Check out Ken Rockwell's 40D review. . .

Cathpah wrote in post #4047846
wow...that is the most over-the-top "review" i've ever read. i have no doubt the 40d is a great camera...but this review is just ridiculous.

quote:
"...run, don't walk, and go get one or two 40Ds. It's soooooo obvious when you get the 40D and one of the other cameras together to compare..."

bologna.

Except for the various full-frame-advantages of the 5D, the noise levels of the 40D are visually identical to my Rebel XTi and the sharpness at ISO 200 is pretty close to my 5D. Who cares? Most photographers don't, but people who waste all day talking about it on the Internet do. The biggest technical quality differences between cameras are your ability to adjust the color and contrast to fit your scene and your artistic vision of it.
If the few hundred extra dollars for the 40D is a stretch, I'd avoid looking at the 40D since you're going to want it over the 30D or anything else from Canon. The final image quality is almost indistinguishable from the other Canon cameras, so don't worry if you can't swing a 40D.The final results will be the same; it just not quite as much fun with the older cameras.

NickSimcheck wrote in post #4048429
I will not click on that link, Ken Rockwell isn't worth 1/10th of a penny.

haha....well put.

I still don't understand...why do we not like Ken Rockwell?

segasaturn wrote in post #4055023
I still don't understand...why do we not like Ken Rockwell?

Because we can't face critiques

segasaturn wrote in post #4055023
I still don't understand...why do we not like Ken Rockwell?

Personally I dont have anything against the guy because hes definitely more experienced than myself, but I did find these hillarious...

• Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
  
• Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
  
• Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
  
• Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
  
• Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
  
• Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
  
• Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
  
• Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
  
• Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
  
• Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
  
• When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
  
• Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
  
• Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
  
• Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
  
• Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
  
• Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
  
• Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
  
• Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
  
• Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
  
• Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
  
• When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
  
• Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
  
• On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
  
• Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
  
• When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
  
• For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
  
• Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
  
• Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
  
• Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
  
• The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
  
• Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
  
• A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell
  
• Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
  
• Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

segasaturn wrote in post #4055023
I still don't understand...why do we not like Ken Rockwell?

He likes the Nikon interface better

While he certainly doesn't have an eye for what's natural exposure or color.....I take him for what he is: not the most professional, but neither the most terrible camera reviewer out there. While he doesn't seem to concerned with getting specs right, to his credit, he did listen and learn about a correction I sent him on the 5D (his review **** about why there's no 1/3 increments in ISO under 100.....I sent him a link from Canon stating that 100 is the native ISO, where 50 gives you less DR).

Adam: Those are HILARIOUS!!!!

kcbrown wrote in post #4047919
I think it's very amusing that in his latest "update" (which is at the top), he states:

4.) Hugely improved LCD. Whoops? Did I forget the 40D's great LCD monitor? The monitor of my 5D and the 30D are the worst in SLR photography because they are worthless and weak. The old LCDs are dim, have low contrast and have hideous color accuracy. The 3" LCD of the 40D is two or three classes above the crappy LCDs in the 5D and 30D. (The LCD of the 20D was better than the 30D, but it's only half the size of the 40D, so the 20D feels like 1999 all over again.)

but in his chronologically first part of the writeup (which is at the bottom) he states:

The LCD monitor is a disappointment, much worse that the Nikon LCDs. It's bigger, but not better than before. Resolution isn't very good, so text appears upscaled and smeared compared to even a $400 Nikon D40. The full LCD cannot be used to see the image: the top band is always data on black, not image. (I hope I'm missing a trick here.) Images seen on the monitor are not as sharp as the monitors on my current Nikons. That's not just the LCD screen's fault; the Nikons sharpen the image in firmware before display, the Canon 40D appears not to.

So, Ken, is the LCD a disappointment or is it great?

To be fair, it seems he uses the LCD for color assessment of his resulting images and has found that the 40D's LCD has good color rendition, something he has complained about with respect to the 30D and 5D. So his answer to my question may simply be "yes"!

This is pretty obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. He thinks the 40D LCD is better than Canon's previous attempts, but still falls short of Nikon's LCDs. And I'd agree with him. The 2.5" LCD screen on my Mark IIn is very nice, but I have fond memories of a Nikon D70s and D80 and D200 units that honestly have much nicer LCD screens. It has been a well pointed out weakness of Canon for some time now, Ken is not the only reviewer to say this.

Gee guys, get over it. Canon is not the be all and end all of cameras. Other marques can, and do better Canon in various areas. Live with it.

Dave

ok....this is funny

Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

why all the hate with this guy?

tightlinez wrote in post #4057690
why all the hate with this guy?

He's and king of mis-information?
Which makes him about as ethical as a politicion.

From his review:
Actual photographers, whom I'll define as anyone who makes at least a few hundred shots every day, at least 5 days a week, every week, will LOVE the 40D over the previous 10D, 20D or 30D. For them, it's a no-brainer. (see also Is It Worth It?)

I'm glad he finally defined an "actual" photographer must take at lest 1500 pictures a week. My god, the first year I had my Drebel I took 1500 shots, the second year was 3500. My first year with the 5D I took 3700.

I am now so upset that I am not an actual photographer because I guess actual photographers take more pictures in a month than I take in a year.

I was out shooting today and I took 19 shots of 2 macro scenes. Different compositions and appetures. All I need is one good image of each scene. The more I photograph, the fewer photographs I take.

Who looks at the LCD anyway? All I use it for is to look at the hystogram and canons LCD's do just fine for that!

ashdavid wrote in post #4062444
Who looks at the LCD anyway? All I use it for is to look at the hystogram and canons LCD's do just fine for that!

You don't check for composition or some idiot looking the other way in a group shot? I do, but maybe that's because I'm not that good yet.

Some of these comments are a bit rabid, and I have to say that when his comments are taken in the context it was written the piece reads fine. You can disagree with his conclusions, but his stream of consciousness style doesn't offend me. Nor does it prevent me from recognizing that actual experience with the camera swayed his original opinion.
You have to just put on the scale with all the other reviews; a sample size of 1 is useless statistically. By him/herself no reviewer is perfect nor shoots with your exact style and concerns in mind..