5 ms·

I think Ken Rockwell probably qualifies for that. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.

I think Ken Rockwell probably qualifies for that. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

buildbot 4y ago
I would strongly recommend against ken rockwell, much of his info is incorrect and he has…strong niche opinions, like RAW files being useless.
- vanillax 4y ago
  yea Ken Rockwell is the my pillow ceo of the photography world.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    And this is such a good example of why single-person review sites are not the answer to the problem. The site is in theory most useful to people who don't know much about the topic. But to know that the site isn't credible, you need to know a fair bit. One solution is things like Consumer Reports and Wirecutter, where you have an institution that does some quality control. But I wonder if there's something in the middle, like a few good reviewers clubbing together and certifying one another, such that there's a recognizable brand that they share, one with meaningfully high standards.
- turdnagel 4y ago
  I've actually found some of Ken Rockwell's info on analog cameras (especially Leica & lenses) to be super helpful, but I can't speak to his digital knowledge. Also, his photography itself isn't great.
- dockd 4y ago
  There's value but you can't just read one article. He contradicts himself. One post will rant about how digital means you don't need a tripod then another will be a glowing review of...a tripod.
- alfalfasprout 4y ago
  It's interesting... his site has plenty of valuable info but only if you're knowledgeable enough of a photographer to identify what is his opinion vs. what's an objective criticism.
  - spfzero 4y ago
    Yep, I know a small bit about photography and Ken's advice is better than most. One of the few places where you will hear that some product isn't worth the money, and here is a different cheaper one that's just as good. Or that here is one that is much cheaper and most people will never notice the difference. That's very helpful to the mainstream photographer, and very rare to see. He is not the "Stereophile" type of reviewer, for example.

I think Ken Rockwell probably qualifies for that. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

buildbot 4y ago

I would strongly recommend against ken rockwell, much of his info is incorrect and he has…strong niche opinions, like RAW files being useless.

vanillax 4y ago
yea Ken Rockwell is the my pillow ceo of the photography world.
- wpietri 4y ago
  And this is such a good example of why single-person review sites are not the answer to the problem. The site is in theory most useful to people who don't know much about the topic. But to know that the site isn't credible, you need to know a fair bit. One solution is things like Consumer Reports and Wirecutter, where you have an institution that does some quality control. But I wonder if there's something in the middle, like a few good reviewers clubbing together and certifying one another, such that there's a recognizable brand that they share, one with meaningfully high standards.
turdnagel 4y ago
I've actually found some of Ken Rockwell's info on analog cameras (especially Leica & lenses) to be super helpful, but I can't speak to his digital knowledge. Also, his photography itself isn't great.
dockd 4y ago
There's value but you can't just read one article. He contradicts himself. One post will rant about how digital means you don't need a tripod then another will be a glowing review of...a tripod.
alfalfasprout 4y ago
It's interesting... his site has plenty of valuable info but only if you're knowledgeable enough of a photographer to identify what is his opinion vs. what's an objective criticism.
- spfzero 4y ago
  Yep, I know a small bit about photography and Ken's advice is better than most. One of the few places where you will hear that some product isn't worth the money, and here is a different cheaper one that's just as good. Or that here is one that is much cheaper and most people will never notice the difference. That's very helpful to the mainstream photographer, and very rare to see. He is not the "Stereophile" type of reviewer, for example.