize, remember that you are criticizing the site rather than the person.
That said - what a crappy test!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
There are two words when I hear about his site that really hit home with me. I'm sure he maybe a very nice person, never meet him so i have no idea BUT as a workshop owner and instructor of one. I never ever want to hear these two words together beginner and misleading. If you cut through all the comments and get down to the raw data this is where I lose him on my scale. Never should those two words be in the same sentence. Honestly knowing that out of the gate just reading his site would make me stroke out. As a instructor and I know Jack feels the same way we bust our *** to help folks understand everything about photography and letting a beginner out of our grasp with any misleading info. Than we would fail miserable as instructors and should be taken out for a good hanging. Anyone in this industry with knowledge and experience needs to take that type of dedication of photography that has a audience to heart.
Hey, I know guys that still do that! Plenty of companies make big bucks selling that stuff, and it actually works if you have a high end system.Oh man! This reminds me of a guy I knew way back in the 70's that had empty egg-cartons stapled in strategic places on the walls of his apartment for that very reason
Ken writes like he does for his site because it works for him, and works well. He has it down and if you browse some forums you may see plenty of people talking about this test. The thing is, all of us went to his site and checked it out due to all of this forum talk about it.
Plus, he lists camera "reviews" the day a camera is announced, before he even gets the camera. He lists specs and has his page set. This way, he gets ranked high in google as being one of the first with a "review" page.
Search "Leica M9 review" in google and you will see his page at #4 or #5 only because he put up his review on 09/09, which in reality was just a page of specs and opinions.
His site consists of tens of thousands of pages and he probably gets 200k unique hits a day. Add all of those hits up and between his affiliate and google ads he makes a huge chunk O change. So don't expect him to change anytime soon.
Kind of an odd comparison.
Not uninteresting if you already know something ... but to make decisions from this kind of test would be sort of foolish.
I think he peppers in enough caveats to red flag a lot of what he says as pure opinion, but for the Lemmings looking for a lead Lemming to follow, it's a trip straight over the edge of a cliff :ROTFL:
-Marc
Not uninteresting if you already know something ... but to make decisions from this kind of test would be sort of foolish.
I think he peppers in enough caveats to red flag a lot of what he says as pure opinion, but for the Lemmings looking for a lead Lemming to follow, it's a trip straight over the edge of a cliff :ROTFL:
-Marc
ptomsu
Workshop Member
For me he is as he appears on his site - period.Ken is a close friend of a friend of mine. From what I hear, Ken's writing style on his website is quite different from what he's like in person. He just found a provocative style that makes his website work.
So when you criticize, remember that you are criticizing the site rather than the person.
That said - what a crappy test!
Everybody has to think what to do and how to behave before going public.
Otherwise this becomes Kindergarden
JimCollum
Member
I have more empathy for sites who contribute incorrect information because they don't know any better. Misleading people who are hungry for information, knowing they're misleading them.... and doing it because it makes a lot of money... makes what he is doing morally criminal (though not legally)
There's no doubt that The Onion is a lampoon.. but Ken throws in enough credible information to make it appear that what he's offering is good advice.. and beginners don't know any better, taking his site as gospel.
That doesn't sound like a nice guy in my book
There's no doubt that The Onion is a lampoon.. but Ken throws in enough credible information to make it appear that what he's offering is good advice.. and beginners don't know any better, taking his site as gospel.
That doesn't sound like a nice guy in my book
etrigan63
Active member
I have to agree with Jim. As a product reviewer and instructor, this sort of mis-information is a disservice to the public at large. I know he has a site to run (I do as well), but all he is really doing is playing off of the behaviors of search engines to drive up his visit counts and get potential hits on his syndicated advertising. Constantly putting out what is, in essence, gibberish spiked with keywords puts him at the level of a spammer in my opinion.