munro harrap

munro harrap

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

years taking photographs. use of all formats. widely published.

Comments

Total: 371, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 7th comment | 2 replies
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (202 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 (202 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 4th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1568 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 (1568 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 13th comment | 4 replies
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (377 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 (377 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 (377 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 51st comment | 1 reply
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (377 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 (377 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 (377 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
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (377 comments in total)

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?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 10:19 UTC as 77th comment | 7 replies
On First Hasselblad in space goes to auction next month article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: It is just a machine, a box that took a few important photographs, but apparently not the "earthrise" series. Here they are still used by students in college.But there were no black lenses, and I believe that as nobody in a helmet could focus accurately enough, the images were made using 50mm f4 Distagon lenses, and the machines were Hasselblad ELs with 70mm film magazines -because you could not change the film outside either.

I have not ever seen a photograph of this model in use in space, but the lens is not original as it is black, and it is missing its viewfinder attachment ( they had made special ones for helmeted folk).

I can remember these things as I was so thrilled at the time and we had the official heavily illustrated books from the States in the house as soon as they became available.

I venture to propose it is a fake

Obviously a wind-up. I have a brother called Simon who does the same thing! I am not fond of the Mona Lisa and made more and better pictures with a Hasselblad.
However, a painting is valued as a unique work, of which there is only a single handmade example, the product of it's artist's skill and imagination, and it has a value based on it's uniqueness: meaning that there is only 1 of them.

It wasn't mass-produced in a factory, and you will always be able to look at it, whereas soon the 'Blad will be thing of the past without available film.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 17:09 UTC
On Price released for Brikk's 24k gold Nikon Df article (388 comments in total)

I'm glad it is only a fashion statement as gold usually indicates use without wear and degradation for an eternity!

As a Sino-Japanese product however, it's life will be not more than a decade.

I have reservations about buying one therefore, as it is a drag when things stop working, and you then can only look at them, rather than with them.

This means of course than secondhand D3s and this lens, if early versions, are about to reach their sell-buy dates and die on you, but if you want another you can replace it ten times for the price of this gold-plated version.

But I am unable to imagine even a sheik or a Royal BUYING it!
Perhaps it is for Essex lottery winners!!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2014 at 17:01 UTC as 32nd comment
On First Hasselblad in space goes to auction next month article (84 comments in total)

It is just a machine, a box that took a few important photographs, but apparently not the "earthrise" series. Here they are still used by students in college.But there were no black lenses, and I believe that as nobody in a helmet could focus accurately enough, the images were made using 50mm f4 Distagon lenses, and the machines were Hasselblad ELs with 70mm film magazines -because you could not change the film outside either.

I have not ever seen a photograph of this model in use in space, but the lens is not original as it is black, and it is missing its viewfinder attachment ( they had made special ones for helmeted folk).

I can remember these things as I was so thrilled at the time and we had the official heavily illustrated books from the States in the house as soon as they became available.

I venture to propose it is a fake

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 13:47 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1869 comments in total)

Then I must agree with Richard's dislike of the AF points moveability. You should not have to sacrifice the ability to change settings merely to devote the 4way buttons just to moving around your focus point, but having said that, I must disagree with the touch-screen bit as the remedy, because using the viewfinder rules that out completely. Good to have otherwise-agreed, especially if it works for the viewfinder as well! It would be really great to be able to keep the camera to your eye and move the focus point around with your right thumb on the screen. Does any machine do this yet??

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 00:15 UTC as 75th comment | 5 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1869 comments in total)

Several problems here I could not pass over as they bother me. The first is "out of-camera jpeg with DUST MOTE cloned- out" from the rainbow pictured featured in the review. Well, one reason to buy a fixed lens APS-C compact is that is will never have this problem. You cannot change the lens, so you cannot get any dust on the sensor.
I have two R1 Sonys. One I used continuously, every day, from when I bought it until I went Full-frame in early 2008- nearly three years, with no special care , loose in an old WW2 gas mask bag, and I have never seen any dust to clone out on it, or its newer companion's pictures.
It may be focussing dust that is on the sensor cover, or it may be focussing dust trapped inside the lens. It should not do either.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 00:09 UTC as 76th comment
On Nikon D750 real-world samples gallery posted article (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: In the Uk they cost £1700, that's £550 more than the D610 which has the same resolution, but lacks Face recognition AF due to the low-pixel count sensor. The price difference is considerable. Is the image quality better? I have really no idea at all.

Whether this new machine is better in UK averaged lighting conditions over a year, remains to be seen

SO?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 16:36 UTC
On Nikon D750 real-world samples gallery posted article (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: In the Uk they cost £1700, that's £550 more than the D610 which has the same resolution, but lacks Face recognition AF due to the low-pixel count sensor. The price difference is considerable. Is the image quality better? I have really no idea at all.

Whether this new machine is better in UK averaged lighting conditions over a year, remains to be seen

I had two,refurbished from Nikon. The first went back because although it turned on, it refused to take a photograph in P,A,S,and M modes...
It was replaced with a second, which went back, although it worked fine because pictures had shadow noise at 800 and above that exceeded in size detail resolved,and dont ask for a sample as My Gallery identifies them as having more than 30,000 pixels on an axis (obviously impossible) with the best noise reduction I can do, and says error and will not upload them.
Under the same conditions a D800 produces noise too, but it is less than the detail resolved.
I believed the reviews, unfortunately, but tests here and elsewhere are of an incredibly boring evenly lit tatget, not at all real world stuff, so you cant tell.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 16:25 UTC
Total: 371, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »