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: 545, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Once you have figured out just how tiny the image details are with these lenses on their titchy sensor, you may begin to accept that financially these days to invest in this way on an m4:3 sensor is to throw your money away.

Even on full-frame pro gear detail resolution at 16.7MP (Canon 1Ds MkII)though good is not sufficient to allow you to work at normal distances and see fine detail within the image-texture in cloth, skin etc. Its why I got a D800.

Bought s/h the cost is the same using Nikon D800s and the quality is just so much better.

Size matters

The gain in detail is as much related to the size of the image as it is to resolution. However sharp your lenses are, and however noiseless is your sensor, if you are at the same DISTANCE from the subjects photographed the bigger sensor simply allows you to see more.
I agree that I go back to my 1Ds Mkii images because they look amazing: but at the same size the D800s pictures also look amazing, and they contain much more resolved detail. At full-size the 36MP sensor's images completely outclass the 16.7MP1Ds MkII's, which itself totally eclipses ANY M4:3 results, especially as far as dynamic range is concerned. I mean results, not graphs!! that do or do not compensate for black point, noise and retrieveable blown highlights.Though the 1DsMkII sensor is also only 16+MP, its superior results are the results of the BIG Full-Frame sensor.

M4:3 wins on results with fast tele-zooms that are tiny compared to the full-frame things, but wide-berth w/angles! And APS-C remains the better choice

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2015 at 17:07 UTC
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (269 comments in total)

Once you have figured out just how tiny the image details are with these lenses on their titchy sensor, you may begin to accept that financially these days to invest in this way on an m4:3 sensor is to throw your money away.

Even on full-frame pro gear detail resolution at 16.7MP (Canon 1Ds MkII)though good is not sufficient to allow you to work at normal distances and see fine detail within the image-texture in cloth, skin etc. Its why I got a D800.

Bought s/h the cost is the same using Nikon D800s and the quality is just so much better.

Size matters

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 22:56 UTC as 6th comment | 6 replies

My OM2n with its 35-105mm "kit" style lens weighs as much as any modern APS-C Nikon!! Two of them with the aproppriate lenses in their bag weigh me down, terrible.Never wear a camera bag or camera on one shoulder, though, as most "pros" do, stupid.
Every pro knows how bad for you carrying a bag on one shoulder is. Commonly colleagues would wind up at osteopaths, because you need to wear the shoulder bag across your torso, with the bag in front of you .Using a heavy DSLR this way works wel,l as when not actually taking photographs , if you have your optic-pro style strap at the right length to match the bag, the bag supports the Dslr on its top.
Work out the zoom ratio of a 36MP sensor relative to an APS-C sensor enlarged the same way, and you will discover that the image created with the big sensor is a lot larger, and has greater resolution using the equivalent zoom lens.
Or use an FZ1000!!

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 22:35 UTC as 102nd comment

Essay change their design time.
Rigid bags do not work. In section a bag should be trapezoid: that is that its base is wider than its neck.The base has to accomodate a 1Dx or D3s machine, on its back lens pointing upward, and the base needs to be sufficiently well-padded that you dropping said machine in bag does no harm (I use my kid's old floatation arm-pads- about an inch deep.You keep the camera at the end nearest your middle, for balance, and any extra lens at the outer end, and no pouches on the outside. Mine, much admired, is a thrift shop woman's shoulder bag. Black fake leather. Waterproof. one magnetic catch on deep flap going to base of bag. Flexible, put down it opens, but is OK to remove 1Ds MkII through top whilst on the move. No internal compartmentation, separate bags for lenses etc. Total cost £2. In use since 2008. Will hold IDsII and 100-400L easily (no compartmentation please!!
Used other bags before, all hopeless, bar Gas Mask WW2 bag for APS-C, R1, Nex .

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 17:29 UTC as 2nd comment
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

This isn't a pixel-peeping mentality, because my approach simply allows the details to be there without noise reduction/sharpening effects turning your pictures into a processed graphic image rather than a photograph.
The limitations hold true except when you are so close in that your details are larger in physical size than the gobbets of noise in your file, and I increase micro-contrast( Clarity in LR) by 32 on a D800 file.
So do please try this on your files. You may find that you can reduce exposure by up to 54% as a result.
That is how much clogging up of mid-tone and shadow detail the removal of the black content of RAW files rescues you from, and less noise overall is certainly the result!!

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 08:19 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

The increased detail the lack of AA filter gives these fuiles is what goes first with noise reduction, and they look soft as do D800 files in comparison.
But the problem such files have is the difficulty we have in producing a natural-looking result, as ANY sharpening at more than 0.2 pixels really makes a mess of your picture, and you are better off not using any sharpening at all, or using the Guassian Blur option at 0.2 and 500% with CA correction but no lens distortion correction which squidges things up a lot especially using a wide-angle zoom.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 08:10 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

"More actual detail resolution" depends on the lack of noise and the lens resolution as much as the sensor. On these MegaMP sensors noise is the determining factor above base ISO. Reducing the noise in the usual way by 6% in Lightroom destroys fine detail in D7100 400iso files, even with all the black removed. You can see its overall effect on your monitor easily. This is comparable to the new Canon

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

Make the effort, it is worth it and improves the Canon files no end.
Removing all the black reduces noise at all levels. The black in the file does not exist in Nature. It does not exist. We see absence of light eventually as black, but digital files in software are another matter. They have a Black Point, and this is used to crunch up the result so that the image has more pop and contrast, but removal of its effects DOES reduce the shadow noise and increase the dynamic range of your pictures, and it does not cost anything.
What I am suggesting is simply that you produce an averaged file for all samples here and all occasions for yourself, in order to be able to see properly the details you are buying into whatever machine you use.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 07:59 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: The Canon makes the D800E look like a killer deal for half the price. But if you have Canon lenses than you will have a nice body.

Beg Pardon?? The D800 has the best AF of any machine I have ever used, and I have used pro Canons and the 5D MkII who AF was almost non-existant.Since you have not even touched the new unreleased Canon you have NO idea of whether its focussing is any good, none.
The D800 can be had secondhand with a years warranty for a third of your discounted Black Friday Price in the UK now, with a years warranty.
Were I a millionaire would I buy the 5DSr? is the question I ask myself. Not if its shutter lag is as bad as the 5D MkIII. Not if it smooths away low contrast detail like the 5D MkIII and MkII. And not if its bulkyness impedes the speed at which I can work.
The D800 is physically a big camera, but its ergonomics suit smaller hands like mine better.
The Nikon's main bugbear is that whilst its shutter lag is the best of DSLRs, its new prime lenses are often really slow in AF, but then who uses primes now for reportage?? Nuts!!

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 07:42 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (797 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Looking at results, the camera is junk, and the formayt is junk: focus is no better than full-frame or APS-C and if you look at the samples the grain is huge on the sports shots and degrades portraits completely at 800, and here I'm talking about reworked from RAW jpegs, by Dpreview.

At lower ISOs OK, fine, but frankly when there is just so much more leeway and resolution available at the same price in other formats elsewhere, I feel that m4/3rds customers of all brands are being cheated out of their own photography, the image quality is so poor.

Thankyou to Dpreview for helping me avoid the format completely!

We all have choices, some people make the wrong choices. They spend a lot of money. It hurts to be wrong. The format of these cameras is too square for me personally and the sensors are too small for high quality work. How do I know this? I look at the results

It is nowhere near as good as as APS-C or Full-frame. It cannot help it.

I can put a 40 year-old zoom on a 10 year-old Canon 1Ds MkII that is only 16.7MP and of course the Canon is better, as is a NEX7 snap with a good lens (if you can find one!)

Is the sound from 78s as good as LP?

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 21:21 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

THere's no doubt that at lower isos in studio and still life contexts and outdoors in good light that the results are fabulous, IF your main image is in the centre of the frame using zooms, or all over using good primes. , but you still get more size with more noise.
You can all download the DPr RAW files and using Lightroom try this. Do as I do!!
Set the black slider to -100 and the shadow slider to -50 and apply the medium contrast curve. then move thw whites slder right until the white triangle on the right of the histogram just becomes white.
If you do that equally for ALL the files, you will discover what I did, and you will discover as well that the colour is more accurate on the Canon faithful setting and neutral on the Nikon.

up to 800, try!!

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 19:49 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

When Canon posted samples from this machine online, I noticed the noise at 400 iso eating into their image of the studio shot with the girl in the florists as soon as I had them on my monitor, and with the wide-angle cityscape found the noise and the lack of resolution off-centre distracting, because it is so obvious at this magnification . Would I on my 1Ds MkII? Doubtful, but at 400 iso its certain that the 1Ds MkII files are STILL cleaner than are the 50MP files from the 5DSr. They are still cleaner than the files at 400iso are from a D800, period, so such cameras should be there for us to compare. I am old, my eyes are certainly not what they were, but I can still clearly see the difference
The 5drs is double the resolution of the 1Ds MkII
Optics are nowhere near36mp corner to corner,& the risk I noted with the 14-24mm Nikkor and the 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor on a D800 is increased at 50MP.
Bigger less detailed files over most of their frames at optimal apertures, need to use primes

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 19:33 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

No, but then I would not ever go above 3200, even on a current pro machine. The loss of resolution and reality especially makes me wonder why anybody bothers!

I looked carefully at the 400-800 area and certainly the D8xx are better here.

I never exceed this limit. I have fast lenses and just dont,and if its too dark I stop taking pictures as below a certain light level they are of doubtful value- call a 60th at F1.4 at 800 the limit of my patience!

The increased interference from noise as per Dpreview obviously misses what you or I can do to improve things on any camera in the test, but I do wish they would not drop every freshly discontinued camera body, when so many are available either secondhand or new. It lowers standards to leave out such great machines that are still a reference for quality.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 18:22 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS R added to studio test scene comparison article (518 comments in total)

It depends where you live and what you shoot. It depends on levels of illumination,
BUT the comparison tool shows that the D8xx Nikons are better noise-wise by at least a stop, even the old D800.
As tested and shown hereit goes black quicker than they do, and the reds and the blues are clearly a lot more OTT (oversaturated etc) than the D8)) is, and mine is still way over the top in ways I still do not like at all, and have to tame.

BUT Canon have the "faithful" setting, so just maybe we can do it all again with the faithful setting please, as this tends to radically affect colour in a usually positive way.

I cant do this-no software that works with, but suggest that this alone and requiring DPr to get rid of all black on all tests would give everybody more accurate tests and better results with greater shadow detail, rather than the soot and whitewash contrast I used to be pilloried about!!

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 13:46 UTC as 82nd comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am not impressed by the standard of photography I see here at all. On an average day, an average photographer can make this many photographs of this standard, so no prizes from me unfortunately

Standards matter. There's no point being good at what you do if mediocrity triumphs as often as it does right now. Imagine that the Stones, or PJ Harvey or the Doors or Beethoven and Glass were losers, and ignored whilst (write your own list!) mediocrities similar to the winners of almost all recent such competitions filled the airwaves with noise and your shelves with Cds and Vinyl.

Would it be bearable? No, because its sound. It gets NOTICED, unlike our medium, that only such awards silently make a fuss about.

Our medium is just as important to us as music is, but it makes no noise at all, so, dear reader, hardly anybody notices the **** that wins our competitions all the time.

They would not win Bookers, BAFTAs, Oscars.

So anything anybody argues in their favour is ****@****.

If you silly people actually want the situation to continue, go on writhing in stupidity until you drown in your own vomit.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 17:45 UTC
On Sony SLT-A77 II Review preview (502 comments in total)

Seems OK to me in those shots that are not grossly underexposed- of which there are many. It compares very well with my D7100 results and has the advantage of that faster zoom, and in the basketball shots where the colour is iffy moaners can just adjust to suit anyway- and all cameras do this.

I might go back to using a Lunasix with a cone on to avoid underexposure too. Let's hope that to level the playing field somewhat, that DPr. does so too!!

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 14:23 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am not impressed by the standard of photography I see here at all. On an average day, an average photographer can make this many photographs of this standard, so no prizes from me unfortunately

My standards are irrelevant. I question the standard of work winning competitions like World Press Photo and World Photography Awards because THEY claim they are selecting the best photographs made in the world in the past year in their field. IMHO they simply do not make the grade relative to other work that is better. Its got nothing whatever to do with me, and this is why people like N disgust me. N uses every opportunity to sneer and be sarcastic, and not just to me,(read N and other's posts!) and then every other mindless little cyber-bully piles on regardless thereby revealing their true nature.Tripods, indeed.
Either you make sure you are in the right place at the right time or you miss it! like everybody does, me too.

It is the World Photography Awards 2015 we are discussing, not me, and not John Moore. Stick to the subject everybody. I got jumped on as I said I could, and you could do as well on an average day,so you should all be pleased, not upset. Read MY posts S.V.P

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am not impressed by the standard of photography I see here at all. On an average day, an average photographer can make this many photographs of this standard, so no prizes from me unfortunately

No, to somebody my age you ARE rude. Read a few of your posts.
(sigh) is what? It is condescension.
"Besides, which part of Joseph Goebbels staring at the Jewish photographer did you miss"
That does not make any sense in any context
Go on, read your BS, read every nasty spiteful clever little reply to me. Read it over and over again, because everybody on Planet Earth can do the same. I suggest therefore you realize that I am NOT your audience. Millions may stand behind you but that is no excuse for you, any more than it was for Hitler!!

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:57 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am not impressed by the standard of photography I see here at all. On an average day, an average photographer can make this many photographs of this standard, so no prizes from me unfortunately

Additionally standards have risen again and again and colour now rightly dominates visual media-photography especially.

Colour has additional demands, but it has become VERY difficult for me to admire and appreciate some of the best monochrome photographs, even though I have taken a good number of them, because had I had the money at the time, or the clients to pay the film, I would have shot everything in colour.

Unfortunately many of my contemporaries and the generation before DID shoot everything in colour, but then showed and sold the work as monochrome pictures, which is not only dishonest, but daft.

They would however claim they "saw" in monochrome (obviously untrue, but I know what they mean!)

There is even today a market for these obsolete retro images, and that is why I am not uploading samples to show you!

When you do Somerset House do a Desert Islands Pics! You can choose 8 photographs only to look at always. Get the picture now?

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:45 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am not impressed by the standard of photography I see here at all. On an average day, an average photographer can make this many photographs of this standard, so no prizes from me unfortunately

Photography historically is a world away from NOW. But standards were set generations ago, by a few people, and every once in a while some newbie comes along and raises the bar, visually. Now, IMHO, anyone winning a major competition must be of such a standard, because otherwise you and I can rightly point to photographs of identical subject matter taken years before that are better.

Eisenstadt was a very good photographer. Several of his pics became well-known, but there is a world of difference between well-known and/or famous, and GOOD.

Today many competitions are won by work that is not GOOD.

Go to any gallery: the number of GOOD pictures is tiny. THere are thousands of artists and photographers completely forgotten now, who in their day became wealthy and well-known. But we scarcely give them a thought because of the mediocrity of their output.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 11:37 UTC
Total: 545, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »