munro harrap

munro harrap

Lives in France France
Works as a none
Has a website at none
Joined on Dec 27, 2007
About me:

irrelevant

Comments

Total: 379, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (496 comments in total)

I got the good results I did not using Sony software: not even with their free Capture One Pro for Sony, but with Raw Therapee in its latest incarnation.

Sony really do need to create a decent software programme to match their decent machines' sensor.

I cannot use my year-old Lightroom and Elements with their RX10, or with a D810 etc. Doubtless other new machines also suffer. Not to mention frustrated owners.

Can you imagine buying a Mac or Windows computer without the software necessary to be able to get the best out of it. It is high time these greedy guys BOTHERED to prove to customers that they are in fact capable of what a RAW file needs, or a Jpeg (especially as so many recent jpegs from new machines are so bad.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 17:40 UTC as 5th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (496 comments in total)

Today I tried one out in a store, using RAW and ISO settings from 100-1000 .
Quel Gizmo! IF you accept the slow zooming process (and you can train yourself between shots to move it to whichever focal length you believe comes next-they are marked on the barrel), it focusses very well, it is stonkingly silent, the IS works at 200mm, and it has excellent resolution.

However the best is the lack of noise. Possibly (Maybe) Sony will in the next year or two announce the Conquest of Noise, a far greater step than that of Everest.

At 1000 ISO.fine detail is retained. There is noise, but as it is so fine-grained, the fine detail wins. I was totally gobsmacked when I went through the RAW files on my monitor. I could not concentrate on food or my fav programme on TV: it is an outrageous piece of engineering. Extend this quality to the A7R II, and it will be amazing.

I have caught a glimpse of the real Sony road map, and it is very exciting, Yea!!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2014 at 01:45 UTC as 6th comment
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1337 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Its a £1000 more than a D7100 which although APS-C is also 24MP. AND it lacks the resolution of the OLPF-less D7100. It does have face recognition though, but does this feature justify a £500 price hike above the D610, which doesn't have that silly tilting unprotected screen??!!!

IF it was the only Nikon DSLR it would, even then be inadequate, but as things are you can buy a brand new D800 now for £1900 on the high street. For £200 more you get everything (except pics- you unfortunately still have to go and take them yourselves, but this could soon change)

part 2.
Open your RAW files in whatever does it for you. To be fair I used Capture NX2, and Lightroom transfering to Photoshop for sharpening. I discovered to my horror that figures in open shade with NO underexposure gained a mottled blotchy appearance and that any attempt by any system to get rid of this noise impinged heavily on the image, losing all detail and sometimes leading to a reticulated odd 3d pattern not unlike that of crumpled paper whenever any sharpening was applied afterward to try to wrench some detail back. And by sharpening I mean reduction of gaussian blur 0.2 pixels @257-400%, hardly anything at all.
I spent several days on one particular group shot of football fans in the shade in the street, but no matter what I did, it could not be made to work, so, gutted, I returned the machine, a D600 refurb from Nikon.
I was asked before to upload said image, but it refused to as it claimed there were more than the allowed pixel limit - some glithch or what??

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 09:56 UTC
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1337 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Its a £1000 more than a D7100 which although APS-C is also 24MP. AND it lacks the resolution of the OLPF-less D7100. It does have face recognition though, but does this feature justify a £500 price hike above the D610, which doesn't have that silly tilting unprotected screen??!!!

IF it was the only Nikon DSLR it would, even then be inadequate, but as things are you can buy a brand new D800 now for £1900 on the high street. For £200 more you get everything (except pics- you unfortunately still have to go and take them yourselves, but this could soon change)

Buffer size has not bothered me since the original 1Ds MkI.And the Sony R1. I take fewer pictures than most buffers. I trained myself on an R1 with a standard compact flash card (the kind that transfers at around 1Mb/s on a USB2 card reader!! yet cost £40 cheapest for 1Gb) . I knew that the buffer would not allow me to do more than one raw without a break , so I knew I HAD to get it right first time, and I learned to do that.
The D7100 and D800 buffers are easily adequate, es[pecially for sports as fortunately their autofocus is good enough, and their high ISO performance too.
As it is stated here that the D750 uses the same sensor as the D600, before you buy either, hire one for the day and use it at 800, as you would a machine at 100. Underexpose up to 2/3rds stop on dark subjects, overexpose up to a stop on bright stuff and snow and skies- then? See part 2

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1337 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Its a £1000 more than a D7100 which although APS-C is also 24MP. AND it lacks the resolution of the OLPF-less D7100. It does have face recognition though, but does this feature justify a £500 price hike above the D610, which doesn't have that silly tilting unprotected screen??!!!

IF it was the only Nikon DSLR it would, even then be inadequate, but as things are you can buy a brand new D800 now for £1900 on the high street. For £200 more you get everything (except pics- you unfortunately still have to go and take them yourselves, but this could soon change)

The D7100 has two SD slots.
At the time of writing agreed there are improvements in noise reduction. However, when I had a D600 I noticed that the noise was greater than the detail by ISO 800, and that meant you lost your image effectively if you got rid of the noise.
The D800 works another way as the noise increases, but the SIZE of the gobbets of noise remain fine-grained.

Looking at the D750 samples posted here I believe there was no noise reduction done on them. Now, is the noise going to destroy the image like the D600's, or is it fine-grained enough to retain detail like the D800's? and, dare one say it, the D7100's up to about 400ISO.

Now, I photograph always in available light. I am a social documentary photographer. I use fast lenses and never go above 400 ISO. I would love to be able to do so, but if I needed to I would buy a D700, or a D3(s).
I would not buy aD800, a D7100, a D600/D610, or a D750, simply because there are limits.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 23:35 UTC
On Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions article (246 comments in total)

Well nothing with a mirror that goes up and down between exposures actually does this very well, however much you pay.
There are very serious inherent problems and stated frames per second are not in fact as claimed. One has to assume, wrongly I feel, that during the time of mirror- blackout between shots that the lens is refocussing, but this must be the case when adding mirror blackout times to exposure times. Given the lag inherent whilst the mirror goes up and then down the fastest rates can therefore only be achieved at very high shutter speeds, but in a best case, in theory the Canon SHOULD be twice as fast as the D810 Nikon. Whether either or both focus track what you want infocus is another thing! Prefocussed the lag on a D810 is still less than the 7DII, but not by much, but with a cheeter charging at me, I'd be way too scared !! Which is the best for self defence?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 19:50 UTC as 2nd comment
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1337 comments in total)

Its a £1000 more than a D7100 which although APS-C is also 24MP. AND it lacks the resolution of the OLPF-less D7100. It does have face recognition though, but does this feature justify a £500 price hike above the D610, which doesn't have that silly tilting unprotected screen??!!!

IF it was the only Nikon DSLR it would, even then be inadequate, but as things are you can buy a brand new D800 now for £1900 on the high street. For £200 more you get everything (except pics- you unfortunately still have to go and take them yourselves, but this could soon change)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 19:30 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies

Waiting for a Nikon 36MP full-frame? Well, you might be. Suppose rumours are true that they too are working on a mirrorless theme as are Canon?
Imagine being able to have full-frame coverage using all the Nikkor lenses you cannot use on the A7 series WITH AF, and with no loss of coverage because Nikon will keep the same style and leave the space for the mirror empty (save perhaps for a removable filter to protect the sensor and the electronics as Sigma DSLRs used to have).

Daft on the face of it? Not really because as soon as you get beyond about the 35mm lens you need and then get provided with too long lenses, each of which has to compensate for the loss of the mirror box on the A7 by adding an extra bit of its own. As this applies to most lenses the kit is larger and heavier, as the sole advantage of the A7 series body is its narrowness. But that happens once only.

I pray Nikon keep the mirrorbox on theirs and then we wont have to replace all our already too expensive lenses

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 17:37 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well, dont say Dpreview haven't warned you to keep all your work to yourselves!!!
Google now reads your hard drives online, reads your emails (allegedly for terrorism and child-protection purposes), and scans everything it can for images it can upload to its illegal libraries, as do Microsoft and Apple (what an Ap For?)

The idea here obviously is to be able to search through what it has stolen in order to more rapidly be able to sell it on. YOu cannot file it or sell it if you do not know what it is, and with the volumes they deal with, they need it to sort through everything ASAP.

They call it victimless crime, except you then cannot make as much money out of your work because somebody else has, or is going to. It is why Flickr and other such sites exist. This is business. It cares not for your "art".

It's just incredible, yes, is there no end to corporate dishonesty??

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 22:21 UTC

Well, dont say Dpreview haven't warned you to keep all your work to yourselves!!!
Google now reads your hard drives online, reads your emails (allegedly for terrorism and child-protection purposes), and scans everything it can for images it can upload to its illegal libraries, as do Microsoft and Apple (what an Ap For?)

The idea here obviously is to be able to search through what it has stolen in order to more rapidly be able to sell it on. YOu cannot file it or sell it if you do not know what it is, and with the volumes they deal with, they need it to sort through everything ASAP.

They call it victimless crime, except you then cannot make as much money out of your work because somebody else has, or is going to. It is why Flickr and other such sites exist. This is business. It cares not for your "art".

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2014 at 22:15 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Girl, it was an abomination that micro 4/3rds was ever legalized,as on a square millimetre basis it boasts the noisiest, least efficient and most expensive of all sensor-based systems.

Has anybody exactly worked out how much an OMD type camera would cost were its sensor size increased and the price of lenses increased by the ratio of the sensors size compared to full-frame 36x24mm digital format?

Built by fascists for dummies, or what?

Pills is slang for Balls where I grew up, so.... Try a nice camera, do yourselves a favour and trade-in and get out now!!
Whilst you still have time! Here you can now buy A new D810 body imported for £1700. On it because ye censor be SOOoo HUGE, ANY lens gives reasonable results as loike yew dont av' to enlarge so much. You are of course reducing a file that on your computer screens is more than 6 foot across. If you look at Victorian photographs made using 18x24cm and 10x8 inches, they look sharp, dont they, whereas ANYTHING off too small a sensor area looks crap as it just is not enough space to BREATHE in !!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 12:41 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (211 comments in total)

Girl, it was an abomination that micro 4/3rds was ever legalized,as on a square millimetre basis it boasts the noisiest, least efficient and most expensive of all sensor-based systems.

Has anybody exactly worked out how much an OMD type camera would cost were its sensor size increased and the price of lenses increased by the ratio of the sensors size compared to full-frame 36x24mm digital format?

Built by fascists for dummies, or what?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 11:36 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1571 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The D810 seems OK, BUT and it is big BUT, looking at the file sizes here the D810 file sizes are so much bigger than the D800/800E's for the same image at the same ISO- i.e. 74.3 MB @100 (D810) as against the 43.6MB @ 100 of the D800E,
that there really must be something very odd going on, as this means 4/7ths the number of shots to a card and vastly increased (by 4/7ths again) use of and consumption of Hard Drive Space, plus slower to work with files- that I as a user of Lightroom 4 and Elements 11 am unable to open with even the most recent updates- and I note with bitterness and rancour that Capture NX2 does NOT open D810 RAW files at all.
Are the original files here at compressed as against uncompressed? or 12 instead of 14 bit- what IS going on please????

These figures come straight from the above Image Quality compared of the preview! They are Dpreview's own results of the same subject still life (above if you are on the right page of the preview- Studio Scene, Image Comparison tool) with the D810 and D800E set to RAW at 100 ISO. Take a look, the size difference is huge.
I do not have an 810, but if I was about to buy one this file size increase would put me off. I have an i7 with 16Gb ram and its just about enough with the 800's files. With the 810 you'll need 24Gb or 32Gb Ram to be as efficient, surely?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 00:25 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1571 comments in total)

The D810 seems OK, BUT and it is big BUT, looking at the file sizes here the D810 file sizes are so much bigger than the D800/800E's for the same image at the same ISO- i.e. 74.3 MB @100 (D810) as against the 43.6MB @ 100 of the D800E,
that there really must be something very odd going on, as this means 4/7ths the number of shots to a card and vastly increased (by 4/7ths again) use of and consumption of Hard Drive Space, plus slower to work with files- that I as a user of Lightroom 4 and Elements 11 am unable to open with even the most recent updates- and I note with bitterness and rancour that Capture NX2 does NOT open D810 RAW files at all.
Are the original files here at compressed as against uncompressed? or 12 instead of 14 bit- what IS going on please????

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 15:00 UTC as 15th comment | 5 replies
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

plainwhite: I might have been tempted to purchase the Typ 113 if it had a built in VF and full manual control of the ISO and aperture setting at f/1.7. But alas, there are to many compromises for $3k in my opinion.

Just because a person has money, doesn't mean he shouldn't also have some common sense.

my 2¢
;-)

Nobody needs highrise buildings or X series Leicas, there are just better solutions around...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 16:15 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

plainwhite: I might have been tempted to purchase the Typ 113 if it had a built in VF and full manual control of the ISO and aperture setting at f/1.7. But alas, there are to many compromises for $3k in my opinion.

Just because a person has money, doesn't mean he shouldn't also have some common sense.

my 2¢
;-)

No, usually commonsense is absent in the rich. Look at Manhattan, or Shanghai or Dubai to experience the gargantuan stupidity of those with too much money making things that are ugly and which nobody needs. Or the UK land thefts by the Church (who do not house the homeless in structures built and paid for by people like them), or the Aristocracy who charge the landless descendants of those they robbed of millions of acres (where you could grow your own food etc) , admission to "houses" too big for a single family.

As we become, all of us, more stupid, doesn't mean that the wealthy too are not affected.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:50 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)

Of Course, where Dpreview give the game away is those two portraits of reviewers made with the GMC GM5............

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:43 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: What is going on here, exactly? Reviewers are trying to pass off rubbish- and very expensive rubbish, merely because it has "Leica" written all over it.

Why bother even looking at it at all? Why? Snobbery (your own and customers) of course.

Why bother looking at, or reviewing ANY camera which has no viewfinder at all? Why?

Why encourage manufacturers to produce inherently faulty designs, at all, ever?

The Sony Nex series with viewfinder, and the Fuji X series with viewfinder are at least useable practicable propositions, but as everyone who has ever tried the versions without viewfinder knows, you ALWAYS need the viewfinder.

Are DSLRs produced at any price by anybody at all that have you rely on the rear screen all the time because they have no viewfinder? Well.??

So by what stretch of the imagination is a viewfinder-less machine validated, other than by getting them attention they do not deserve at all, as here?

Well?

Additionally Leitz is a huge wealthy multinational because of its microscopy division that supplies labs and hospitals all over the world with essential, and correctly designed tools to help keep you in good health. It is not a small hand-made company as claimed here.
These machines are made to cater to poor snobs who cannot afford the M series machines, or who give up trying to save such catastrophic sums.
I made a living of sorts using M2 and M3 Leicas, bought secondhand (of course). I used Leitz lenses in the days when a 35mm f1.4 Summilux cost around £350 new.
Time Leitz broke through and catered to the needy and ambitious by providing M level machines at X level prices.
Nikon and Canon and Sony (in less than a decade!) have done it, so why not?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:36 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: What is going on here, exactly? Reviewers are trying to pass off rubbish- and very expensive rubbish, merely because it has "Leica" written all over it.

Why bother even looking at it at all? Why? Snobbery (your own and customers) of course.

Why bother looking at, or reviewing ANY camera which has no viewfinder at all? Why?

Why encourage manufacturers to produce inherently faulty designs, at all, ever?

The Sony Nex series with viewfinder, and the Fuji X series with viewfinder are at least useable practicable propositions, but as everyone who has ever tried the versions without viewfinder knows, you ALWAYS need the viewfinder.

Are DSLRs produced at any price by anybody at all that have you rely on the rear screen all the time because they have no viewfinder? Well.??

So by what stretch of the imagination is a viewfinder-less machine validated, other than by getting them attention they do not deserve at all, as here?

Well?

Well?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:25 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: What is going on here, exactly? Reviewers are trying to pass off rubbish- and very expensive rubbish, merely because it has "Leica" written all over it.

Why bother even looking at it at all? Why? Snobbery (your own and customers) of course.

Why bother looking at, or reviewing ANY camera which has no viewfinder at all? Why?

Why encourage manufacturers to produce inherently faulty designs, at all, ever?

The Sony Nex series with viewfinder, and the Fuji X series with viewfinder are at least useable practicable propositions, but as everyone who has ever tried the versions without viewfinder knows, you ALWAYS need the viewfinder.

Are DSLRs produced at any price by anybody at all that have you rely on the rear screen all the time because they have no viewfinder? Well.??

So by what stretch of the imagination is a viewfinder-less machine validated, other than by getting them attention they do not deserve at all, as here?

Well?

Chilled? Agreed all cameras even Dslrs should have touchscreens enabling you to have the option of using your thumb on the screen to move the sensor around: as autofocus even with face recognition is inhuman- though very good, and often chooses the face next to you, or the object next to you, but problemo, Bart, with your thumb there using the same touchscreen you have covered up the photo you are supposed to get and you get one several light seconds later. Have you calculated the distance of a light-second? Perhaps you should. It is the difference between getting the shot you intend, and the nearest thing the camera allows to it. These cameras ALL fail that test, however good they are, when all they offer is a screen or a very slow to refresh EVF add-on (costing xxx dollars .
Leitz introduced built-in viewfinders BECAUSE add on viewfinders are inaccurate and limiting-have no rangefinder to aid focussing and get lost.They did that in 1932.

1932. (Leica II)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 14:23 UTC
Total: 379, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »