Ken Rockwell, Opinions?

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Quote: "I prefer the D200! In the old days (October 2005) the only real reason to buy the D2X over the D70s was speed and durability; today the D200 does the same thing as the D2X in a smaller package for one-third the cost." - Ken Rockwell

UGH.

[anorcross]

Originally Posted by Gordon

I know several landscape pros who like to shoot handheld at sunset/sunrise, where shutter speed matters.

Just saying, it isn't a totally crazy notion.

I'm sorry to be dense, but I'm still not getting it. The claim is that you need 1/500 rather than 1/250 for landscapes. There seem to be 3 possible reasons for needing a faster shutter speed:
1. There's too much light to use the slower speed at your chosen aperture.
2. You need to freeze action.
3. You need to counteract camera shake with hand held shots.
Rockwell's claim was made in the context of preferring a DSLR with a 1/500 sync speed over a different one with a 1/250 sync speed. Since the camera with the 1/500 sync speed only goes down to ISO 200, whereas the camera with the 1/250 sync speed goes down to ISO 100, 1 is irrelevant. Landscapes don't usually have the kind of action that needs faster than 1/250 to freeze, so 2 seems irrelevant as well. As for 3, you'd pretty much need to be shooting a landscape with a lens longer than 125mm and no IS to need faster than 1/250 to counteract camera shake. Do the landscape pros you know shoot landscapes with a crop factor (1.6 or 1.5) sensor camera with lenses longer than 125mm? I'm not saying that shutter speed doesn't matter. I just don't see how a camera with a sync speed of 1/500 and a minimum ISO of 200 gives you any advantage in landscape shooting over a camera with a sync speed of 1/250 and a minimum ISO of 100. Am I missing something here?