Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell  (Read 16011 times)

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4145
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2012, 04:13:12 AM »

I think Ken makes more sense than Lewis Carroll. :) ;D

Walter Schulz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2012, 04:44:03 AM »

I think Ken makes more sense than Lewis Carroll. :) ;D

Do a background check. You may be surprised how much of Charles Lutwidge Dogson's day job appears in Lewis Carroll's books.
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_03_10.html for starters.

Ciao, Walter
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4145
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2012, 04:59:29 AM »

Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.

Walter Schulz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2012, 05:45:38 AM »

Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.

This very virtual place is called "The Coffee Corner" for a reason, I believe.
"A forum for open discussion of both photographic and non-photographic topics of a general nature."

===

He would joke with hyenas, returning their stare
With an impudent wag of the head:
And he once went a walk, paw-in-paw, with a bear,
“Just to keep up its spirits,” he said.

=== Lewis Carroll "The Hunting of The Snark"

So, come back to the table, please!

Ciao, Walter
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 05:47:15 AM by Walter Schulz »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8443
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2012, 06:48:57 AM »

... The thread has finally reached the level of seriousness worthy of Ken Rockwell ;)

+1

jeremypayne

  • Guest
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #45 on: February 25, 2012, 07:54:59 AM »

Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.

Man ... what a broken record you've become!  Enough already ...

If the threads bore you ... why do you read them?
Logged

JBerardi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2012, 08:20:07 AM »

Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.

I mean, it's basically the biggest gearhead site out there. There's more discussion of actual photography at DPreview than his site. But, and here's the key part, he pulls the classic trick of preemptively accusing everyone else of being guilty of his own worst crimes. Every photo on his site is like, "hey, look how saturated and sharp this fire hydrant is on my million dollar camera!", and then he turns around and says stuff about how all anyone needs is a Canon Powershot and the rest of the photo world is obsessed with gear and they should be taking art classes and learning technique and color theory, etc. Oh, and by the way, look how friggin' saturated (and sharp!) this stop sign is with his new M9 and Leica Ultracrazylux f 0.3 $28,000 lens is! And while he insists no one should be buying such frivolities, he's kind enough to provide (paid) B&H, Adorama and Amazon links to them. So basically, he does one thing, tells a story about what he's doing that's completely contrary to that, and makes buck off of it every step of the way.

What I'm saying is, he really belongs in politics.
Logged

jalcocer

  • Guest
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2012, 08:25:33 AM »

What I'm saying is, he really belongs in politics.

Ken for president!  ;)
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10134
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2012, 08:56:46 AM »

Life's too short. I mistakenly thought that this was a site for photography. Recently I have had my doubts.
The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was indeed a photographer, and quite a good one. Though perhaps you were concerned about all this talk of Ken Rockwell. I think the jury is still out on whether he is a photographer.  ;)

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4145
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2012, 10:59:34 AM »

Man ... what a broken record you've become!  Enough already ...

If the threads bore you ... why do you read them?


I am not bored just prefer photographic subjects, Lewis Carrol wasn't into photography? Jeremy you are well named. :) ;D

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13242
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #50 on: February 25, 2012, 11:13:26 AM »

+1




Slobodan, very subtle. Surreal, even...

;-)

Rob C

Scott O.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 317
    • Photography by Scott and Joyce
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2012, 01:41:10 AM »

If it is not too late to make a New Year's resolution, I promise to never mention his name again on any and all forums I participate in, either now or in the future! Although I am happy that he has decreed that the 28-300 (which I have) will be the best lens for my expected D800!  ;D

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2012, 03:17:21 AM »

If it is not too late to make a New Year's resolution, I promise to never mention his name again on any and all forums I participate in, either now or in the future! Although I am happy that he has decreed that the 28-300 (which I have) will be the best lens for my expected D800!  ;D

This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
 :P

Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 03:26:51 AM by Christoph C. Feldhaim »
Logged

jalcocer

  • Guest
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2012, 08:26:13 AM »

This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
 :P

Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.

You forgot the lens hood! :)
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2012, 09:08:56 AM »

You forgot the lens hood! :)

Right.
I forgot.
The lens hood.
The lens hood is a carbon nanotube coated foldable carbon fibre cloth with carbon fibre rods which you can disassemble in astonishing 42 microseconds.
Actually you can also use it as a tent  if you have the accessory piece of roof cloth.

Cheers
~Chris

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10134
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2012, 09:53:28 AM »

This lens is too limited.
You should get the infamous 15-500 f 0.95 Spamalux with the 1.4 extender.
This is simply the best lens of the world and you'll hardly ever need anything additional.
It is razor sharp in my imagination and saves me a lot of money because I only need one lens.
Did I mention its macro function?
You can put a bee on its front lens and get the bees feet sharp like a Japanese knife.
I believe it is sold with a trolley for transportation and an extra pack of painkillers.
 :P

Plug: If you want to support my ever increasing madness I suggest you write a lot of even crazier answers to this rubbish, otherwise happily ignore it.
No, Christoph! That's the wrong extender! I don't know where you got the idea that a stodgy old 1.4 would do the job in the 21st century.

What you need is the state-of-the-art +/-5.6x Spamtastic extender (with both a red ring and a gold ring around it). Personally autographed by K*n R*ckw*ll for only $743,591 additional.   8)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2012, 09:54:58 AM »

Right.
I forgot.
The lens hood.
The lens hood is a carbon nanotube coated foldable carbon fibre cloth with carbon fibre rods which you can disassemble in astonishing 42 microseconds.
Actually you can also use it as a tent  if you have the accessory piece of roof cloth.

Cheers
~Chris

you should buy the latest model, I have the MKII version that came with the Carbon Fiber Accessory Cone to be used for safe Lunar Orbit re-entry.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2012, 10:13:06 AM »

Disclaimer:
My tests are based on the (obviously now outdated) MK I version and first extender which was available at that time. Seems I'm always lagging behind a bit.

What I could find out by searching secret sources in the net in the meantime is, that the MK III will get announced soonish and be shown at the upcoming photokina. It contains a new wobbly lens which is a Bionics design after the eye of the Jabberwock as well as a flexible tube material out of the skin of the beast. The extender will be replaced by a cograil stretcher with a wheel to physically extend the whole lens, so you won't need an additional extender anymore if you have the cograil to stretch the whole MK III design. The cograil is not meant to be used with the MK II or MK I version, because of their non-stretchable material. The special signed editions are not yet announced. What is also not yet clear is, if there will also be a compressor to extend further into the wide angle range or even negative focal lengths by everting the lens ...




Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13242
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2012, 12:58:30 PM »

Disclaimer:
My tests are based on the (obviously now outdated) MK I version and first extender which was available at that time. Seems I'm always lagging behind a bit.

 What is also not yet clear is, if there will also be a compressor to extend further into the wide angle range or even negative focal lengths by everting the lens ...




Man, you're lagging more than you thought: you forgot to mention the shark's-penis-skin carrying bag for the limited extender. It's a dual-purpose model and saves you buying an underwater housing. It obviates the need for a polarizer.

Rob C

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2012, 01:05:42 PM »

Rob - now I believe you're kidding!!!
Sharks are fish and not whales and thus don't have a penis.
  :P

EDIT: Did you mean that thing on their rear side which is standing up all the time ? Its called fin, not penis ....
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 01:09:04 PM by Christoph C. Feldhaim »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up