 |
|
| For several years I've been relying on Ken Rockwell's evaluations of Nikon lenses and his accompanying recommendations for adjusting for distortion in Photoshop. And then his evaluations of the latest Nikon digital format camera bodies became a considered source in determining which to buy for my needs. Lately, Ken has justifiably raged against the disposability of those ever upgraded bodies and the $1,000s of dollars that every serious photographer loses with each digital evolution - culminating with the introduction of the "highly overpriced" D3X. This has now become a source of great ambivalence for Ken and many photographers who gravitated from film to digital: return to film, or embrace the Digital Revolution and its disposable bodies. Therein lies the Ken Rockwell Dilemma: just as in this image of two midwestern technology forms, they each respectively have an inherent functionality - one shiny new and very expensive, dominating the landscape and as yet somewhat unproven; the other still keeping the livestock watered reliably for decades and with little maintenance. For both entertainment and the latest thoughts, check out Ken's most recent rant. Hmmmm. PS: Bought the D3x - deliriously happy with this incredible bit of technology for landscape and detail work (and my two D700s for everything else, as well as lanscape and low light). And I really like the 18-105 VR for one of my two D40s .. very sharp, and great for hand-held macros/micros. Hated the 18-200 with its telecreep and soft focus. Gerald Rowles |
 |