Who is Ken Rockwell to photography?

Sorry if another newbie question.  I was searching for reviews for Nikon 16-80mm and this guy is listed.  

www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=BvYoX...iz.....0.BjkZN2myghg

Is his review considered reliable? 

I don't care for his commentary, and his site is focused on fund raising through affiliations. Plus, it's ugly. I hate that.

Others find him useful.

Don't let him be your only source of information.

His site is satire.  So no.

Alfonso Camil wrote: Is his review considered reliable? 

The reviews? I don't know but a student of mine was
researching and found information on Rockwell's site.

I was asked to check it up and found out that the info
on old bodies and lenses were correct… purely descrip-
tive and exact.

As for reviews, I'm the "hands-on" kind of guy.

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Alfonso Camil wrote: Is his review considered reliable? 

The reviews? I don't know but a student of mine was
researching and found information on Rockwell's site.

I was asked to check it up and found out that the info
on old bodies and lenses were correct… purely descrip-
tive and exact.

As for reviews, I'm the "hands-on" kind of guy.

He has admitted his site is a satire site.  He does list specifications and such on there though.

Scotty wrote: He has admitted his site is a satire site.  He does list specifications and such on there though.

Satire maybe, I did not read these lines.

HNY 00Scotty!

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Scotty wrote: He has admitted his site is a satire site.  He does list specifications and such on there though.

Satire maybe, I did not read these lines.

HNY 00Scotty! [/quote
Haha happy new year.

Ken certainly brings controversy, that’s for sure. 

I have come across several articles about Ken in the past. He does some good things, and he does some bad things. For instance, he has admitted he will buy a brand new camera, do a review, then return it to the store for a refund. He claims this is his only option because the manufacturers don’t “hand him freebies”. 

I have read some articles of his, and many are informative, but some are interlaced with a lot of opinions that go against the grain, like shooting jpeg instead of RAW, and some odd opinions about resolution. 

There are so many really great,  far less controversial folks out there that whenever I come across someone like him, I tend to skip over them unless they are just entertaining in general. 

Troponin wrote: Ken certainly brings controversy, that’s for sure. 

I have come across several articles about Ken in the past. He does some good things, and he does some bad things. For instance, he has admitted he will buy a brand new camera, do a review, then return it to the store for a refund. He claims this is his only option because the manufacturers don’t “hand him freebies”. 

I have read some articles of his, and many are informative, but some are interlaced with a lot of opinions that go against the grain, like shooting jpeg instead of RAW, and some odd opinions about resolution. 

There are so many really great,  far less controversial folks out there that whenever I come across someone like him, I tend to skip over them unless they are just entertaining in general. 

He’s a multi-millionaire. He can afford cams.  That’s him messing with people.

Scotty wrote:

Troponin wrote: Ken certainly brings controversy, that’s for sure. 

I have come across several articles about Ken in the past. He does some good things, and he does some bad things. For instance, he has admitted he will buy a brand new camera, do a review, then return it to the store for a refund. He claims this is his only option because the manufacturers don’t “hand him freebies”. 

I have read some articles of his, and many are informative, but some are interlaced with a lot of opinions that go against the grain, like shooting jpeg instead of RAW, and some odd opinions about resolution. 

There are so many really great,  far less controversial folks out there that whenever I come across someone like him, I tend to skip over them unless they are just entertaining in general. 

He’s a multi-millionaire. He can afford cams.  That’s him messing with people.

LMAO!! Wow, that’s hilarious. ok, I like this guy now. 

Scotty wrote:

Troponin wrote: Ken certainly brings controversy, that’s for sure. 

I have come across several articles about Ken in the past. He does some good things, and he does some bad things. For instance, he has admitted he will buy a brand new camera, do a review, then return it to the store for a refund. He claims this is his only option because the manufacturers don’t “hand him freebies”. 

I have read some articles of his, and many are informative, but some are interlaced with a lot of opinions that go against the grain, like shooting jpeg instead of RAW, and some odd opinions about resolution. 

There are so many really great,  far less controversial folks out there that whenever I come across someone like him, I tend to skip over them unless they are just entertaining in general. 

He’s a multi-millionaire. He can afford cams.  That’s him messing with people.

Seriously?  Does that guy get that many people to chip into his cause?  

Eh, it depends.  His site does has a LOT of useful info.   His info is _generally_ correct for the most part, although you have to realize it's HIS opinion and sometimes you have to read in between the lines.  It's just a single point of info out of many when I'm researching something.

Agree plenty of other places you can get information.  For me, I just never clicked with and just something about him.  Pass.  

Only when I started, but I moved on shortly after.  

Another name I have come across a number of times is "Joe Mcnally".  What about this guy?  

Let me ask this, you all know I'm kind of still new.  Well I consider myself still new.  What are some good photographers worth following?