# Nikon help and reviews..



## s-a-l-t-i-r-e (Jun 21, 2008)

If anyone is looking for info on any aspect of Nikon photography try this guys site.. What he doesn't know isn't worth knowing... 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Sorry to seem abrasive and to argue with you but... *what he knows about photography isn't worth knowing!*

The guy is a total joke and i'm sure there are a few photography savvy guys on DW who will agree with me!

To offer an alternative that a LOT of people rate far more highly that Ken Rockwell is Thom hogan.

www.bythom.com


----------



## s-a-l-t-i-r-e (Jun 21, 2008)

rmorgan84 said:


> Sorry to seem abrasive and to argue with you but... *what he knows about photography isn't worth knowing!*
> 
> The guy is a total joke and i'm sure there are a few photography savvy guys on DW who will agree with me!
> 
> ...


Each to their own, but Ken is highly regarded on the photography sites i frequent...

Thats not a bad site as well, aint seen that one before...


----------



## ade33 (Jun 4, 2008)

Opinion is certainly polarised over Ken Rockwell, most either love or loathe him. Personally I take his website as he intends it, his opinion and not gospel. His approach seems to me to be different from many photography websites in that he would rather take photographs than fuss too much over this setting or that.

I think this is relevant to many amateur photographers as there is much obsession with the minutiae of camera specification and which is 'best' - sometimes the photograph gets forgotten.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a joke - many rate his website and if you take what he says with a pinch of salt and do your own research then his site can be a useful resource. He has both feet firmly rooted in the Nikon camp.

Ken says what he thinks but he doesn't try to say 'this is right, that is wrong'. Which is fair enough because that statement could be applied to the whole of photography.

Thom on the other hand seems to based a lot more on hard facts and as such he comes across as a lot more scientific (and accurate?). His website is also a great read with huge amounts of information available.

Both have their place, it all depends what you're looking for.


----------



## chris_calcite (Jun 16, 2008)

s-a-l-t-i-r-e said:


> If anyone is looking for info on any aspect of Nikon photography try this guys site.. What he doesn't know isn't worth knowing...


Arghhh, not Ken Rockwell!? Honestly, on the Pentax list he's a byword for all that is clueless, cliched and recycled. There isn't an idea or review he can't steal and sell as his own. He's especially famous for his 'reviews' (including ratings, usually unfavorable if they ain't from Canon or Nikon) of cameras he's never even seen!

For more inspiring work try photo.net - it's been around a LONG time or for nature photography try Luminous Landscape (though Michael Reichmann can be a bit overbearing in that special American way in the latter).

C.


----------



## Lirin (Jun 9, 2008)

Many pro photog's fall into two camps- Nikon and Canon. I've had a few arguments with that over the years, as good-natured as it can be, people are opinianited.
I've also had the argument 'art versus technical' several times- I'm taught technical, and several shots I'd bin my partner has said are great- opinion is a basis of photography now also- it's cut-throat and profit based, as is every working sector- but if everyone liked the same thing, the world would be boring.

I've always personally found dpreview.com a good site- they tend to be reasonabaly technical in reviews.


----------

