>>3059191Well the thing about the based God Ken is that once you're actually a photographer, not a spec-wanking sonyshooter, and you understand that any modern, "enthusiast" camera can probably take any kind of photo you want, you appreciate that the things he focuses on in his reviews are the things which actually affect the user experience.
So for example if your Sigma lense has half a pixel less CA and is just barely sharper in the corners than the Nikon equivalent, dxomark will praise it to high heaven, whereas Kenneth will recall that he has had compatibility issues with Sigma lenses and new bodies, the focus ring turns the other way to all real Nikon lenses, the camera doesn't have distortion profiles for it, and it takes some fucking imaginary filter size, that again doesn't match your other lenses.
So which one of these is the more worthwhile review for the real photographer?
>>3059208>he almost only praise the gear he "reviews"Comparison is the thief of joy, brother. If Ken says it is good enough, it probably is. That is not to say that you can't find "better". But at the end of the day, switching to 67 from 35mm is meaningful; switching from an f/1.8 to f/1.4 is a distraction, and Kenneth will say as much.
>>3059193This tbqh famalam.
