Rockwell blasts XT 10

[Alan Sircom]

If you read Ken Rockwell's standalone review of the Fuji X-T10, you wouldn't think of buying any other camera. If you read the Sony RX100 Mk IV, you wouldn't think of buying any other camera. And probably if you read any of his other reviews, you wouldn't think of buying any other camera aside from the one he's reviewing at the time.

 

This is perhaps one of the reasons why he gets such high site traffic. People don't necessarily read Rockwell synoptically, but go Googling for reviews of products they have zoned in on, and his site comes up. In such cases, often they are trying to confirm their buying decision with an independent review, rather than trying to discover good and bad points of a product in a shortlist. So, someone reading Ken Rockwell's review of the Sony RX100 Mk IV is probably not in the market for another camera, and any other cameras brought into the review are there to show the RX100 in a good light. The best thing is the one in his hands right now, and will remain so until he gets the next thing. Then that's the best. Anything else just gets in the way of people reading his review and then clicking through to buy. That is the way Ken Rockwell gets paid, and we'd all do the same under the same circumstances.

 

People with too much time on their hands will read someone like Ken Rockwell synoptically, and find the inconsistencies, the repetitions, and the contradictions. And those with way too much time on their hands will use all of this as some kind of argument ammo in forums. In fact, what Ken Rockwell is doing is just a by-product of being handmaiden to Google. 

 

What Ken Rockwell does extremely well is pre- and post-purchase reinforcement. He staves off buyer's remorse very effectively. Those products on his site where he receives a lot of hits and click-throughs will get free user-guides and more coverage than those less successful ones, so people come back for more. As such, he's almost a bell-weather on how successful a product line is doing in his territory. While I don't necessarily like or agree with his methods, his photographic style, and his conclusions, I can't help respecting the guy for continuing to carve out a living in this manner. His ability to read the market and adapt accordingly is almost preternatural, and his SEO skills are off the chart!

[rpkphoto]

In Rockwell's review yesterday (Sept 9), titled "Fuji's best interchangeable-lens camera yet, adding a flash and more to the X-T1," he raves about the camera.

 

If I weren't already planning to buy one, this review would convince me to do so.

[Alan Sircom]

In Rockwell's review yesterday (Setp 9), titled "Fuji's best interchangeable-lens camera yet, adding a flash and more to the X-T1," he raves about the camera.

 

If I weren't already planning to buy one, this review would convince me to do so.

Well, yes... that's exactly my point.

 

Most prospective camera buyers don't go to Ken Rockwell's site for a review. They go to Google and type the name of the camera they are about to buy, with the word "review" tacked on the end, They then hit on the one nearest the top of the first page of results that looks 'authentic', 'independent', and 'expert' to them.

 

In many cases, if Rockwell's readers are similar to most review readers, their mind has already been all but made up, and visiting a site like Ken Rockwell's is simply a part of the buyer building a barrier against post-purchase anxiety. It's more to do with confirmation than differentiation or selection.

 

His livelihood depends on getting enough people to click on his review page, and some of those visitors being hyped up from that review to buy on a click-thru from his site.

[frod]

he always seems to have pretty good product shots, and fairly accurate technical specs, that's about all I've really used his site for.

[dko22]

Yes, Ken raves about the X-T10 in his review but in the RX100 blog, he suggests that Fuji (and other mirrorless) are about the same quality as his iphone.......

[sghound]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t10.htm

 

great review overall

[str8six]

Ken called the X-T10 a superior camera to the X-T1, which I don't agree with, but he's panned the Fuji interchangeable lens cameras since shortly after the X-Pro1 was released and the X100 line became his favorite.

I've followed Ken for years, since he helped me pick a Nikon D70 over a Canon 20D in 2001. He reviews Fuji cameras as amateur cameras, so he compares them to point and shoot cameras since that's what he sees them as. As he's said many times, mirrorless cameras are not for serious work (which I disagree with, but there you have it.) So when he goes out to just mess around, he would go with the X100T because he believes it to be the world's greatest digital camera. The Sony that he is so enamored with right now is for taking photos of his kids, not for serious work either.

I do respect his evaluations of lenses and what he considers to be pro-level camera systems, but in the end, he's just like all of us - he's found the equipment that works the best for him and his mind doesn't change very much. His reviews and tech evaluations of Fuji lenses have always been really informative.

I shoot the same film equipment that he does, and his reviews and manuals for the Leica M3 and Tachihara view cameras are really valuable.

[MSW]

I have not used either of the cameras he compares.  However, he says the Mk4 is not significantly different from the Mk3 and I have used that. I also have an X-E1 and a X-E2 which usually get used with an XC 16-50mm.  The Sony although it is very good is not in the same league despite what Rockwell says.  The Sony uses a 1" sensor and I seem to recall KR spent some effort a couple of months back trashing 1" sensors.  If you only look a photos via Facebook on your mobile phone or laptop even the snaps from mt iPhone 5 have great IQ.

 

 

Some specifics about the Sony he doesn't really address (some other reviewers seem to miss these too):

--Though small, it is NOT a pocket camera in sense of being able to slip in to an ordinary shirt pocket (cargo pockets with accordion pleat don't count).  The Canon S100/120 series, the Lumix LF1 and Fuji XQ1 are pocket cameras -  the Fuji just isn't.  It is also surprisingly heavy for its size which can be an issue if you mange to cram it into a pocket!

-- The popup EVF is not so great in that the diopter adjustment gets moved out of adjustment way too easily.  The up position lets too much ambient light in around your face that on bright sunny days it's not much better than the LCD screen 

-- The menu structure just sucks.  Far too many options (that you are likely never to use) to hunt through to find the one you need.  Probably why KR makes a big deal about recallable presets!

 

All devices including cameras have tradeoffs.  A useful review identifies these.  

 

A useful comparative review compares products that address nearly similar user applications. KR's review is like comparing a SmartCar to a Prius.  The XF16-55mm f/2.8 is a rather specialized item.  An example of a useful comparison would be Nikon D750+24-70mm f/2.8  vs Fuji X-T10+16-55mm f/2.8 since a recent interview quoted a Fuji manager that their target is to get image results from the APS-C sensor that are equal to full-frame.

 

 

 

[Dominique_R]

Geez...! I cant' believe you guys who know better pay so much attention to the man... He is an enormous joke, who cares what he writes, honestly? Except maybe the absolute, absolute beginners <ho don't know better but will soon learn?

[jorjitop]

Strange time to publish this headline.  Just when he publishes a rave review of the X-T10.  Looks like click bait to me.

[ShutterNot]

Strange time to publish this headline.  Just when he publishes a rave review of the X-T10.  Looks like click bait to me.

 

I agree. That headline doesn't suit FUJIRUMORS. I thought they had more class. Seems like an all out attack on Ken Rockwell - to what purpose I wonder.

 

Come on folks, if you don't like Ken Rockwell, don't read what he writes. like anything else on the web - including THIS website - you have to take it with a grain of salt. This is to much of a "mob" attitude.

[born2hike]

I just read Ken's review of the X-T10 posted on his website.  After reading the title of this thread, I was expecting to read serious negative comments for me to consider before my purchase.  I do read some critique and at the end he states it would not be his camera of choice for serious sports and outdoor photography.  I can certainly understand that assuming he has access to a wide variety of camera gear.  But in the end he writes the camera is a "blast" to use supporting the theme of his review.  I must be missing Ken's bashing article?  What article are you referring too?

[asathor]

Ken Rockwell is the FOX TV of photo journalism infotainment.

 

If you agree with him you will find his reviews concise and to the point, but if your Saturation Dial does not go "10" you don't have much common ground and should look elsewhere.

 

What impresses me a lot is that he is not selling "clicks" - this forum page for example has 10 tracking and advertising content links - Ken's have none - his promotions are direct and to the point!

 

He also recommends the Nikon 3300 as The Best Camera for Most Things - try to find a photo site that is that honest about how much gear we really need.

 

What does upsets me is that he starves his children enough to make them look hungry, and desaturate their photos to make them look sick.

[lysander]

Ken Rockwell is the MSNBC of fake news and insane blatherings, but he has the best camera reviews ever, to wit:

 

"The X-T10 is Fujifilm's best interchangable-lens camera because it adds a built-in flash, 1/32,000 electronic shutter and a threaded cable-release socket to the previous top-of-the-line X-T1. The X-T1 is tougher, costs more and is still positioned by Fuji as the "top," but as you'll see, this new X-T10 is better." http://kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t10.htm

 

"The Fuji XT-1 is what a Japanese camera should be: tiny, tight, precise, fast, quiet, easy-to-use and extremely well made out of all metal. It's not another offshored-to-China excuse made out of plastic." http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-t1.htm

 

"The Fujifilm X-E2 (called the "Sexy Two" in Japan) is an extraordinary camera as I've outlined above. It's faster and easier to use for people who know how to shoot because it has all the right controls in the right places, and it's always super-sharp and handles any crazy light you can throw at it. The X-E2's color rendition is great for people photos, but a poor choice for color photos of places and things. The X-E2 excels for black-and-white shooting because of its extraordinary sharpness and freedom from distortion, and I love shooting in its optional square format just like my Mamiya 6 or Hasselblad." http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-e2.htm

 

" The Fuji X100T is the world's best digital camera because no other camera has its ability to capture great photos perfectly in any light, all usually on the very first shot. It's also the world's quietest camera, with a completely silent electronic shutter." http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100t.htm

[KAM]

Ken, is not as bad as S Huff. Ken reads other reviews and then makes judgements. S Huff, this the best camera, or worst I have ever used. Never take one review and just run with it. These two are for lazy people who do not want to read. Others want the reassurance he they both give about a camera or lens. Ken is I know all and will share with you. Huff is a fan club. One can find much better sources for review and guidance.

[BobbyR]

Just read both reviews. Rockwell is schizophrenic.

[frod]

As someone said earlier, he's just out to sell you the product on the page you landed on from Google. He'll do it by rubbishing something cheaper or significantly more expensive, then ask you to buy using his affiliate links.

[MrGecko]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Shadowside]

Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography

Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.

Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.

Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth

Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.

Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker

Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born

Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once

Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.

Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius

Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.

Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure

Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.

When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.

Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes

On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"

When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos

For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF

Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

The term tripod was coined after his silhouette

Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer

A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell

Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.

Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

...and all this without need for a lenshood!

[Ektachrome]

I love KR, he has none of the sycophantic BS of other sites' reviews, and he is doing most of this deliberately to wind up fanboys. Plus he cracks me up. That said, I wouldn't make a purchase decision based on his reviews, or anyone else's, in isolation, but thats not really the point of his site, I think.

[Ektachrome]

P.S. if you want a great Chuck Norris movie, check out Top Dog.

[m_lance]

I started reading Ken Rockwell before purchasing my first DSLR (2010).  I was very much a newbie to photography.  His articles on composition and taking better pictures have helped me immensely.  Also, after he went on and on about the X100 series, I finally purchased my first Fuji, an X100S.  I now own the X100T and I couldn't imagine a better camera for me (I mostly take shots of family and travel).  I agree with just about everything he's said about the X100s and about the Nikon D3000 and D5000 series (I also own an D5000 which I shot 99% with a 35mm prime lens before buying the X100S).

 

I saw what he said about the X-T10 in the RX100 Mark 4 review and it was somewhat contradictory to his actual X-T10 review, but I've learned to read between the lines with him.  As "Fuji's best interchangeable lens camera ever", he likes it best in that category, but would not choose it over a DSLR ("Everything can be the best at something").  I also see he's very partial to cameras that can pump colors beyond what you see.  I personally prefer Fuji that makes the colors you see beautiful without looking "artistic" (or if you prefer, without looking "unrealistic").

 

I'm really grateful for all the guidance Ken's site has provided me.  I'm a much better photographer for having read it (specifically, I like my photos better and so do most of my friends and family).  And his gear reviews have helped me lose the GAS and focus on the photos (the X100T also has a lot to do with that).

My 2 cents ...

[m_lance]

By the way, I loved the opening post of this thread ... not because I appreciate Ken Rockwell, but because I love those Chuck Norris jokes and it was great seeing them expertly applied to photography!