how to alienate an entire forum (someone dislikes the R-D1x)

back alley said:
oh, i thought we were talking about wilson pickett...;)
Click to expand...

No, Wilson Pickett isn't the same as Pickett Wilson.

pickett2.jpg


I thought we were talking about sitemistic :)
 
back alley said:
i have not bashed or even commented about ken rockwell.

after having and loving and using the g1 with my zm lenses, yes, i do want the rf experience - i want zm lenses, the rf experience and digital all in one.
Click to expand...

Joe, thats an honest answer, one I agree with. Plus I bet you didn't spend nearly 3 grand for it either. Hope you enjoy it.
 
Say what you will about Ken, he speaks his mind and lets the chips fall where they may. In today's PC world, good for him! At least someone has a spine. And if you look at the shots he took of Death Valley w/ Leica gear and slide film, well, there's some great images there. I don't shoot digital because I shoot B&W, so the new RD whatever has zero appeal for me. Please spare us the over contrasty shots from your digicams! I know what a digitally derived image looks like when it's printed out. Hey, the stuff is only gear. When you look at the prints Edward Weston made w/ a $5 lens he bought in Mexico (and a lens that all of his friends said he paid too much for), you quickly see that it's the photographer, not today's latest and greatest, that makes the keepers.
 
I'm going to get one, either the older model or the new one. It depends on what I have to sell to get it. I'm bouncing between my DMC-L1 and all of it's lenses and my Bronica RF645 and it's two lenses. I love both of those cameras but with tuition it's the only way I'll be able to get a digital M body.
 
gb hill said:
Sorry but I'm not trolling. This is a thread bashing Ken & I simply wanting to here an intelligent reason why you disagree. I think the problem is, is that you don't like somebody calling you out & you can't.
Click to expand...

Ken? It's you isn't it? ;)
 
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]i was not really comenting on the quality of the r-d1x
i was mearly pointing out the rockwell has once again writen a completly nosensical artical for his site

eg #1

You have to peer through a separate internal viewfinder to compsoe and focus, just like a disposable camera. You can't see through the lens. Focus is manual only.

this makes no sense because disposable cameras are fixed focus

eg#2

[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Who cares? It's still only a 6MP DX sensor. I'd rather shoot a real camera like the Nikon D40.

the two cameras have the same sensor so what he is comparing are type of camera
we all know slr's and rangefinders both have thier own pros and cons
i wonder what oskar barnack would think of ken saying his design of camera is not "real"

not to mention the fact he also states that holding a m3 is a pleasure.

does he like rangefindrs or not??

as i said, contradictory!!!

eg #3

[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Luckily for us, this camera isn't likely to be introduced outside of Japan.

how is that lucky for him, its not as if when the r-d1x hits forign soils its going to start poisoning his precious nikon 18-200 lens

normaly im not one to complain or write about this sort of thing on forums, it just erks me that this guy makes his living out of drivel that always crops up at the top of google when you search for many things camera related.


[/FONT]
 
KR is a tool. But smart. He counts on the traffic to his site. I don't buy a dimes' worth of advice or tips off his comments. Besides, he grades equipment before it comes out, right?he also gives advice like sell your tripod, you won't need it anymore thanks to VR and IS lenses. Best advice I can give everyone, that includes the OP, is ignore him and his sophomoric solutions...
 
About two months ago, I would have told you I liked Ken. But then he changed a bit. He started talking about other things like killer robots and Leica, and I thought he lost his mind!
 
that whole thing about vr making a tripod obsolete is one thing i always had to correct people on when i used to sell cameras, used to drive me nuts
i do belive that the good majority of what he says is pure guess work based on the value of a product
 
i used to own the 18-200, i used it when i literally couldnt carry anything else
i was never completly happy with the results. i wouldnt say its bad, it is usefull but ken makes it sound like its a mirical of modern lens tech. if its that good why does he bother with anything else
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top