Jump to content

Dr. Kaufmann, Ken Rockwell is your marketing man.


sdai

Recommended Posts

x
Guest volkerm
He is joking yes?

 

Ken Rockwell is famous for this kind of treatise. :rolleyes:

 

He tries to stand out with his comments, and there is a good reason: he makes a lot of money with banner advertising. His #1 priority is to have as many page hits as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No laugh, serious food for thought ... Leica really needs a more efficient marketing man.

 

The Return of the Leica

 

I think not.

 

The concept of Leica having a "real world" shooter is a good one. But methinks Ken Rockwell falls far short with respect to credibility.

 

A review of this very article should point out to you that a) the man is making statements that he has absolutely no facts to back up his statements of Nikon losing customers (I have two professional friends who just jumped from $40K in Canon systems over to duplicate Nikon systems), and B) he goes off on a tangent comparing the pricing of a DX3 to a Leica M7 system. HUH? Earth to Ken... one is a DSLR, the other a Range Finder... one is a film camera the other Digital. And Ken.... Earth here again... auto focus?

 

I'm not arguing his conclusion... how can you. One camera has nothing to do with the other. One can't do the job of the other... so frankly, the whole argument is without premise and not unlike Ken, is a MOOT point.

 

JT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use Nikons (D300s) and Leicas (R and D2, DL4). Ken is just venting his frustration with Nikon's never ending upgrading (actually replacing) existing cameras with newer models.....big deal, welcome to the world of digital cameras.

 

Nikon needed a higher MP FF to compete with Canon. This past Spring, I upgraded from D200s to D300s as the D300 had some newer features I desired. Then the D700 and D90 were released and now there's talk from Nikon about D400.

 

It just keeps going, and it's enough to make one go back to film...really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I might agree with his Leica assessment his description of Nikon, the D3X and "2008 ... lost many of it's long time customers" is just pathetic and completely ridiculous. In fact it's so baseless and ridiculous it's laughable.

 

Good one Ken, I haven't read this much drivel from your web site for quite a while. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You got to give Rocky some credability. His stuff is a good start point for further research.

 

Hmm, ok, I'll give a whirl .... hmm .... I'll try .... nope, no, sorry I just can't. KR has minimal content and contentious editorial crafted to drive eyeballs to his site to keep him from doing a real day job like the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not embarassed to say that I like Ken Rockwell and enjoy reading is website. I have also donated to his site in the past because regardless of anything else he says it like it is. If I am considering Nikon gear, I always read his views and I have to say I wish I had taken his advice a few times in the past. If this confession reduces my already diminutive standing in the Leica forum even further then so be it.

 

LouisB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Rockwell has found a way to make money promoting himself and his "brand." There is nothing wrong with this but you need to understand that he is primarily about promoting himself. His opinions are not necessarily wrong, but they are his opinions and not much more.

 

Ken's focus is primarily focused on Nikon with some Canon thrown in for good measure. Up until this post, Ken was not very enthusiastic about Leica, but he seems to have changed his mind.

 

Consistency has never been his primary goal, but I think he has a pretty good site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The 'Why we Love Film' is an interesting piece. Ken seems to ignite a 'love him or hate him' reaction. I don't always agree with his opinions and conclusions, and am fully aware he is very self-promoting, but that is not a good enough reason to discount everything he says. This article makes some very pertinent points about film vs digital, while some of the detail may be hyperbole. Have a read, and keep an open mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...