Ken Rockwell now a Canon fanboy?

Referrals = money

andrikos wrote in post #15014137
Whatever gets him traffic he'll take.
Thanks for feeding his growing family...

Yeah... you really can't trust KR for any type of factual review anymore. Too bad, really.

SoCalTiger wrote in post #15014421
Yeah... you really can't trust KR for any type of factual review anymore. Too bad, really.

Anymore? When could you?

tkbslc wrote in post #15014435
Anymore? When could you?

Before I knew better?

Ken Who???

DJHaze596 wrote in post #15014493
Ken Who???

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/

Wait a minute. What is all this Ken Rockwell bashing. He tests cameras and lenses and posts his opinions about them. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes not. So what? He does a far better job of reviewing products than anyone I have seen here bashing him. It seems like he is actually making a living doing this and that is more than I can say for most.

Mike

MikeWa wrote in post #15014550
Wait a minute. What is all this Ken Rockwell bashing. He tests cameras and lenses and posts his opinions about them. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes not. So what? He does a far better job of reviewing products than anyone I have seen here bashing him. It seems like he is actually making a living doing this and that is more than I can say for most.

Mike

doesn't matter how well a living he makes, or what he does to make it... if you're going to post silly things on the internet, people will bash you for it... and that's all that's happening here... KR has said things that have made a lot of readers lose respect for the guy... KR has the rights to have all the opinions on gear he wants... the rest of us will also have the rights to make fun or bash his 'review'....

SMP_Homer wrote in post #15014580
doesn't matter how well a living he makes, or what he does to make it... if you're going to post silly things on the internet, people will bash you for it... and that's all that's happening here... KR has said things that have made a lot of readers lose respect for the guy... KR has the rights to have all the opinions on gear he wants... the rest of us will also have the rights to make fun or bash his 'review'....

Yes you are right. I was just comparing your home page to his. Hmmm.

Mike

These threads are good for him. Helps raise traffic and search placement. He does it on purpose.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #15014340
is the 60D using LP-E6 as well?

Yes...from KR review
LP-E6 Li-ion battery: 7.2V, 1,800mAh (same as 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III).

MikeWa wrote in post #15014550
Wait a minute. What is all this Ken Rockwell bashing. He tests cameras and lenses and posts his opinions about them. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes not. So what? He does a far better job of reviewing products than anyone I have seen here bashing him. It seems like he is actually making a living doing this and that is more than I can say for most.

Mike

He definitely post his opinions.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesC​omeFrom.htm

andrikos wrote in post #15014214
I guess we can all come together and with the massive intellect of this forum we can work out a unifying equation. I hope it doesn't require any string theory...

...maybe call it "bling theory".

MikeWa wrote in post #15014550
Wait a minute. What is all this Ken Rockwell bashing. He tests cameras and lenses and posts his opinions about them. Sometimes I agree with him sometimes not. So what? He does a far better job of reviewing products than anyone I have seen here bashing him. It seems like he is actually making a living doing this and that is more than I can say for most.

Because he gives contradictory information while being WAY too opinionated about some things (He likes primes so he goes on rants about any zoom thats NOT a 28-300, **** about people who measure lenses...but does it himself...and cant seem to decide whether a D40 is the best camera ever made or if a 5D Mark III is.. Or a Leica..)

He's also posted outright BS on his site, one time he did a review **** about the 5D Mark IIs IQ.. When he was using a lens he admitted didnt work correctly, But that didnt matter, because thats Canon and if the lens doesnt work, then it doesnt work, and that makes it inferior to a Leica

Oh and he also got mildly racist by referring to Canon and Nikon as "Those Orientals" more than once

He also still advocates shooting film which is... impractical to say the least, Still goes on about "Real RAW" and seems to be convinced that any lens over a 50 is a complete and utter waste since you have legs and can always get closer to your subjects, if you need a zoom, Buy a 28-300 because thats the lens you need, everything else is a waste, Working pros only use a 28-300 after all unless they're idiots

He's also crude, Not in a funny manner like say, Kai Wong (Who is doing stuff primarily for the LULZ most of the time and isnt supposed to be taken seriously) but in a childish 13 year old way.. ie, FARTing and such... He's also not really that great of a photographer, I feel I can churn out better photos in most situations than he can..and i dont have the best self esteem in the world

He makes decent points, Theres some truth in what he's saying sometimes, but overall he's an unreliable narrator, The reason he gets so many hits is that his site is pretty much guaranteed to pop up near the number 1 spot on any search, this is a problem because you get new photographers who cant discern his BS from the nuggets of truth and who will either end up confused or end up taking his word as the gospel Ken Rockwell...

Again, I've -agreed- with what he says on some cameras

Thom Hogan is a much better reviewer who gives much better opinions, Who seems at least to be far more consistent in his view points

Hell, I'm not consistent at times, But I at least am honest about it, I admit that sometimes using a lens beyond a couple weeks can sometimes start to reveal more flaws than you initially discovered and I report on them, Thats being honest, See my review of the 35mm f/2 which I was in love with until I ran into situations where the weird bokeh was popping up more than it was when i first got it, My opinion radically changed after that simply because those situations were actually what i bought the lens for in the first place..

Theres pixel peeping, and then theres "This bokeh is so distracting i cant find the subject because the background looks like someone has shmeared vaseline all over my photo.. Not in a good way... more in a cheap cell phone way.. Or to put this another way, the Bokeh made me physically discomforted, It was like when i had issues with double vision all over again... Thats why I deleted most of the worst examples, Because I couldnt even look at them without getting ill"

DavidR wrote in post #15014622
He definitely post his opinions.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesC​omeFrom.htm

LOLWTF?!?!