Ken Rockwell

Hi, just adding my 2 cents onto your sentiment. The photographer and equipment reviewer Ken Rockwell has a similar aesthetic on his homepage: https://www.kenrockwell.com While supported by pay product links, this site contains no ads other than all the copy. His content has no dumb pop ups or any janky junk, however it will still satisfy a startup chief-of-design's checkbox by loading extremely slowly (due to the many full size image examples on every page, in this case) I love it when Noscript has little to do.

> There's a school of photography that basically lives and dies by over-saturating images (e.g. http://kenrockwell.com ) and they'd likely have a cow over the headline, but understand and be totally onboard for the actual goal. Actually, I suspect that even that crowd, after the initial shock would be absolutely on board. This would mean that no longer would the sensor control how the high-end clipping happens, but now that could be tailored specifically via a post-processing filter. E.g. to exactly match a long-gone film emulsion's behavior, "enhance" a classic, or to simply to create new clipping functions. This is a bit analogous to the flexibility that black and white shooters gain by working with modern color sensors. When shooting B&W film, the tonal result was controlled via a combination of the film's spectral response and any colored lens filters applied, the latter used to manipulate tonal contrast between different colored subject matter (e.g. sky, plants, skin tones, etc.). Now a skilled photographer can shoot color RAW w/ B&W preview (for a preview of the image luminosity) then adjust in post to nail the image effect without having to mess even thinking about what colored lens filter(s) to have used.

> Reputation goes down the toilet the moment you start selling stuff on your blog. I'd say there are a great number of exceptions to that. My blog has several thousand subscribers (for whatever you want to define an RSS subscriber as) that have been following my blog for years, they know I have been working at early stage startups for years and they value my opinion, even going out of their way to ask if I have an affiliate link for something I might have mentioned on Amazon before or elsewhere. One guy even held off buying a big DSLR camera on Amazon for a few days until he was able to get my affiliate code from me while I was out of town. People can have a voice that is valued online and sell stuff through their writing/blog. Affiliate sales on my blog alone pay my rent while I can run around doing startups with no compensation. Ken Rockwell comes to mind too. He reviews cameras and has amazing guides. Each camera page has a blurb about asking readers to buy it from sites that have his affiliate code. http://www.kenrockwell.com/

I bought a Canon RP which came with a 24-105mm zoom. I think it was CAD 1000 a couple of years ago, but it looks like that has inflated to around double now. I went with the recommendation of Ken Rockwell who is both experienced and opinionated, and said to buy that one at the time. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm He was right! - small, especially if you put a 50mm prime lens on it (which costs ~ CAD 150 by the way) - light - full frame sensor (fundamentally better photo quality, but need bigger lenses to zoom) - battery life is OK but not great. You can easily get through a full day of touristing with one spare battery though.

Interesting in two ways. This camera is very much like my first camera, a Fujica half frame with “guess the distance” focus, some 54 years ago. Second, film can be scanned at processing time and place, and 35mm film is about equivalent to a 24 megapixel digital image. Some say better [0]. Film rarely is affected by dust, and I have had a bunch of sensor cleanings. I change lenses in a new unused ziplock bag now. I am getting a new scanner for my old (out of this world) color slides, mainly 2¼ square, because 35mm. slides can be 1:1 imaged by a 24 megapixel digital camera with about the same quality. 4x5 and other view cameras will last forever (if you maintain the bellows) because they are as simple as a clothespin (other than the shutters) [0]: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

I've seen analysis that says the lightning dac from Apple is actually great: https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

That camera had an MSRP of $899 when it was new in 2006 [0]. Amazing that they now sell for only £50, and still take fantastic pictures even by today's standards [1]. Technological progress is nothing short of amazing. [0] https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-xti.htm [1] https://onfotolife.com/camera_sample_photos?camera_id=30&page=1&am…

A suggestion I saw is to just place an order on B&H or Adorama even though it says back ordered. Might be worth a shot! > The X100V is so wildly popular that you won't find it "in stock," but it's easy to get your X100V. Order it at Adorama [...] or at B&H [...] and be patient for it to arrive. Most people don't realize that these come in and go out the same day to people like me who have them on order all the time, without ever showing as "in stock" because they never make it to "stock" before they get shipped to us. Order yours and be patient, or be prepared to pay about $1,700 for a used one. The X100V is this good! https://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100v.htm

I think Ken Rockwell probably qualifies for that. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

> This makes Nikon look like a company that supports all its products in the long term. Not "look like", that's how they operate. I love it, wish all companies were committed to quality and longevity, it would be the kind of world I'd like to live in. Nikon is also pretty obsessive about compatibility, I can mount lenses from the 70s on my D7100 and the features work. https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Nikon's F-mount isn't just a single thing. It has a very complicated compatibility matrix: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm By contrast, Canon broke compatibility twice, moving from FL to FD (1971) to EF (1987). But since the start of EF, compatibility has been excellent. New EF lenses with features like IS, USM, STM work perfectly even on the oldest Canon EOS 650 film camera body. And the earliest EF lenses work on modern bodies.

Big downside is digital rot [1]; my favorite few-years-old digital cameras are already dying (granted, I don't baby them) while my Leica M2 will probably outlive me as long as metal can be formed into gears and springs. Sorry about your health conditions, but I'm pretty sure that modern chemicals are much safer than they were in the past. Black and white chemistry is largely benign; the worst was apparently formaldehyde in older C-41 kits which has since been replaced. It seems like too much trouble to make color prints by hand anyways. [1] https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-rot.htm

Apple products consistently use excellent built-in DACs. Search "audio" on the following page for detailed analysis and measurements of several different Apple devices. https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/index.htm

Not for nothing, 35mm film contains 87 megapixels of data. So even printed small in a 4 X 6 Photo you could make it large and have a really good image. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.html The storage is worth it. Especially if i can just dump it somewhere in the cloud.

I think the best (worst?) copyright notice is the following from Ken Rockwell[0]: "As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. If you wish to make a printout for personal use, you are granted one-time permission only if you PayPal me $5.00 per printout or part thereof. Thank you!" [0] https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

Relevant: FART for fantastic photos. Feel, ask, refine, take. I always remembered this simple advice after the first time I read it. https://kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm Also, I wonder how much of professional amazing looking photos are edited (e.g., brightness, contrasts, levels, saturation, etc.)

> the best camera is the one you have with you https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

The link to the measurements from your source: https://kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm According to those measurements the adaptor's DAC is fantastic, especially for a $9 part. And in the spirit of anecdotes, the old iPhone DACs were notoriously hissy and weak, and if you're buying high impedance headphones you have no business plugging that into a phone's headphone jack... spend the $20-50 on an amp/DAC and call it a day. Just a bigger dongle.

HN tip of the month ;) When Canon released the EOS M as its first mirrorless camera, it hasn't gone down well in many reviews as it's a slow performer[0]. Now, this has actually been addressed in a later firmware upgrade, but at that point the damage had already been done. After that, Canon basically dumped this camera on the market at very low prices. Good thing for us is that this little camera can now be bought very cheap second hand (got mine last year at around $100) Once you load up ML, you get a fantastic fun little camera! I'm not very experienced with shooting video but for photography, it's a wonderful experience. Focus peeking, magic zoom, interval photography, all for free. Many kudos to the ML devs from this side as well! [0] https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-m/m.htm

If you want to learn about photography as well as physics and technology behind it, I recommend Ken Rockwell‘s site which has numerous reviews and how-to articles on these topics. https://kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

I find it funny that people care about the equipment a photo is taken on. Those photos are taken by professional photographers with professional lighting setups and professional models. I subscribe to Ken Rockwell's belief that you don't need a fancy camera to take a good photo, you just need to be a good photographer [0]. I used to sell cameras in high school/college, and ALWAYS steered people away from DSLRs/high megapixel cameras that flaunt the quality of their cameras. Likely, those people will never get close to needing a high-quality camera's features, and their purchase of one would almost always result in a return. [0] https://kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

Anyone can be an amazing photographer - but there is a distinction between a camera nut, and a photographer, to this end, Ken Rockwell makes a really interesting point: "You need to learn to see and compose. The more time you waste worrying about your equipment the less time you'll have to put into creating great images. Worry about your images, not your equipment." http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm You can guess which category I feel this fellow falls into. I hope he got a great deal of pleasure building his system - it does look very impressive (if not downright pretty), but it doesn't make me think any more, or less of his photography.

iPhone 7 dongle audio quality is apparently fantastic, no reason to think iPhone 8 isn't the same. http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

Apple's DACs are excellent. Here's an analysis of the Lightning adapter, for instance: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

I tried an Amazon affiliate link (similar to https://kenrockwell.com) on my blog (https://frdmtoplay.com). 6000 views over 4 months has lead to 2 conversions for $12. For my level of traffic that's better than ads, but still not covering hosting costs.

Sounds excellent. In essence, this course doesn't teach you photographing but rather, how to maximise what you get out of a digital photograph. Definitely taking it, such a short course anyway. I wonder if the actual photographying is taught in any (free) online courses? I've enjoyed the little nugget called "FART for Fantastic Photos" [0] by Ken Rockwell, especially how it in its simplicity reminds one to focus on the subject, that's what matters in the picture. Kinda hope there would be courses that take the same idea but for 10 hours or so. [0] http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

Yeah, the 24-105 has consistently excellent reviews, e.g.: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm.htm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-…

The alternative camera (and one for 1/4 the price) is the Fuji X100T. Many people love this camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x100t.htm

They're also the (review site) Wirecutter's best $150 (although street price is cheaper) headphones. http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-150-over-ear-headphones/ It's a classic model, used a lot in the TV/studio industry too. And here's (offbeat but interesting and knowledgable photo gear reviewer) Ken Rockwell's review: http://kenrockwell.com/audio/sony/mdr-7506.htm AT M50x, M40x is another solid choice for around $150.

Unfortunately many PC motherboards ship with really poor DACs. If you use an iPhone, or an iMac, don't bother though. Their DAC are truly excellent. The only reason to upgrade would be if you have high-impedance headphones, or low-sensitivity headphones that require a more drive than these DACs can produce. Note though that the iMac DAC has higher output that most cheap external DACs, so chose accordingly. This is the only reason to get a different DAC. These DACs have lower output impedance than most DACs under $500. Edit: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-5/audio-quality.htm