I wouldn't normally have a pop at Ken Rockwell...

woof woof

woof woof

I like a nice Chianti
Suspended / Banned
Messages
43,206
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
As I normally view him as an entertainer who occasionally offers up good advice amongst an avalanche of his more questionable outpourings but I can't agree with his thoughts on using manual lenses on digital cameras via adapters.

I have a first generation MFT G1 and a little collection of Zuiko and Rokkor lenses (the Rokkors being my most used lenses) and I'm very happy with their performance.

If anyone wants to read what he said here it is...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-adapters.htm

He's got a point about legacy wide angles not being available (for smaller sensors) but as for the rest... Ken, it's official, you're missing the point. Legacy lenses can be very enjoyable to use and can give very good results.
 
Unless i'm shooting something i feel needs absolutely the best quality i can muster, i'll always grab one of my m4/3's with one of my various legacy lenses attached, yes it's challenging getting correct focus, but i find it fun and it has rekindled my love of the hobby.

Like you say, Ken has missed the point completely.
 
I've tried manual lenses via adaptors on MFT and found it a complete and utter waste of time. Nothing to do with IQ though, just a pain in the arse.

Anyone wanna buy a couple of adaptors? :lol:
 
Ed Sutton said:
I've tried manual lenses via adaptors on MFT and found it a complete and utter waste of time. Nothing to do with IQ though, just a pain in the arse.

Anyone wanna buy a couple of adaptors? :lol:
Click to expand...

Sorry you didn't like it.

My routine is to set the aperture to what I think I want and to then look through the EVF and call up the magnified view. Once I'm happy with the focus I take a glance at the exposure and histogram and dial in any compensation and take the shot. The whole process of calling up the magnified view, focusing and setting the expose will probably take quite a bit less than 10 seconds, probably about 5-8 (just timed myself :D) That's longer than AF would take but at least I'm focused on what I want to be focused on.

In anything but the lowest light I see no need to focus wide open and then stop down as the EVF gains up, I just set the aperture straight off.

Plus it's a lot easier to set focus to a distance with legacy lenses for zone or hyperfocal.
 
Don't see how it's any extra aggro at all, set settings release shutter, enjoy picture :thinking:
 
So now that you disagree with something he says, it's 'official'? ok ... :D

I thought he talked out of his backside for a long time.
 
I do not see where the problem is with legacy lenses. Even with fully compatible lenses there are times when operating them manually yeld better results (macro f.e.).
 
It didn't work for me and I could see no benefit over using dedicated lenses. YMMV
 
Well, one benefit of using legacy lenses via an adapter is that it's cheaper. You can get a 50mm f1.7 legacy lens for under £20 or a 28mm f2.8 for under £30 add a £10 adapter and you're good to go and they'll probably be sharper than a kit zoom or even some of the modern primes.

I've tried legacy lenses on my 5D and they perform well but personally I find manual focus with a modern DSLR pretty much a pain unless the subject is big in the frame. For me legacy lenses come alive on compact system cameras because of the manual focus aids and I use them in preference to modern fly by wire lenses on my Panasonic G1 and on screen at 100% my legacy lenses are sharper than my 14-42mm kit zoom and also sharper than my modern FBW 20mm f1.7.

Other benefits include ease of use for zone focusing and ease of setting infinity focus.

Disadvantages include the lack of AF but even this may be available with Z axis sensor movement. Other than that you don't get the in camera manipulation you get with some lens body combinations but these things are IMVHO often a minimal issue in many images.

I can see how manual focus is not for everyone but to write them off officially a dumb idea seems rather simplistic to me.
 
simonblue said:
...some people do get enjoyment out of it :)
Click to expand...

And fair play to them.

My reason for trying 'legacy' lenses was that I'd seen people rave about using them and I had some in a cupboard. But just like going back to using them on a film camera it was too much trouble - for me. Autofocus with manual override is so much quicker and more versatile.
 
Ed Sutton said:
And fair play to them.

My reason for trying 'legacy' lenses was that I'd seen people rave about using them and I had some in a cupboard. But just like going back to using them on a film camera it was too much trouble - for me. Autofocus with manual override is so much quicker and more versatile.
Click to expand...

Yep i would agree with you their :)

And i do think Ken Rockwell did make some good points
 
Last edited:
But there are things that are easier to do with a legacy lens, or at least a lens with markings and end stops rather than no marking FBW.
 
woof woof said:
But there are things that are easier to do with a legacy lens, or at least a lens with markings and end stops rather than no marking FBW.
Click to expand...

I think you're right but just not for me,i think maybe Ken Rockwell article was more aimed to those who are confused by it all.

:)
 
simonblue said:
... i think maybe Ken Rockwell article was more aimed to those who are confused by it all.
Click to expand...

I think that like many of his articles, it's aimed at getting people to link to his site. :naughty:

FWIW, I enjoy using adapters and legacy lenses but I accept that it'll slow me down slightly and I have to remember or make notes about what apertures I've used. But then I still use film cameras too. :shrug:
 
Strappy said:
I think that like many of his articles, it's aimed at getting people to link to his site. :naughty:

FWIW, I enjoy using adapters and legacy lenses but I accept that it'll slow me down slightly and I have to remember or make notes about what apertures I've used. But then I still use film cameras too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I know its kind of odd going to his website it seem he has had every camera under the sun,yet he says he get no support from manufacturer.

I never heard of him as a great or famous photographer ?

So his site must pay for everything,i don't follow everything he says,but sometimes come in useful as a reference point.

:)
 
Interesting point, some brief googling found this site debunking KR's site and it makes reference to cubestat.com, which somehow calculates the daily ad revenue for a site. It's giving a figure of $358 for KR, which works out to over $120,000 a year!

Not surprised that he can buy whatever kit he wants if that's the case!
 
I use lots and lots of old lenses on my E-P2, with highly varying results. Some are magical and give images with characteristics I just don't see with modern lenses. Some just don't work very well at all. For me, they add fun and interest to the hobby and keep old equipment alive (which is also partly while I still use film cameras).

I see where Ken is coming from and for most of his readership he is probably right - using legacy lenses is trickier, more cumbersome and less reliable than modern lenses. For the beginning photographer it can create frustrations and obstacles that will get in the way of them enjoying photography. I see legacy lenses more as an option for those who are more experienced and able to accept the frustrations and adapt them to creative ends, or for those who simply like to play.

One thing I don't get is his recurring point about having to stop down the lens before each shot. I have a small number of lenses that require this - for most of them I can just put the camera into aperture priority and twiddle the aperture dial as I choose.
 
I use my Nikon legacy lenses on my 30D, and they work very well with an adapter. MF is a bit of a pain using a crop camera viewfinder though.

Ken Rockwell is opinionated and a bit over the top, but entertaining and often worth reading. Just take him with a pinch of salt.

I still remember sending him a mail shortly after the D70 came out. They were very expensive in South Africa then, and I was in two minds about stretching to buy one. I didn't know very much about DSLRs, wasn't sure if I'd be able to manage with the tiny, dim, viewfinder compared to my F2 and FM, and asked him for advice. He replied, personally, after a couple of days - apologising for the "delay" - with a long and informed explanation of his own experiences. I haven't forgotten his courtesy.
 
Strappy said:
Interesting point, some brief googling found this site debunking KR's site and it makes reference to cubestat.com, which somehow calculates the daily ad revenue for a site. It's giving a figure of $358 for KR, which works out to over $120,000 a year!

Not surprised that he can buy whatever kit he wants if that's the case!
Click to expand...

I don't begrudge him it and despite me being the author of this thread I do like reading his site. He does go off on mad rants and can be a little extreme but even that can be a positive as there are so many who seem afraid to express an opinion. I do find that he often talks a lot of sense and gives some good advice but that it's best to see him as an entertainer and cherry pick what you want to really take in rather than just smile at.
 
woof woof said:
I don't begrudge him it and despite me being the author of this thread I do like reading his site. He does go off on mad rants and can be a little extreme but even that can be a positive as there are so many who seem afraid to express an opinion. I do find that he often talks a lot of sense and gives some good advice but that it's best to see him as an entertainer and cherry pick what you want to really take in rather than just smile at.
Click to expand...

I will go with that :thumbs:
 
I don't begrudge him it either, he's made a website work for him so fair play. If I'd worked out how to do that 20 years ago, I wouldn't keep dragging myself into an office now :)

However, IMO he occasionally posts something deliberately antagonistic in the knowledge that it'll get picked up on a number of forums, all of which will link to his site and drive more traffic his way.
 
Strappy said:
Interesting point, some brief googling found this site debunking KR's site and it makes reference to cubestat.com, which somehow calculates the daily ad revenue for a site. It's giving a figure of $358 for KR, which works out to over $120,000 a year!
Click to expand...
I'd put as much faith in that article as I would in what Ken says. The "quirky sense of humour or liar" shows that whoever wrote this has an axe to grind. Maybe it's because Ken's sense of humour is more in line with the British than the Americans, but his detractors don't seem to pick up on what I see as really obvious gags.

"No one in their right mind would believe that he has a one of a kind camera with a grip made out of hide from an elephant penis. Then why would he go to the trouble of reversing this image (above right) to make it appear as though this left-handed camera actually existed?"

Reversing an image is considered trouble? Edit>Transform>Flip Horizontal. Wow.

Ken's got his way of doing things, and his website is based around that. The "must be getting paid by Nikon" thing is so out of date, as I don't think he's complimented a Nikon since the D7000, and tends to take a 5DmkIII out with him on the (increasingly rare) occasions when he uses a DSLR.
 
He does seem to be a good photographer and I've seen some quite outstanding pictures of his but also some which are from any standpoint pretty awful. He seems to boost the saturation to the moon sometimes too and sometimes not in a good way.
 
My problem with KR is that he seems to aim some of his crap at beginners who may not know enough to know that the advice he gives can be pretty poor. If you know enough to sort out his BS from the good advice, you know enough not to need him.
 
None of his advice is 'wrong', he just states his opinion. Refreshing change from most of the garbage out there. Of course he makes a living off the site and writes stuff knowing it will generate traffic, more fool you for reading it :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top