Based ken

>>2932432
I'll bite. A lot of his stuff is tongue in cheek. That said, he's more right than he's not when it comes to how people should stop autistically worrying about the specs of cameras and lenses and just get out and fucking shoot.

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/Where-Do-Babies-Come-From-Traditional.htm

>>2932432
i don't like him much but he claims to be no expert on photography, and he never tries to boast about what a wonderful photographer he is. He's modest and I like that.
Iirc his background was engineering in radio and tv communications.
He's said some blatantly incorrect shit like "shorter flange distance equals higher image quality, because light will difract while traveling longer flange distances"
But I do like how his site is almost an open source for specs on most cameras, and he's reviewed a lot of stuff which o enjoy.
He's kind of just a dadbro, the kind that travels to Yellowstone every weekend

>>2932438
That's the thing, he's the biggest gearfaggot in the world, while simultaneously saying that gear doesn't matter. The guy has to be schizophrenic or have dual personalities or something.

Also he's terrible at rating items relative to eachother, and has a bizzare ability to overlook glaring flaws in lenses.

He is helpful for knowledge on film cameras though, I'll give him that.

>>2932571
He is generally terrible at rating anything because he runs any objective fact through a huge ass biased set of views.

He is probably appealing to artfags that want or need to gearfag their Nikon / Canon, but that don't want to admit that gear really *does* matter a lot, because it would make their relative value as wheel/button jockeying, shutter pressing monkeys less important.

Whether he does the bias for business reasons or whether he really believes it, I can't tell.

>>2932446
>the kind that travels to Yellowstone every weekend

that sounds comfy as fuck.

>>2932432
I learned a lot from his site when I was a complete beginner. I think he provides a good service. It's not like you're forbidden from finding other information elsewhere on the interwebz.

Ken has the best photo page on the interbutts.
While not everything on Ken's page is perfect and it is very "subjective", most other pages aren't all that good at all.
What sells for me is based 90s internet with no clutter, amount of pages that are consistent.
I have yet to find a photo information page as comfy.

I will gladly take suggestions on other pages to visit. Replying shitposters please include links.

File: fml.jpg (287KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1024x1024px

>>2932432

>>2932625

its just a kid with his resting face, nothing to meme about, you autist.

>>2932438
what the fuck is that link

>>2932571
>That's the thing, he's the biggest gearfaggot in the world, while simultaneously saying that gear doesn't matter. The guy has to be schizophrenic or have dual personalities or something.
Nah. He's an engineer so he knows how to get and report the technical aspects that a lot of people are interested in and drives traffic to his site. He knows people go there to compare specs, so he gives them what they want. I can't see him really giving that much of a damn about the technical specs in his work or his writings on photography. Like go read through his tutorial stuff then consider how dismissive he is of what others consider major issues when talking about a given hunk of gear in his reviews (which also could just be a brilliant play on confirmation bias in his audience, but I don't think he's cynical enough to do that). He genuinely believes a lot of this shit is just bloody amazing. This I think has a lot to do with his age. He's seen these technologies mature in very dramatic ways and has the technical understanding to appreciate just how far digital photography has come.

>>2932645
It's obligatory and highly useful the moment anyone starts taking anything he says too seriously.

File: Ken 'The Rock' Rockwell.jpg (423KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 800x1000px

>>2932432
Ken "the rock" Rockwell is the /p/eoples champ.
Roody-poo candy asses like you don't belong here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:07:20 18:48:39
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1000

>don't gearfag, guys! just go take pictures!!!
>but before you do, let me tell you why you need this new camera!

>As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!

>>2932960
>herpa derp
Can't at all be that he recognizes that gearfags are going to gearfag no matter what anyone says and provides content for both gearfags and everyone else...nah.

File: Ryan.png (187KB, 267x332px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 267x332px

>>2932625

>>2932982
his family is growing horizontally

>>2932974
But the hypocrisy is in waxing poetic about why "your camera doesn't matter" while simultaneously holding himself up as the ultimate wide sage of camera technology, and writing non-stop about it. Surely you can see that.

It's always amusing when people denounce "gearfagging" because pretty much everyone cares about camera gear. There's no escaping it.

>>2932992
How exactly is talking about the technical limitations of gear the same as gearfagging? Mastery of your tools is a part of any art or craft. Part and parcel to mastery is knowing the limitations. Look at the old cast of Top Gear for a similar example: those guys know cars in and out, but still can have fun with, use, and seriously consider the merits and issues of everything from the cheapest econobox to the hyperest of hypercars.

And hell, go read something like his review of the EF 85mm 1.2 which both tells you that if you don't know why you'd want a 1.2 you really don't need it, but also still talks about why the people who want such would like it.

There's no hypocrisy in acknowledging that in a given field there are different, equally viable approaches to a topic.

If people didn't gearfag and masturbate over tech specs, it would be Ken's ideal world. But of course we would all have shit cameras, because manufacturers would figure out that we are not very discerning - because "gear doesn't matter" - so they would race to the bottom and build the shittiest camera possible.

But we are discerning, we love pixel peeping, and we do side by side comparisons. So the better cameras will get promoted more by reviewers and those ones will get bought more.

>>2932988
i fking loled

>>2932446
Shorter flange distance does equal higher image quality though.

Think of a laser, are the edges more crisp and perfect pointing at something 5cm away or 50m away? And don't forget light halves for every doubling in distance, there's about 5cm inbetween a dslr lens back and sensor, but half that or less in a rangefinder/mirrorless lens.

File: 1369429942913.jpg (74KB, 245x282px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 245x282px

>>2932992
>It's always amusing when people denounce "gearfagging" because pretty much everyone cares about camera gear
>This is what gearfags actually believe

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6001.18000
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:06:06 20:00:40
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	245
Image Height	282

>>2935975
>Disclaimer, I am not at expert

I'm pretty sure the inverse square law is not a simple halving/doubling per unit, and for light travelling in all 3 dimensions (like a sphere).
This would be changed probably though because the light is travelling in a beam not a sphere.

As far as I am aware though short flange is still better because you get more choice in optical design, and also you don't need to make ultra wides retrofocal.

>>2936035
Nah bruh, inverse square law applies to lasers too.

The mirror box is the biggest inconvenience in lens design, dslr's will die out because of it. We're in a lens design limbo at the moment whilst companies frantically try to forget about everything they learned with designing around a mirror box to finding out what actually works well without restrictions.

>>2936050
>I know literally nothing about lens design and optics and make idiotic claims because my art degree entitles me so
Translated by Google

>>2936056
>claiming the inverse square law is an idiotic claim

Bruh, do you even irony?

>>2936050
>Nah bruh, inverse square law applies to lasers too.
Thanks, I wasn't sure at all, but yea I reckon the shorter flange is always going to have benefit of optical design, because even its not like they have to use the space, but on an SLR theres no choice but to go retro focal, making lenses either not as sharp, or very big

>>2936056
can you actual break down the statement and clarify why its wrong?
Actually being serious cause I dont know about these things

>>2936065
There was nothing wrong in >>2936050, anon is just pissy that he was proved wrong again.

>>2936064
>making lenses not as sharp, too big
And half as bright

>>2936065
Shit only works for non-collimated light

>>2936129
>non-collimated light

How many of your lenses have a rear element that completely covers the size of a full frame sensor?

None?

Oh, so the lights not collimated then.

Cool.

Well done bro.

Great contribution.

>>2936155
...you're aware that lasers are basically THE collimated light, right?

>>2932996
Top gear was interesting because they did ridiculous shit in most of the episodes and it was entertain gas hell. Kinda like the appeal of digital rev

>>2936176
Lasers aren't collimated bro.

You ever shone a laser at something far away? Notice how the dot is no longer 1mm wide?
Ever did a google?

>>2936176
>shine laser pointer at airplane
>light expands enough to fill the whole fucking pilot's cabin

>shine laser pointer at moon
>beam expands to the size of the American continent by the time it reaches

Really... how do you think they make those glass blocks with shapes and figures suspended in them as little dots? They focus a laser to converge at a specific point in space and that's where it burns the glass.

File: Screenshot_20160930-035320.png (394KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1440x2560px

>>2936732
>>2936760
Goddamn you are dumb.

>>2936764
Collimation has an error over large distances. A perfectly collimated beam of light would have infinitesimal illumination. Also there is the refractivity of the air, more precisely the different temperature an different compositional layers of the air (like shimmering in the distance)

>>2936774
No shit. And after all of that, the inverse square law still doesn't apply to lasers, and you're still fucking dumb.

>>2936764
No u

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-light-from-lasers-reduced-by-the-inverse-square-law-as-distance-grows-similar-to-other-light-sources

>>2936775
The inverse square law doesn't apply to an ideal laser. Physical constraints prevent the construction of an ideal laser light source, and so there would be an energy/area density falloff equivalent to the inverse square law, proportional to the actual divergence of the laser

>>2936819
You mean a perfect laser, in a vacuum ;)

>>2932432
The guys a joke, some of his reviews have been "in the works" since 2006, he also reviews some cameras without even using them, he'll review them based entirely on their specs, look up his epson rd-1 review to see how retarded he is