Leica IIIf review

[anthonym3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/10/2020 at 12:39 PM, anthonym3 said:

It is not at all arrogant. I also appreciate valid reviews of equipment and having used several LEICA 3-F's and my 1955 model M-3 I found ROCKWELL's "review" specious. Also it is not possible to believe that he has owned or borrowed the very many cameras that he claims by virtue of his "reviews" to be qualified to critique. His "several knobs", etc. comment left me baffled. I am looking at my 3-F and I see a wind knob, rewind knob, two shutter speed dials and a shutter button. I suppose that one could stretch a bit and call this "several". Apparently if ROCKWELL had indeed used a 3-F the "several" knobs left him baffled.

I have viewed several of KEN ROCKWELL'S "reviews" and genuine reviews by others from which he plagiarized word for word leaving but one conclusion, he is an affable entertaining fraud.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Doug A]

Rockwell's site is much like the internet in general. A fair amount of opinionated rubbish but some useful information too. In sorting out the extended family's camera gear we found his Nikon lens compatibility chart an invaluable resource for determining which lenses would work with which bodies. 

[250swb]

I don't know what the fuss is about with Ken Rockwell other than he dares to share an opinion, which of course it leaves him open, but so what, plenty of other pundits have valuable opinions even in reviews of current Leica cameras. The widespread mockery is mostly just the kids in the schoolyard encouraging a fight without getting directly involved, they get a small adrenalin hit by joining in and suffer no danger to themselves. 9/10 people who criticise him wouldn't know why they do it.

I've recently been re-buying a lot of Nikon equipment and he is a valuable source for an opinion (and specifications) that I can cross reference with other sources, and my knee didn't jerk once in animosity while perusing his web site.

[anthonym3]

Upon conduction of research on KEN ROCKWELL'S "reviews" I have found that he conducts "research" by reading other people's reviews to decide from what valid reviews he chooses to plagiarize. I have found verbatim segments from other's reviews throughout his writings. 

[250swb]

5 hours ago, anthonym3 said:

Upon conduction of research on KEN ROCKWELL'S "reviews" I have found that he conducts "research" by reading other people's reviews to decide from what valid reviews he chooses to plagiarize. I have found verbatim segments from other's reviews throughout his writings. 

So I guess that makes him a journalist as much as a reviewer, so how much bile have you got for the people who give you your daily news?

[andym91]

Ken has been a valuable resource for me over the last 2 decades.

why bitch on someone that hasn’t hurt or misled you ?

quite bizarre..

would be interesting to see and hear who you all think deserves your, and our acclaim..

looking forward to it.

andy

[andym91]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/17/2020 at 3:11 PM, wizard said:

Did he say he applied an inflation factor? If not, stating that a IIIf was 3500 US$ back then is grossly misleading.

Yep 

it’s approximately USD 3,200 in today’s money..

he is pretty accurate 

[Anbaric]

KR's site has a fair bit of useful (if not always completely accurate) information mixed up with some rather dubious opinions and a degree of light trolling that some people take far too seriously ('Do not soil your LEICA by attempting to attach rubbish from the likes of modern-day Voigtländer. Why would you want to waste your time, insult your camera and look foolish in front of your friends?'). There are some genuinely helpful things there, like the NIkon lens compatibility stuff mentioned above and the battery current draw information for the F100. But there are also 'reviews' of cameras he hasn't really used. Read with a salt shaker handy, like a tabloid newspaper.

[spydrxx]

Like anything on the internet, approach with a healthy degree of skepticism. More often than not, he has provided, whether by consolidating or personal experience, a valuable source of information, particularly regarding Nikon and Canon gear. I have yet to find a camera/lens source which is 100% accurate all the time. There are always exceptions to what reviewers/journalists print or put out on the internet. Accepting one's opinion at face value and extemporizing it to be all inclusive usually carries a risk. 

[Sandokan]

i find his site to be useful and as I do not pay for it, I have no bile or anger towards him. If he does read other reviews, that is research. If he does plagiarise, it is for the original author to take action - if indeed it is their original content and not "researched" from someone else. 

ByThom used to be a good source of info, but it dried up.