[Don Schaeffer]

Has anybody heard of this guy, http://www.kenrockwell.com ? He has some intersting things to say and a nice users guide for the Nikon D40.

[Toad]

He is quite famous. I like what he has to say - but lots of people on line don't like him.

[matthew]

I'm one of the "don't like" group. He often writes for effect rather than reportage; and his "about" page is quite clear on the subject. ("While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.")

I know from my looking for Olympus information that he dismisses the entire line because "the 7 - 14 mm lens doesn't take screw in filters, so I really can't use it. The 11 - 22 mm isn't really an ultrawide lens, so you see how simple little features render the Olympus system of no use to me." Incidentally, he loves the Nikon 14-24, which also doesn't take screw-in filters but has much higher optical distortion than the Oly 7-14. The other major difference in his information about the two lenses is that he's actually used the Nikon version of the ultra-wide zoom: he starts his Olympus review by saying "I have not really played with much of any of these."

The Onion indeed...

[Zig]

Yes. he's interesting in that he has memorable things to say: yet they are memorable for the wrong reason generally. Guy's a bit of an arse really. Allegedly.

[Toad]

I have heard this sort of criticism a lot - but at the end of the day - he says what he thinks and doesn't pixel-peep like people on a lot of sites do - where they get all bound up in 100% crops of photos and obscure criteria...

Ken doesn't demand the best lens at 100% crops - he likes a lens that is easy to use in the field and delivers performance without having to get hung up on a million settings.

I realize opinions vary - but he talks to my style of photography - the equipment is a means to an end - not an end in itself.

(flame shield on!)

[Don Schaeffer]

Even at this early stage in my experience with the DSLR, I can tell I don't agree with him in a number of areas. I just like him because he lays it all out exhaustively so there is valuable information in what he says. Reading his stuff is like having an idiosyncratic, but experienced teacher.

[adam]

He's entertaining!
I love reading his opinion! haha

[shuttertalk]

I read his reviews a bit, but always take them with a grain of salt. He can be a bit biased and opinionated and borderline obnoxious but oh well, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[matthew]

Even at this early stage in my experience with the DSLR, I can tell I don't agree with him in a number of areas. I just like him because he lays it all out exhaustively so there is valuable information in what he says. Reading his stuff is like having an idiosyncratic, but experienced teacher.

There's something to be said for someone who clearly requires a discerning reader. It's something that's needed everywhere -- but rarely as easy to remember.

[Kombisaurus]

Ken's an interesting one isn't he....
There are certainly a few pearls of wisdom tucked away in his website, but unfortunately they are nestled within a lot of what I consider very poor advice as well.
I give him credit for being so prolific in offering advice, it's just a shame he doesn't seem to have his "BS filter" switched on!

I'm also not a big fan of his photography work. For a so-called expert (admittedly not by himself, but by others) I find his stuff quite uninspired. It seems his solution to every problem photo is to just crank up the saturation and contrast. His photos seem about as subtle and carefully constructed as his writing.

Of course I'm not in a position to talk... my photos and writing both leave plenty to be desired. But then I'm not one of the big names of photography on the web like he is.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Ken whowell ?

[Shutterbug]

I think he has some good information tucked away in there amidst bad/misleading information....
It also would be nice if he wasn't opinionated
I like his Nikon D40 Manual.:/ I don't see why everyone puts him down. I think his site is more for amateurs. ok, so people have their own opinion. Just because you post OH I HATE KEN ROCKWELL! HE SUCKS! doesn't mean that it will change. He's a normal guy who has a website. people can express feelings on their own website of they want too. I don't see why everyone puts him down because of that. If people don't like it, they should make their OWN website with THEIR OWN information! And to finish, People, what works for one person, MIGHT NOT WORK FOR ANOTHER PERSON! Just because someone has settings that work for him, doesn't mean that it will work for you!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[NT73]

A nice second post, shutterbug.

[Pavel]

Hello Shutterbug and welcome. I did not post on this subject and so I see myself impartial in this. I reade Ken Rockwell and he is blunt and direct (I like that) and he does have good info on his site, but some of the things he says just do not check out. Some people here may not like his style and others may not like the fact that he sounds equally sure about things he is factually correct and things that he may not be. My take is, read his stuff, but before you commit good money, check what he is saying. I think that it is good that he is posting and few here would wish to take it away from him. A civil debate is good, because we can all learn from it. It just that sometimes the debate can get heated and begin to sound personal and then it stops being a joy for all. I am glad that you balanced the earler comments with your views.

My preference, when it comes to equipment reviews is to go the DPreviews.com for camera reviews (and the few lenses they also reviewed recently) and to go to Photozone.de for lenses. Both use straight clear talk and I found both credible. I did not read the manual for D40 by Rockwell and it may well be good.

Welcome to the site. Pavel