Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I find Ken's reviews helpful... not so much his personal conclusions, but the info he provides. When I first tried my X-Pro2, I discovered the same thing. The auto brightness on the EVF is crap. It goes from washed out to too dark. I turned it off and have left it off since.

 

He is also right about the area af focus. I mostly shoot single focus point because it too often gets it wrong. 

 

I read a number of X-Pro2 reviews that did not mention these things. His review of the good and bad about the X-Pro2 is accurate. Now all his stuff about who a pro is, what they want, and his subjective conclusions, I mostly consider to be noise in otherwise useful reviews. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken is a goofball, but he puts a good bit of info out there and it can be useful info. The reviews themselves border on clickbait.  Entertaining, perhaps. Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Before you give any weight to his evaluation of color, go look at his work and you'll understand where he's coming from. I would describe it as lurid. Or exaggerated. Perhaps bat-shit crazy. Maybe that look sells in SoCal. I actually like it sometimes, but generally not my thing. But there is good info in there when it can be separated from the clickbait in which it is embedded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all tongue in cheek, and he's generally quite disparaging (in one way or another) about most cameras...

 

Plus... By and large... He's not that wrong about things....

 

For example, the X-T10 does represent better VFM than the pro2...

 

He likes leica... But he pokes fun at them... He seems to poke fun at most cameras...

 

It's entertainment at the end of the day...

 

I bet when Huff eventually reviews it, we all like that review even less :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken is an idiot...

KR is quite successful blogger. Thus he is not an idiot by any means. Nevertheless in order to synthesize not an idiotic advice from his article, you already have to know a lot, which makes the advice quite useless. There are lot's of correct, wrong and exaggerated info on the website so one has to sort very carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ken is unimpressed then it starts becoming an interesting product, at least something worth to consider for you and me.

 

The thing is that 'Ken' generates traffic. We're discussing him, some are visiting his website, and this is exactly what he tries to achieve. Nothing else! He is not interested in having a correct opinion himself and why should he? It would result in less traffic and be counter effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting review...although a lot of copy & paste on the viewfinder. Do not agree on the landscape colors for Fuji in general. But in most cases, he has some fair points about each camera he reviews, and a lot of subjective exaggerations and complaints that are not consistent. He for sure knows how to stay interesting and drive traffic...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just his personal opinion at best......some are on point. I kinda stopped taking him too seriously when I bought the Nikon D7000 that he claimed was the best crop factor dslr in the world at that point in time. It was everything but!

 

I was already using my 5Dc and I was utterly disappointed with his recommendation.

 

He's still a good read once in a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ken, use raw and process your shots however you like.

 

When you pay for a camera what you pay for an X-Pro2, then some of us darn well expect it to create excellent images straight out of the camera; otherwise then just buy an entry-level DSLR and use top-tier lenses.

 

 

One minute he is knocking Leica then in another he is recommending them. No consistency ...

 

Every considered the possibility that a manufacturer might make an excellent product and a real piece of dung at the same time or as a follow-up product? Rockwell apparently isn't a brand fanatic, but appears to evaluate each product on its own merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Rockwell is unimpressed with the X-Pro 2....

 

....and I have always been unimpressed with Ken Rockwell, so do the math...

 

Ken unimpressed with XPro2  x  me unimpressed with Ken  =  impressed with XPro2  

 

(negative times a negative = a positive kinda thing)  :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken is the absolute embodiment of selfdeclared expertism. Like a lot of so called "expert users and reviewers" on the web, it seems that making a distinction between facts and personal opinions/taste is rather difficult.

 

Especially the overdone statements and grandiloquence really make his reviews distrustworthy. It is such a shame, since his experience with a wide range of equipment could make him a great benchmarker. Now, people get mislead and his reviews are full off disputable statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken is a bit hyperbolic, and his views are often a bit out of touch, but I'm still glad his website exists, for several reasons.

 

- His product photography is top notch, and a valuable resource for me in checking out new gear in glorious detail.

- His "reviews" have info that I can easily glean, that I cannot get in a consistent manner anywhere else. # of aperture blades, consistent flare, sunstar, macro testing, etc.

- He is obviously passionate about what he does, and I can't fault a man for that. Whether his views agree with mine are irrelevant. \

- The target audience for his blog is not you or me, it is for the average consumer. When viewed in this light, his "reviews" make a little more sense. 

 

All that being said though, I will readily agree that his skill is lacking and his views on photography to be head scratching very often. I cringe at the photos he produces, all crunched through Perfectly Clear and totally destroyed. 

 

Also, I'm new to the forum! Hello!

Edited by jmai86
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ken Rockwell is unimpressed with the X-Pro 2....

 

....and I have always been unimpressed with Ken Rockwell, so do the math...

But he drives a nicer car paid from his reviews than I can from my daytime job.

 

The guy must obviously do something right :)

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...