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: 586, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (198 comments in total)

Why Otus and not Lotus?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:53 UTC as 52nd comment
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (198 comments in total)

Nice, contrasty, but I see more moire on the Otus samples in the illustration centre left- on the wall behind the figures, in the apron on the left , and on the Nikon sample, on the floor as well.

It just means the bodies are not able to prevent it- it is not a sign of resolution, but good focus.

Last night I watched with great amusement the Top Gear trio test off-road three SUVs they had bought secondhand, all of which ran perfectly well. All taxed and on the road for £250 or less each!

This puts our budgets into perspective.

Everything costs too much now and the hike in primes is the latest outrage_ £500 for a 50mm F1.8 etc, or more.

Well I remember my excellent Leica screw threaded Canon 50mm f1.2. It cost me £40 secondhand

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:52 UTC as 53rd comment
On Otus Readings: the Zeiss 85 F1.4 Otus Comparison article (198 comments in total)

Well, its OK, but I noticed a LOT of coloured moire on the illustration centre left, more on the apron with the Canon, but more on the wall and floor with the Nikon.
Oh Yes its there on wall too everywhere in the canon shot. Tut! Off-brand lenses, nothing but trouble!
There's moire with their own lenses as well, but not as much and here you see it more due to the higher contrast on the Otus samples.

I, however, saw the last Top Gear yesterday in with the trio tested secondhand SUVs for which none of trhem had paid more than £250.

Kind of puts the high prices of stuff here into perspective?

I remember my 55mm f1.2 E39 Canon, what I paid £40 for...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:42 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

That said, though slower, the FZ1000 software produces as good a result as photoshop, and of course there is also Raw Therapee which releases new free versions that also update the list of cameras and lenses catered for.

You see, I would happily buy Photoshop if it cost what Lightroom and Elements cost, or what Capture One (an even better programme IMHO) costs, but I would still only do that IF you could continually update its camera raw as now

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

Yep, but I'd rather just have RAW files than have to add DNG files to the RAWs using up all my hard drive space: the poor man pays twice, etcetera.
Barry , they could just let us update LR to support the lens conversions they have already done for Photoshop, as you know.
Additionally (it gets worse) as Lightroom versions are progressed through time the lens profiles that WERE available in earlier versions are dropped in later versions when the lens is discontinued. I can no longer correct 24-85 USM Canon files, or 35-105 anybodys files, in Lightroom and once, you could.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 22:52 UTC

People conveniently foget the dual use of such a lens, which acts on APS-C as a 35-50mm zoom, as well as having a greater range on full frame.

You may scoff, but most of the great photographs ever made were made within this very narrow range, regardless of format. And on a full-frame DSLR the range in cropped mode gives you the equivalent of a Leica m2 AND M3 with 35mm f2 and 50mm f2 lenses, and on a Nikon you can elect to continue to see the area outside of the frame, just a with M Leica viewfinders.

On a new Canon 5Dr the APS-C crop , if available would be the same as the 5D MkII and III, but using the centre of the lens coverage, and that sharpest part of the lens which also has little or no vignetting.

Interesting idea, but it should have IS and why not a Sony E mount version?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 22:44 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

I'd love updates IF Adobe applied them to my Adobe software.

I run Lightroom 4.4 and Elements 11. Can I update them to open Sony RX10 or Panasonic Fz1000 files? NO!!

Can I update them to open Sony A7rII files? NO!

Can I update them to open ANY files at all from any cameras or phones AT ALL that emerged after their last update? NO!

Because to force me (and you) to spend money to open files from newer cameras they force you to buy the next version, and then the next version. So, had you spent £200 (the actual cost of these two) and then bought an FZ1000, you would NEED Lightroom 5 to open the files, and now you have to buy Lightroom 6 and/or go Cloud and subscribe to be able to use newer cameras from the past couple of years, because Lightroom users dont get Adobe Raw upgrades as Photoshop users do, in case you, like me, did not know this (because Adobe do NOT tell you)
There's not many more than a few million sufferers that know that!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 23:38 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (955 comments in total)

Its Glastonbury Festival this weekend. At Glastonbury traditionally the weather is dreadful, it rains and rains and you wade through mud.

Do you take 1. A Nikon D800 with lenses?
2. A Canon 5D MkIII "
3. A D4 or IdX Canon "
4. A Sony A7R II "
?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 13:01 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies

The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 12:54 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies

I downloaded IR's RAW still tests this afternoon and checking them out in DPP4 on my 2560x1440 Dell am IMPRESSED. I can see very fine grain with their own settings in deep shadows at 1600,( behind the bottles etc) and they are at least a third stop underexposed. The noise performance is as good as Nikon D8xx series machines
IMHO. I am impressed, but you do need to be very careful about any sharpening at all, as at this magnification the results become very easily visible earlier, and not in a good way. I am impressed.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 22:44 UTC as 5th comment

Scarily big, you see the problem with that copy of the 16-35mm II!! not a lens I would choose to use. The car interior deliberately underexposed by a stop, was already at least a stop underexposed due to the meter relying on the highlights outside, so to be objective (rather than objectionable!) you need to meter directly off a midtone inside the car , or point an incident light meter from inside the car itself towards the lens position (with the photographer stood there blocking with your shadow, more light (assistant necessary!)

I note that the lens at all apertures cannot evenly cover the sensor, so it would be nice to gat one that can and do some more please! Love the back of the preacher's car shot!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 17:13 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1030 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I just hope that it will focus Nikon AF-D and AF-S lenses with an adaptor in the way it can Canon, but the illustrated objection to the claimed bad shutter shock of the A7R mark 1 (still the current model on sale everywhere), uses a Canon lens with this adaptor Rishi uses, and it may just as easily be the combination that causes the blur.
You are linking one IS lens onto a body via an adaptor after all. I do this with my nex, but I use a very solid tripod and turn IS off on the lens, and I have not ever seen the type of result illustrated.

Shutter shock etc is best seen when photographing falling rain contrejour . Instead of a straight line, a faulty IS Nikkor I had produced crescents, and a straight lens at different speeds on a D600 body produces a range of different kinks in the straight lines.

Perhaps you can wait for it to rain and try out this more reliable technique, but just make sure the A7R 2 body is kept dry or you'll need to replace it.

Can you add the 5D MkIII and a 1Ds MkII body for reference please?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 16:59 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1030 comments in total)

THe shutter lag prefocussed that most of us use all the time, on a Sony A7R is,
wait for it, ONE SIXTH of A SECOND.

Rishi and Barney have not said a word about this most important factor. Anybody with a Nex6 or 7, or a new a5000 or a6000, has a totally different deal- they have about the fastest responding cameras out there- as have A7 owners, but I for one am NOT committing financial suicide only to lose any possibility of ME being the one who decides when the picture is taken thankyou.

And it has zero protection against water falling from the sky, or a glass of beer.
Even in Japan it rains....

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 12:41 UTC as 105th comment | 1 reply
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1030 comments in total)

I just hope that it will focus Nikon AF-D and AF-S lenses with an adaptor in the way it can Canon, but the illustrated objection to the claimed bad shutter shock of the A7R mark 1 (still the current model on sale everywhere), uses a Canon lens with this adaptor Rishi uses, and it may just as easily be the combination that causes the blur.
You are linking one IS lens onto a body via an adaptor after all. I do this with my nex, but I use a very solid tripod and turn IS off on the lens, and I have not ever seen the type of result illustrated.

Shutter shock etc is best seen when photographing falling rain contrejour . Instead of a straight line, a faulty IS Nikkor I had produced crescents, and a straight lens at different speeds on a D600 body produces a range of different kinks in the straight lines.

Perhaps you can wait for it to rain and try out this more reliable technique, but just make sure the A7R 2 body is kept dry or you'll need to replace it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2015 at 12:20 UTC as 108th comment | 4 replies
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1030 comments in total)

Interesting article, but I do so wish Sony had come to me for advice this time! I would have pointed out that some people like taking pictures in all weathers, that they have zips and buttons on their clothing that unavoidably scratch unprotected screens, and that they like chunky weatherproofed bodies with good battery life that are fitted to the human hand where they feel comfy, where they belong, rather than on an architect's drawing board, or an advert where people can drool, black, shiny, cool,....
I would have pointed out that prototypes for a possible future machine should not be released before the aforementioned basics are there, because I do not want to "upgrade" to something they have planned for the next release already, or is it the one after that!
I want USB3 HDMI 2.0, lossless Raw, and the ability to work all day without EVER having to get lost in their horrid menu systems and button options.
I want, as Arnie once said, a laundry service that delivers.And no Jello 4K!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2015 at 23:01 UTC as 177th comment
On Behind the Shot: Watery Grave article (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: As the picture we are able to see is so tiny, I can only give ideas and impressions.
These are that the picture is now too dark. Iused to be cursed with a similar love for chiaroscuro, allowing shadow areas to block up in interior scenes as long as the main features (people) were clearly visible, but here you had a fantastic opportunity to objectively record an ecological disaster and to show it (possibly getting published for high fees in Nat Geo etc), and you decided instead to make an arthouse death picture, a memento mori with dark drapes of cloud and loss of a great amount of visual fact.

I would much prefer a straight record of the scene using merely a moderate contrast curve and bringing out highlight detail without smashing down the dynamic range and contrast as you have here done (start with -100 black, -50 shadow, mod contrast curve and reduce highlights until they are just at 100%-lit triangle in white on right.

Its an amazing fact-lets see it!

Thanks for your reply.I'm not suggesting that you have lost detail-fact as I call it, in the strict sense. Rather than inpursuing a certain totally valid aesthetic, that you have lost sight of what it is really. The sense of light as it is, and of weather is gone, and a certain sense of mystery as well, because the fish are now superabundantly clearly fish. Before, they were there, they were real, yes, but you have to peer at them through the mirroring surface of the water as in life, so it might be actually worth a second version! I know I keep going back and redoing mine with "what was I thinking, wordlessly in my head!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 16:44 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Watery Grave article (91 comments in total)

As the picture we are able to see is so tiny, I can only give ideas and impressions.
These are that the picture is now too dark. Iused to be cursed with a similar love for chiaroscuro, allowing shadow areas to block up in interior scenes as long as the main features (people) were clearly visible, but here you had a fantastic opportunity to objectively record an ecological disaster and to show it (possibly getting published for high fees in Nat Geo etc), and you decided instead to make an arthouse death picture, a memento mori with dark drapes of cloud and loss of a great amount of visual fact.

I would much prefer a straight record of the scene using merely a moderate contrast curve and bringing out highlight detail without smashing down the dynamic range and contrast as you have here done (start with -100 black, -50 shadow, mod contrast curve and reduce highlights until they are just at 100%-lit triangle in white on right.

Its an amazing fact-lets see it!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2015 at 13:10 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On Sony a7R II has 42.4MP on full frame BSI CMOS sensor article (1254 comments in total)

N.B.The 4K video is at 30P not 60P as is the HD. They are still holding back...
Beware of buying TVs with these limitations to view content.Many new TVs do not show interlaced signals at all,and almost all TVs computers output only 4K at 24/25 and 30Hz not 50/60Hz which means they are already obsolete- and that's this years models.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 22:50 UTC as 13th comment
On Week in Review: Sony FTW article (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

JmaverickPro: Slightly of topic...

In reference to the DSLR axing video -

WHO THE HECK PUTS TRANSCEND CARDS IN A 5D MKIII?!?

Transcend cards? What I use in a D800

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 22:26 UTC
On Week in Review: Sony FTW article (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Again folks, all speculation. The camera is unavailable. There are no RAW files to look at, and AF time, shutter lag and AF accuracy are all unknowns. Lets wait until all that is known.

Try one! The 2015 models might, but Sony themselves say that its 24,25 and 30Hz . You cannot record Satellite or Broadband content to an attached USB hard drive, and I believe the ports are only USB2. But most new TVs also will not let you use your TV as a computer monitor. They only let through jpeg files and in Sony's case only up to a file size of 10Mb, utterly useless for high res files.4K 60p requires HDMI 2.0, yes, but that isnt the frequency.
At the moment the only laptop SAYING its passing a 60p 4K signal is the top MacBook pro. The one with the graphics card and 500GB SSD.
So £2K for a working port!!!
I MAY be wrong about the Bravia KD-65X9005B/55X9005B but I repeatedly contact someone in Sony by email for the information.I got a link to the iManual, useless!! I did try phoning but it was just a BS sweeping YES on the phone.Like yours!! I want it in writing-!!! So would you before you bought. They REFUSE to put it in writing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 22:23 UTC
Total: 586, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »