Despite our making fun of him, I find a lot of what he writes sensible and
sane, as long as, like with any reviewer, you've read enough of his reviews to
be able to read through the barriers. I used to read a certain NY Times movie
reviewer with an eye toward going to see any movie she panned. It worked about
95 percent of the time.
One aspect of him I appreciate is that he does not appear to be in anyone's
pocket--not the manufacturers, not the "photo guru community" not the movers
and shakers, not the gallery or museum types. He's just Ken Rockwell, butt of
many jokes but consistent and timely in his posts and the stuff he picks to
talk about.
Rockwell has almost--repeat _almost_--convinced me that I don't need to lug my
D800 kit around Scotland this fall. All I need to do is pick up a Fuji X100s
and call it good. A little restricted on the lens options, but much less
invasive for street and pub shots, with an overall quality consisted with pro
results. And much easier to tote around and keep up with.
--Bob
On Apr 12, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Rockwell is a shill for himself and for whatever fancies his pretty
> little head. But he does get it right when it comes to intangibles.
> He'll call out the good and the stupid in camera designs.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|