Thom's stuff is excellent. He's one of the better reviewers out there
(I'm also fond of Michael Reichmann's reviews, even if he is a little
oblivious to the fact that he is a small subset of the pro market and
PJ/Sports/Event shooters are the majority).
As to Ken, the only vaguely useful thing he's written is the wide-angle
comparison, although the test shots from his 50mm roundup are useful
(too bad they somewhat contradict his article). Other than that his
primary use seems to be preventing new SLR users from spending too much
money (A useful thing) and sparking endless threads among those who are
more clueful than his writing appears (I'm halfway convinced Ken is
actually running a gag site that turned into an income).
-Adam
Chris Stanford wrote:
> Bill, I've found Thom Hogan to be the 'Dean' amongst camera critics. I
> find him far more thoughtful and thorough in his reviews than Ken
> Rockwell, but Ken tends to offer more practical tweaks and fixes for
> DSLRs, in my opinion. Ken tends to be less conservative in his takes
> on things.
> -Chris
>
> --- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLenses
yahoogroups.com, "William Crabill" <crabillw...>
> wrote:
>> Chris,
>> I owe you a special thanks for posting the Link to Thom's comparison
>>; listing of Nikon DSLR's. Naturally, I had to check it out & when I got
>>; to the final Items of comparison, major positives & major negatives, I
>>; was amazed to find matrix metering listed as a negative for my DSLR
>>; body,a D80. Since I've been wrestling with matrix meter exposure
>>; problems with my body, His comment led me to his very through review of
>>; the D80.
>>; He had identified exactly the problem I've been encountering, &
>>; reached the same work-around, simply use the very accurate center
>>; weighed metering instead. I can now rest a lot easier knowing that this
>>; old, worn out brain hasn't totally lost it, at least not yet!
>;> Thanks a Bunch, Bill Crabill
>>
.
