Ken Rockwell Reviews

I was looking into the D7000 and made the mistake of looking at Ken Rockwell's review. If you haven't checked out his site - make sure you have eaten dinner because you will lose your appetite after doing so. Okay, maybe I'm being a little over the top... but I was wondering if anyone has found any review on his site to be helpful? My issue is that he seems bias and is the master of hyperbole. I can't count on him to give consistant advice.. but his reviews are rather in depth. Here is an example of what bothers me so much....

In his review of the D300s when it came out, he writes this about the addition of a second memory card slot:

Two Card Slots There are two card slots: one SD and one CF.

You can use both at once if you like in various ways, like record different kinds of files on each, and move files around between them.

I prefer the Backup mode, which keeps a safety copy on the other until I can backup the files from the active card offsite.

Of course Overflow mode is also there, in which the D300s moves magically to the next card when the first is full.

Now, here are his thoughts on the addition of a Dual Card Slot on the D7000 (which is coming out a full year after the D300s that first offered the Dual slot option):

Two Card Slots! One of the biggest reasons I love shooting my professional D3 is because I get free, live backup of everything I shoot because I record it to two cards simultaneously.

I can download and reformat one card and not worry if I backup my computer that day, because if I drop my MacBook Pro into McGee Creek, it's all still on the second card in my camera. I never worry about backing-up until I return from the field.

I'll say this again: set card two as backup (MENU > SHOOTING > Role played by card in Slot 2 > Backup), and so long as you copy card 1 to your laptop each night, you can reformat and reuse card 1 the next day, and then if your laptop catches fire or your camera falls out of the helicopter, you've still got backup of everything you've shot on card 2 without ever having had to back up!

So, I'm wondering if I should continue to glance at his site for reviews hoping something will be helpful, or ignore it all together? Thanks for the input (and I know I'm probably being too harsh!)

Luke - While Ken Rockwell is known for hyperbole, and sometimes seeming to take stances just to be different or confrontational, I don't see the issue with what's above. It seems like he's simply continuing to say in reviews

Are you upset with the (possibly there) implication that the D7000 is the first prosumer camera to have the dual card slots? Maybe I'm missing something.

To the larger issue, I see no problem with reading those reviews, as long as you consider the source. Never hurts to hear alternative viewpoints as long as you're making up your own mind.

David,

The example above to me illustrates his wide ranging views on things. For the D300s review a year ago, he noted the two card slots as an interesting feature but was not by any means excited about it. For the D5000 he acts like it's this amazing feature and raves about its use.

I'm in no ways upset as the D7000 really blurs the line between prosumer and pro (which I don't think any non-FX camera can really lay claim to anyway).

Thanks for the input

Here is perhaps a better example.... from his review of the D90:

The 18-105mm VR is a swell idea, and even the cheapest 18-55mm kit lens is also excellent.

The 18-200mm VR does everything; if you get it, you won't need any other lenses unless you're an ultrawide junkie like me.

And from the D7000:

I wouldn't order the kit with the 18-105mm lens, which is a boring lens for $300 extra.

I'd order the body-only, and get just the excellent 35mm f/1.8. That's what I shoot on my D7000 most of the time. The 35/1.8 is superb for just about everything, especially for action in low light.

If you insist, the 18-200mm VR II is probably all you need for everything, except for action in low light.

If you need wider angles, I use the 10-24mm. If you get the 10-24mm, most of its range is duplicated by the 18-200mm VR II

A lot seems to change in a year... And can someone explain how a 10-24 is "mostly duplicated" by an 18-200?

I cannot help myself, I have to go look at his site - much as I would a car wreck. Personally, I find his stances to appear self serving. I think he states many times that he earns quite a bit of income from people buying items from retailers using the links he provides which nets him some revenue. It then seems to me almost all of his new product reviews are glowing. Which one could infer is just to help prompt people to buy the items.

As David said, it seems to me too that he just enjoys being contrary and trying to incite. So, I take most of what he says with a grain of salt. On the other hand, he has detailed lists of gear that is often handy when trying to get a good lay of the land.

I use Ken's site for alternative points of view. The only real beef I have with his reviews was raving about the new Nikon 28-300 and panning the 24-120 f4, since they are both as sharp. He sent his 24-120 back. So, I tried the 28-300 and it is a good prosumer lens, but not a great lens. I now own the 24-120. It is noticeably sharper and much better build. It is no 24-70 but then I get my exercise by other means and for pure convenience the 24-120 is good enough paired with my D700.

So, I guess what I'm saying is he sometimes acts as my sanity check but there are other sources I trust more through analysis and objectivity.

I don't think any review site is perfect and their greatest value comes when used as part of a larger sampling. That said, Ken's reviews do seem to have a more emotional (for lack of a better word) spontaneous style. So the first time he saw 2 card slots, it was an interesting feature. Over the next year, he had come to appreciate the usefulness of that feature and gives it a glowing review. By the time the next camera comes out, it will be an expected feature and will barely get mentioned. In all, his reviews are helpful - just take it with a grain of salt.

For me, dpreview prevents the most objective reviews. They seem to assess each camera according to where it fits in the overall marketplace. They also seem insightful when it comes to the apparent trends by the big manufacturers. There are other review sites I use as well, and when you put them all together, I get a pretty good sense of things. I don't know why I read them, because I don't have the money to buy anything.

I don't know why I read them, because I don't have the money to buy anything.

You're right... so why should I get bothered by reading a review of something I can't even afford?