[Espressosaurus]

Ken Rockwell is a blowhard that copy/pastes info into every "review". His sharpness comparisons are laughable, as is his blatant fanboyism (which went from Nikon to Canon. It's funny to read the things he said about one brand 10 years ago and compare it to what he says about the same brand today). I would not put him into the same category as DPReview with a straight face. DPReview gave us the exposure latitude and high ISO comparison tools, which are wonderful for teasing apart differences in cameras. For example, I know the Z9 is 1 stop worse in high ISO noise performance than the Z7 due to its electronic shutter because I can see it in the comparison. That makes it easy for me to set my max ISO appropriately. Their reviews weren't perfect (I prefer Photography Life's, especially for the lens reviews--but they do principally Nikon reviews), but they were damn good.

Nobody does what DPReview did.

This is a sad passing, but reflects the general decline in ILC photography unfortunately.

[JenrHywy]

Rockwell is entertainment sprinkled with some useful insight - but you have to be very careful with him.

[astrange]

K-Rock has more than 200% the opinions of a normal human and is more than half trolling in all his reviews, but at least he knows how photography works, which is better than all the comments on this page claiming ILC digital cameras take "actual pictures" and smartphones take "fake AI pictures".

[Espressosaurus]

Let's just say I'm not impressed with his compositions and his "color".

There are plenty of other people who do a much better job with their photography that I find more worth reading. DPReview were one, Photography Life, Cameralabs, and on the video side Nigel Danson (I don't like his clickbait thumbnails, but his content is top notch for landscape), and Backcountry Gallery for wildlife.

About the only good thing I can say about Ken is his admonition to get out there and shoot, which is what a newbie needs to hear. Doesn't need to be perfect, just get out there and get that practice in.

[astrange]

The problem is that he has all the correct opinions, but since he has every opinion, he also has all the incorrect ones.

But he's right when he says resolution doesn't matter even if you're making a billboard, SLRs are not the best kind of camera ever made and never were, and that normal people shouldn't get Leicas.

[Espressosaurus]

Resolution matters if you're using it as a wallpaper or printing to look closely. I have photos I've cropped heavily and while I will cheerfully share them via text, they don't hold up to even display on a 4K monitor (~8 megapixels). Which is fine, but don't tell me resolution doesn't matter. It does matter. Though you can push it anywhere from a little to a lot if your target is low resolution anyway, like Instagram, or a billboard which covers a small fraction of your field of view. And if your lens isn't capable of resolving those fine details anyway then you can downsample happily and only miss out on a small amount of detail (see: every cellphone lens ever mated to a sensor with > 1 megapixel resolution).

Resolution isn't the only thing, and it certainly isn't more important than composition, lighting, and the moment. Resolution is something you can throw money at. It's a lot more expensive to throw money at composition and lighting, because those all require time and skill. The moment you can throw money at and just hold down on continuous-release-high. Sometimes it works out!

For the rest, SLRs are a way of capturing an image and one that makes a set of tradeoffs that has seen market success. There are others. Leicas are a fashion statement that is functional. They're like a much more expensive and more niche Apple. And like Apple, they do have a solid product for what they're shooting for, but that doesn't justify the price premium. Ken Rockwell's derision towards LeicaMan is amusing. I'll give him that.

But he's wrong about resolution. I've seen the difference between an 18-300mm consumer lens and a 100-400mm pro lens. I've seen the difference between the capabilities of the consumer camera body and the pro body that costs 5x as much. You're not paying for nothing, and it does make a difference. Is it worth the price differential and extra size and weight? That's a different question that has different answers depending on your tolerance for such things.

[dboreham]

I don't know him but I have to say I like Ken Rockwell's content. I wouldn't go to him for pixel peeping lens comparisons but for a general overview he's good.

There are also nowadays several good YouTubers in this field.

And of course there's TDP albeit Canon and Sony-only coverage there.

[roelschroeven]

On his About page, Ken Rockwell says

> To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion.

and

> I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.

and

> I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here.

(All of that are his own words!)

If you enjoy his writing for entertainment, no problem. But don't take anything written there as fact.

[Espressosaurus]

I liked him too when I started out and didn't know better.

There are other people out there and I recommend learning from them. Especially composition, lighting, contrast, and colors.

Take from Ken the advice to get out and shoot with whatever you have (it's good enough to shoot with if it was made in the last 15 years), ignore everything else he has to say.