PDA

View Full Version : Ken Rockwell: $5 Trip 35 vs Canon 5D & L


Tom V
07-09-2007, 14:58
Guess what? The Trip 35 40/2.8 Zuiko D cuts the 17-40/4 L on corner sharpness!!

And yeah, I know, I should have posted this in the scale focus forum......

Check it out! http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

Bryce
07-09-2007, 22:12
Ken is my kinda guy.
I love his direct tone!

Carzee
07-09-2007, 22:30
Hell -there goes the pro wedding market. Next wedding I go to I fully expect the pro shooter will have a couple of Trips round his neck, and he'll drive one of those Buicks that Kojak had.... and he'll be wearing disco pants.

photogdave
07-09-2007, 23:02
This guy is usually full of s#@! and his photography is horrible, but I like how he's been talking about film lately. Good on ya Ken!
(I visit his site regularly for a good laugh but also he actually knows his stuff with regards to computers and audio.)

Timmy P
07-10-2007, 00:06
Ken's been on the disco biscuits and wacky tabaky for wayyyy to long these days. His photos are also just plain boring. At least Riechman's tests are relevant because he uses his equipment well and tests subjectively, Ken just goes off his nut about stuff that by the looks of his photographs, he doesn't put to any good use anyway. People who worry about nuanced crap like Ken never really push the limits of the systems they review in meaningful ways anyway.

Thats why I learned to stop worrying and love the gear. More often than not, yourself sucks, not the gear. Real life measurbating is even worse, it's cringeworthy.

Although, as stated above, I do like Ken's support of film. And unlike some other crazy zelots out there, his talk about flatbeds being good enough to scan 35mm negs is actually true! Mention it on photo.net and you'll have people with coolscans frothing at the mouth how a flatbed just "cannot compare" etc etc. It's like they've never printed a neg they've scanned in their life. Such is the interweb.

End rant ;-)

-Tim

ChrisN
07-10-2007, 00:28
From Ken's "About" page:

"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."

I'm sure there is much that is true and useful on his website, but ever since I first read the above, I think twice about anything he writes, and find myself doubting, even (or especially!) when I find myself agreeing with him.

zuikologist
07-10-2007, 00:30
Hell -there goes the pro wedding market. Next wedding I go to I fully expect the pro shooter will have a couple of Trips round his neck, and he'll drive one of those Buicks that Kojak had.... and he'll be wearing disco pants.

I think David Bailey did an ad in the 70s using a 35 Trip at a wedding. Not sure about the disco pants though : 0

mike goldberg
07-10-2007, 00:38
I think David Bailey did an ad in the 70s using a 35 Trip at a wedding. Not sure about the disco pants though : 0

Hi All,
I've been away celebrating my birthday and those "lazy, hazy days of summer."

Re: Ken Rockwell: Yes, I've found useful info on his site, especially on Nikon gear. Yet the ads, his raunchy writing style and tendency to sensationalism... leave me suspicious.

I think most of us know that dcresource, dpreview & steves-digicams are more consistently reliable.

Cheers, mike

Sparrow
07-10-2007, 00:40
From Ken's "About" page:

"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."

I'm sure there is much that is true and useful on his website, but ever since I first read the above, I think twice about anything he writes, and find myself doubting, even (or especially!) when I find myself agreeing with him.

Donít you think that statement may have more to discouraging litigation than anything else? it has a whiff of lawyer about it for me.
Not an unpleasant smell you understand:angel:

mrtoml
07-10-2007, 01:12
I think David Bailey did an ad in the 70s using a 35 Trip at a wedding. Not sure about the disco pants though : 0


Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BPS0_q7IM

Hilarious, but not the one with the wedding which was a classic.

Paul T.
07-10-2007, 01:45
I'm a big fan of The Trip, but gave mine to a friend's son who does a lot of skateboarding. He reckons it gives the best results of any camera they've tried, whether digital, autofocus or SLR. I still see one or two a week a street markets and it's very hard not to pick up another one or two...

07-10-2007, 02:32
Rockwell combines an awful lot of real knowledge about technology with a crackpot sensibility. It often makes for interesting reading, but is most dangerous in the hands of the people who are his biggest audience, camera tech novices.
What he's written about the Trip proves, however, that he not always completely off his rocker.

Chris101
07-10-2007, 03:53
Ken's a humorist, and he's always fun to read. Don't you usually go by how you, yourself feel about any particular camera/gadget, anyway? Y'all have read his Seven Styles of Photographer, right?

Turtle
07-10-2007, 05:03
A fairly pointless article because you cannot draw out any practical deductions. Moderately entertaining and a bit of fun. Thats its value if you ask me: Cameras take pictures and even cheap battered cameras can take shor photos. But then again, most of us know that already. Maybe he will compare an underwater camera and a LF camdera with a scanning back in the handheld 'street candid' role next :eek:

rich815
07-10-2007, 06:12
.......At least Riechman's tests are relevant because he uses his equipment well and tests subjectively, .....

You're joking, right? Reichmann subjective? :rolleyes:

Well, he pretends to be I guess....

Timmy P
07-10-2007, 06:39
You're joking, right? Reichmann subjective? :rolleyes:

Well, he pretends to be I guess....

Well, objective compared to Rockwell. I find his reviews a hell of a lot more practical than Ken's. Different strokes for different blokes I suppose.

And I'll say it again, I think most technical reviews are still pretty pointless since most people don't have the skills to push the system anyway. Blame the skillz before you blame the cameraz I say ;-)

-Tim

rich815
07-10-2007, 06:55
Well, objective compared to Rockwell. I find his reviews a hell of a lot more practical than Ken's. Different strokes for different blokes I suppose.

And I'll say it again, I think most technical reviews are still pretty pointless since most people don't have the skills to push the system anyway. Blame the skillz before you blame the cameraz I say ;-)

-Tim

Agree. I was not comparing Ken to Michael though. Just commenting on Michael. He lost me a long time ago when he said metamerism was a thing of the past with the Epson 2200 (or was it the version before that he made that comment? He's a joke!), and then cemented it with the whole M8 fiasco. Not only is the guy a mediocre photographer at best but has zero credibility left in my book. I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago and stopped visting his site at all after the M8 stupidity.

shadowfox
07-10-2007, 08:46
Guess what? The Trip 35 40/2.8 Zuiko D cuts the 17-40/4 L on corner sharpness!!

And yeah, I know, I should have posted this in the scale focus forum......

Check it out! http://www.kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm

That is hilarious!! thanks for the link, Tom!

aad
07-10-2007, 14:12
Awesome. I enjoy Mr.Rockwell's writings. I really like how folks get upset about it, too.

Y'know, I was at a building class in the Mojave area 2 weeks ago, brought my Olympus Stylus Zoom 140 to document-and brought prints back from the lunch break every day. No one brought any digital prints... and darn, they looked good.

Superbus_
07-11-2007, 01:23
Thank you posting this article.

Recently I red an article about cmparing digital compacts for the summer. Finally the result was that the best can take shots where the grass is almost green and the clouds are white etc. What a technological development! :)
I always try to convince my friends: try to use film cameras again.

shadowfox
07-11-2007, 07:54
Awesome. I enjoy Mr.Rockwell's writings. I really like how folks get upset about it, too.

Y'know, I was at a building class in the Mojave area 2 weeks ago, brought my Olympus Stylus Zoom 140 to document-and brought prints back from the lunch break every day. No one brought any digital prints... and darn, they looked good.

... then you need to post some of the pictures for us to see! :)

ZivcoPhoto
07-12-2007, 17:05
Exactly sparrow...that's just a disclaimer in case any one takes him in a too serious enough manner which could end up in a lawsuit.

mich8261
07-12-2007, 17:35
Agree. I was not comparing Ken to Michael though. Just commenting on Michael. He lost me a long time ago when he said metamerism was a thing of the past with the Epson 2200 (or was it the version before that he made that comment? He's a joke!), and then cemented it with the whole M8 fiasco. Not only is the guy a mediocre photographer at best but has zero credibility left in my book. I stopped taking him seriously a long time ago and stopped visting his site at all after the M8 stupidity.

Wow that's a strong statement. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I usually enjoy the sense of community that forums create, but I abhore the fact that some individuals seem to use the apparent sense of anonimity to be rude.

Gabriel M.A.
07-12-2007, 17:55
Guess what? The Trip 35 40/2.8 Zuiko D cuts the 17-40/4 L on corner sharpness!!
Hmm, as every 17-40 L owner knows, corner "sharpness" isn't a trait of this lens; never has been and never has been claimed otherwise.

Now, should I compare a spoon and butter knife to see which one has better "flatness"? The amount of people surprised may surprise you :angel:

Like some have pointed out, a humorist. We shouldn't be taken too seriously (:rimshot:)

Superbus_
07-12-2007, 22:57
Hmm, as every 17-40 L owner knows, corner "sharpness" isn't a trait of this lens; never has been and never has been claimed otherwise.

Now, should I compare a spoon and butter knife to see which one has better "flatness"? The amount of people surprised may surprise you :angel:

Like some have pointed out, a humorist. We shouldn't be taken too seriously (:rimshot:)

I disagree with you. The majority of people take seriously stupid politicians, researchers and scientists. They are really serious about how they can understand the world better but then often fail.
So my suggestion: just take seriously the humorists... ;)

drolo61
07-12-2007, 23:39
Very new here, I just stumbled over this one

great advice!

Before you go buying a throw-away plastic film camera for simple family shots on holidays, why not invest his said 5$ to be prepared. The comparison is not important, but the performance of the little technical wonder is!

It will not die from dead batteries left inthere for too long, and even if the exposure meter should be off, you would be able to correct this via ISO settings. It is the reliability that intrigues me.

That's why M6 goes side by side with R-D1, FM2 with 5D and CM 500 with 6008i.

And lately I was disappointed with EF Zoom performance and head back to primes instead.

Tom V
07-13-2007, 16:18
Ken updated his previous post:

Observation: I ran a roll of Velvia through my $5 Olympus Trip 35 (http://kenrockwell.com/olympus/trip-35.htm), and the exposures are remarkably right on. Not bad for a 30 year old batteryless auto exposure camera.

aad
07-13-2007, 16:26
... then you need to post some of the pictures for us to see! :)

That would mean scanning!

I will put one or two up when I get a few into the magic computer.

BTW, the Walgreen's in Hesperia, CA does a great job. Much better than my local one.