Reviews, Good and Poor

WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
edited August 5 in General Discussions
I was reading Ken Rockwell's review of the new Canon 24-200 4.0-6.3 and he commented:

It's super-sharp as I've shown. I also compared it directly to the state-of-the-art RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, and it's as sharp, and and only rarely a little less sharp. In other words, this is just as sharp as Canon's far more exotic lenses; it's just not as fast and as tough — or as heavy and expensive and as limited in zoom range.

Here is the 24-240 4.0-6.3 review:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-240mm.htm

And the 24-70 2.8 review:

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/24-70mm-f28.htm

Can anyone spot the deceit?
Post edited by WestEndFoto on
«134

Comments

  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,586Member
    edited August 5
    Well I haven’t looked at it yet my guess is at least one is a “paper” review, meaning based on specs etc. but he didn’t actually have hands on the product. He does that a lot.

    He also does a lot of very sloppy cut and pastes.
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    Let’s not even start on Ken Rockwell, he’s a shill, not a reviewer.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    Both of you have missed it.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 153Member
    The only weird thing I usually notice in his reviews:
    Made in Japan = Good
    Made in China = Bad

    Regardless of the lenses build quality and other characteristics, it is like the lens is somehow tainted if it isn't fully assembled by one set of hands instead of another.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member

    Both of you have missed it.

    Didn’t even bother to read it, it’s KR, waste of time.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,107Member
    Rockwell is good ....he is a millionaire ...can you say that ?
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    OK guys, I will lay it out for you plainly.

    Rockwell is comparing the MTD on a superzoom with a variable aperture range of 4.0-6.3 to a professional zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8 and claiming that the superzoom is just as sharp as the professional lens.

    Also note that even given this apples to oranges comparison, the professional lens is still what I would call significantly sharper in the centre and a lot sharper everywhere else.

    Anyone here wonder what the MTF on the professional lens would look like at 4.0 at 24mm and probably something like 4.5 at 70mm?

    Does anybody here think that rather than stretching the truth, this is not a gross distortion?
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member

    The only weird thing I usually notice in his reviews:
    Made in Japan = Good
    Made in China = Bad

    Regardless of the lenses build quality and other characteristics, it is like the lens is somehow tainted if it isn't fully assembled by one set of hands instead of another.

    Good point. I guess my D850 is an offshored piece of junk. Not what I was after though...…..see above.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    mhedges said:

    Well I haven’t looked at it yet my guess is at least one is a “paper” review, meaning based on specs etc. but he didn’t actually have hands on the product. He does that a lot.



    He also does a lot of very sloppy cut and pastes.

    Both true, but not what I was after......
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    PB_PM said:

    Both of you have missed it.

    Didn’t even bother to read it, it’s KR, waste of time.
    One should hear what people with contrarian views have to say. Sharpens one's own argument. And sometimes they are even right...…….
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    edited August 6

    Rockwell is good ....he is a millionaire ...can you say that ?

    Being rich doesn’t make someone ‘good’. As the old saying goes, a sucker is born every minute, good chance that many of them read Ken.

    PB_PM said:

    Both of you have missed it.

    Didn’t even bother to read it, it’s KR, waste of time.
    One should hear what people with contrarian views have to say. Sharpens one's own argument. And sometimes they are even right...…….
    There was a time when I read what he had to say, then I found reviewers who weren’t paid shills for the highest bidder.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,107Member
    I meant good at making money...if his reviews encourage people to buy from his sources he makes the $$$$$......who is the fool ?
  • SearcySearcy Posts: 596Member
    I watched his video review of the Z6. His total befuddlement of how to put the the memory card into the camera let me know that this wasn't a person to be taken seriously.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,586Member

    OK guys, I will lay it out for you plainly.

    Rockwell is comparing the MTD on a superzoom with a variable aperture range of 4.0-6.3 to a professional zoom with a constant aperture of 2.8 and claiming that the superzoom is just as sharp as the professional lens.

    Also note that even given this apples to oranges comparison, the professional lens is still what I would call significantly sharper in the centre and a lot sharper everywhere else.

    Anyone here wonder what the MTF on the professional lens would look like at 4.0 at 24mm and probably something like 4.5 at 70mm?

    Does anybody here think that rather than stretching the truth, this is not a gross distortion?

    Ah got it. Yes I agree. But that's his MO. For him basically every lens is "sharp enough". He does not value performance. Remember, this is the guy who said the EOS RP was the "best mirrorless camera on the planet".
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    mhedges said:



    Ah got it. Yes I agree. But that's his MO. For him basically every lens is "sharp enough". He does not value performance. Remember, this is the guy who said the EOS RP was the "best mirrorless camera on the planet".

    Yes, but it is one thing to say it is sharp enough. Totally a different thing to say what he said. You can say the Camry is "fast", but you can't say it is as fast as a Ferrari.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,223Member
    edited August 6

    I meant good at making money...if his reviews encourage people to buy from his sources he makes the $$$$$......who is the fool ?

    Never said Ken was a fool, I was talking about people who take his reviews seriously. As for the money he earns, anyone dumb enough to take Ken's reviews seriously gets what they deserve, since he himself at one time used to say that his entire site was just a farce. He took that page down long ago, but I remember it because when I was first shopping for a DSLR many years ago his sites were top of all Google searches for Nikon gear, and I mean all of it. Thankfully that isn't always the case anymore.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    PB_PM, is it your intent to imply that many people, including novices, are dumb?
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,107Member
    There is a difference between dumb and ignorant
  • flipflip Posts: 139Member
    "Deceipt" you say? Simply because he is comparing wide open aperture MTFs of a variable vs fixed aperture zoom? Here we go again with the CPA test as trash.

    Rockwell speaks to the average, perhaps less informed individual who is considering the variable zoom and wants to know how it compares to the pro lens wide open. It's a reasonable and fair comparison when you consider his audience. He doesn't use imatest testing stopping down lenses for aperture to aperture review. He does show how lens accuity improves with stopping down with actual pics, and I think his real life comparisons are very useful. If you look at the pro lens images, there is noticeable improvement in contrast, yet he is saying that for the average person, the variable zoom measures should be good enough (his estimate is 90%), and I agree.

    He says consistently that he is biased towards Canon, and if you look at his pattern, every new camera is the best at something (usually). This is hype, yes but I see no lies or manipulation there because there is usually some camera improvements with each iteration.

    Look at his shot tests of the Iphone 11Pro with Leica Q2 etc. These and other detailed comparisons of various lenses of different manufacturers are interesting because they show accuity and color differences. Yes he is somewhat different than others with his real life comparisons and he isn't burdened by having to prove out that one lens wide open is as good as an Otus. He is a good source for information that I would not wish to compile myself and for that I am grateful.

    I will ask this again, but I expect it will not be for the last time, "what percentage of your images are taken wide open"? Given that most lenses improve with stopping down, and by F5.6-F8 it may generally be said there is much less difference in performance lens to lens whether a slow variable zoom or a pro fixed aperture, if your apertures are mostly stopped down, you will see less difference in sharpness. So why the obsession with wide open MTFs anyway? If you shoot portraits at widest apertures, then yes I get it. Otherwise, please don't take us constantly down the accuity rabbit hole. It's annoying.

    Yes as an older guy he carries a bias against Chinese manufacturing and if I have a complaint, it's that he needs to stop that nonsense.

    On the other hand lens rendering and color output are clearly more important to the end result, n'est pas? I have used both the 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 g lenses extensively from Nikon, and though their wide open mtfs are not too great, certainly in comparison to newer models, their rendering is nothing short of spectacular. The only limitations with these lenses is the amount of CA and Nikon seems to be working towards improving outputs. Perhaps with the 1.2 S series we will see better results wide open.

    What is most interesting from Rockwell (and you see similar work by Steve Huff, Ming Thein and Diglloyd) is their proofs of how far Apple has come with producing ridiculously good images with a tiny 12MP sensor in the Iphone 11 Pro. There is a revolution there and the major camera manufacturers are missing the opportunity it seems to me. Take what Apple has done, translate that into a 45MP FF camera, and why are we not getting better image results where lens MTFs become of lesser importance?

    BTW, if you want the best lenses, look at the MTFs of the Leica SLs and Hasselblad X series where they show various aperture results. Those are spectacular and perhaps for some worth the price.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 487Member
    edited August 7
    flip said:

    I will ask this again, but I expect it will not be for the last time, "what percentage of your images are taken wide open"?

    The logic doesn't make sense here. On one hand you argue they shouldn't be compared at same aperture. Now you argue how many are taken wide open.
    flip said:

    Yes as an older guy he carries a bias against Chinese manufacturing

    That's just manipulation ("marketing") to polarize the audience to keep them more engaged.
    flip said:

    their proofs of how far Apple has come with producing ridiculously good images with a tiny 12MP sensor in the Iphone 11 Pro. There is a revolution there and the major camera manufacturers are missing the opportunity it seems to me.

    That's an orthogonal vector. Leave that to Adobe if you are going to post process anyway. Yes, I agree Adobe maybe should have an "ipone mode". But build that in camera is unpractical. First, iphone has much powerful chip that if used in camera, can have significant impact on battery life. Second Apple has way more software engineers than any camera maker can afford. When you spread that out on hundreds of millions of devices, that's probably not much. That's why market share is important. Now if that means the demise of standalone cameras for most usage, the writing is already on the wall. There is really no "missing the opportunity" to talk about. General purpose devices usually beat out the specialized ones at the end.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    Flip, where you are going with Rockwell has merit. He does speak to the masses. Often I will say to myself, “Rockwell makes no sense.” and then I pretend I am a beginner and it does make sense. I will quibble that his logic is off, but given “materiality”, he is often right, despite the fact that all my photography instructors would counsel that he be ignored.

    But I think he is going to far in this case. It is way past materiality.

    And those “stupid” people? They are the people that Nikon makes money from so us elites can debate about our full frame cameras and 1.2 primes.

    And just so it really sinks in. I assign a significant part of the blame for the issues the world faces today (not Covid) on Hillary Clinton. She really poured gasoline on a fire when she started talking about Trump’s deplorables. Now look at the mess the last four years have created.

    Let’s avoid doing that in the photography world.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 487Member
    edited August 7

    And those “stupid” people? They are the people that Nikon makes money from so us elites can debate about our full frame cameras and 1.2 primes.

    So you are taking advantage of the "*****" people. :smiley:

    Actually jokes aside, I don't know what you are trying to convey here. Maybe I miss something since I don't bother clicking those websites.

    Are you trying to say he wrote garbage article in that case? If so and people fall for it, then they are ***** to trust him in the first place. If you say people are not ***** and still trust it, then the article can not be garbage. So I don't know what position you are taking here. Maybe you should state clearly your position whether (1) the article is garbage, and (2) people trusting such article are stupid or not.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    tc88 said:

    And those “stupid” people? They are the people that Nikon makes money from so us elites can debate about our full frame cameras and 1.2 primes.

    So you are taking advantage of the "*****" people. :smiley:

    Actually jokes aside, I don't know what you are trying to convey here. Maybe I miss something since I don't bother clicking those websites.

    Are you trying to say he wrote garbage article in that case? If so and people fall for it, then they are ***** to trust him in the first place. If you say people are not ***** and still trust it, then the article can not be garbage. So I don't know what position you are taking here. Maybe you should state clearly your position whether (1) the article is garbage, and (2) people trusting such article are stupid or not.
    Thanks for the feedback TC88. Rockwell's article is not garbage, but that point I raise does the readers a disservice, even if many of them want to believe it (my lens is just as good as the pros - the differences are a quibble. Rockwell often does this and mostly it is not a big deal for his audience, but this one deserves to be called out.

    The people that read it are not stupid. Most have no desire or need to know enough to debate this matter. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am the same kind of consumer for most things that I buy.

    And my third point unrelated to Rockwell's article is don't treat people that don't see the world our way or aspire to a high standard as idiots. They are not idiots.

    Is this clear enough?
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 487Member
    edited August 7


    Is this clear enough?

    Ok, good, that's much clearer. Thanks.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,340Member
    You are welcome TC88.
Sign In or Register to comment.