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: 391, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1132 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well, its results, posted here, do not inspire, but that is a personal thing with me. A long time ago I got rid of a 40D I had bought new, not because it did not work, it worked fine, or due to its resolution, which was fine, but due to the sad fact that compared to my 1Ds, the results were flat, processed and boring. They did not look real. They did not convince, and looking at the samples posted here, nothing has improved at all.

As a photographer I do not need to waste frames in the futile hope that the machine takes better pictures than I do, I do not need the dreadful video quality you get from DSLRs these days either.

So since this thing costs as much as a D750, and double a D7100 (whose results are much better, much), what exactly are Canon doing? This is LOT of money for not a lot of QUALITY.

You can buy a mint secondhand 1D MkIV for the same money, or TWO 70D bodies, or a 6D brand new with 24105f4 thingy. Or a D610 with a 2485thingy.
I bet no reviewer here has bought one!!

The main thing is the valid life left. If a shutter goes under warranty in a product Canon still support, it can be fixed. If you buy anything end of life from 5D MkII backwards (all pro models!) there's no guarantee they'll have parts for service and repair. Though they are very good, Canon and even Nikon now are looking at around 8 years support, so the 1D MkIV will go end of life around early 2018ish. Now, I do not know what kind of pictures you take, but if you have no self-control, of course you can run off 100K in a few hours work! If instead you are a photographer 100K can last a lifetime. And if videographer who cares?
The thing is whether you can get it fixed or not. A machine brand new can need fixing : a shutter can go ANYTIME, so you needs must ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2014 at 02:10 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1132 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well, its results, posted here, do not inspire, but that is a personal thing with me. A long time ago I got rid of a 40D I had bought new, not because it did not work, it worked fine, or due to its resolution, which was fine, but due to the sad fact that compared to my 1Ds, the results were flat, processed and boring. They did not look real. They did not convince, and looking at the samples posted here, nothing has improved at all.

As a photographer I do not need to waste frames in the futile hope that the machine takes better pictures than I do, I do not need the dreadful video quality you get from DSLRs these days either.

So since this thing costs as much as a D750, and double a D7100 (whose results are much better, much), what exactly are Canon doing? This is LOT of money for not a lot of QUALITY.

You can buy a mint secondhand 1D MkIV for the same money, or TWO 70D bodies, or a 6D brand new with 24105f4 thingy. Or a D610 with a 2485thingy.
I bet no reviewer here has bought one!!

you can buy good 1D MKiVs anywhere now at that price, which since the recent Nikons, has tumbled right down here in the UK . I saw one the other day with a lot of actuations for £1100-amazing.
100k left on the shutter and in reasonable nick. There are loads now, but I do not buy as I cannot then afford to reinvest in fast very wide optics to compensate for the crop.

AS people upgrade you might get a good one where you are on line from a store with a long warranty. The one I saw was in the UK at WEXused

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 22:41 UTC
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1434 comments in total)

A D750 thread regarding wiggly raindrop trails has been closed recently, but to add to it, the D600 does exactly the same thing, or at least mine did . Raindrops on every camera I have ever used until I bought a D600, well they fell in straight lines and these straight streaks recorded always the same way- even on a D800, so I do not know what is going on at all, because the results are not improved or varied by using a tripod, or VR, or holding the thing yourself, and it happens over a range of the lower shutter speeds.

Now, this being the case, your photographs will not be sharop at these speeds: its not the raindrops only- their highlit backlit streaks just show up the most: its the entire photograph being moved by the camera in the same way and by the same amount.

Scary.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 14, 2014 at 00:02 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?
Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?

I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.

Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continues
I have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.

Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!

IF someone were to give me £5 million pounds, it is certain that with such funds I could bring about a certain amount of positive change.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?
Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?

I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.

Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continues
I have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.

Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!

Have you really? I did not know you had lived so long!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 23:42 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (774 comments in total)

There are comments about the RX10 having a weather-sealed body, but this is not Sony's claim, they just say "weather- resistant".

I take issue with all such claims as microphones , especially those on the top of bodies cannot exactly be waterproof, and even were they so, the water collecting inside the mic grills would surely stop them working (and probably everything else). If these machines were waterproof there would be ads on TV with footage glorifying in the fact, but other than a few AW compacts there is no such footage available from anyone-including Nikon and Canon pro "weather-sealed" bodies, and apparently it is a fact that the D800 is NOT weatherproof, and though the Canon is more so, the corrosion from water-especially salt water affects them as well. That RX10 isn't waterproof, or dustproof. Sony have not ever said it was and will not refund you or do a free repair on one, I bet, if it gets a soaking over the winter outdoors. The FZ1000 has no such pretences.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 23:38 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?
Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?

I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.

Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continues
I have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.

Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!

You have to ask yourself what you COULD do with the money instead. It raises quite a few ghosts really, because you actually can change the politics and the economics of a country with that much money, it is not a movie theme at all.
If you consider how little human progress there has been up to now, a large part of the blame for the staus quo remaining so is that those who can bring change about fritter their wealth away on baubles instead.

A photograph is not even unique: you can print them like you can print money, so they really are a pretty dumb investment. Usually these days it is not the photographer who prints them either- because they are too big to be done at home!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?
Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?

I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.

Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continues
I have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.

Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!

These things are never good investments as unfortunately they have no actual value. I can buy the services of a retinue of servants for the rest of my life for less than this, or go and buy a nice little place in Polynesia (if I can get far enough away from the French nuclear test grounds as possible). Or I could invest in financing a movie (Like George Harrison) or use the money to bring down an unwanted government by publishing the truth of their activities, or give my kids a good wedding reception, or eat myself to death (for less). So?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:26 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1132 comments in total)

Well, its results, posted here, do not inspire, but that is a personal thing with me. A long time ago I got rid of a 40D I had bought new, not because it did not work, it worked fine, or due to its resolution, which was fine, but due to the sad fact that compared to my 1Ds, the results were flat, processed and boring. They did not look real. They did not convince, and looking at the samples posted here, nothing has improved at all.

As a photographer I do not need to waste frames in the futile hope that the machine takes better pictures than I do, I do not need the dreadful video quality you get from DSLRs these days either.

So since this thing costs as much as a D750, and double a D7100 (whose results are much better, much), what exactly are Canon doing? This is LOT of money for not a lot of QUALITY.

You can buy a mint secondhand 1D MkIV for the same money, or TWO 70D bodies, or a 6D brand new with 24105f4 thingy. Or a D610 with a 2485thingy.
I bet no reviewer here has bought one!!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:19 UTC as 173rd comment | 8 replies

Surely if somebody WANTS to lose that much money on an artwork, they require psychiatric assessment?
Personally I would not pay more for a bunch of real sunflowers than I would for a painting of them in a vase, or should that be the other way around?

I am satisfied however to see crazy people valuing images of the real world-our sole actual asset- as much as they do daubs of paint etc, but it is however disheartening when they dont go the whole hog and pay as much for the same thing in colour- as created.

Why this denial of God's creation by all and very serpentine means continues
I have no idea, except to say how sad it is that we are still rooted in an incomplete and Oedipal infancy.

Reality Itself is just so much more FUN!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 09:40 UTC as 106th comment | 9 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (774 comments in total)

Both fail. I have had to return an RX10 for an obvious reason-when you film it insists in recording all focussing and zooming sounds to your footage. Optically the lens is good despite very heavy distortion at 24mm that can only be corrected in software-easily more than 5% barrel. As you get to 200, at f2.8 the one I had was very sharp in the centre, but only a narrow circle in the centre beyond which the fall off was rapid- think adjacent trees in a row of trees equidistant from camera, or a line of people. Even in good light you need that f2.8 but it is of limited use given most of the picture is at a lower resolution.

This is ALL deliberate of course since the zoom for size is underdesigned: at 24mm it certainly does not cover the sensor. That said the Leitz lens on the Panasonic is far worse, and I do mean a LOT worse. So wait for the next models and curse the people who lead you up the garden path to nowhere but frustration

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 23:38 UTC as 6th comment
On Leica M9 users report sensor corrosion issue article (375 comments in total)

THere are white spots all over images from the new Panasonic FZ1000 in the ir gallery review samples.

These technologies and their problems are already known to manufacturers whose inexcuseable decisions to sell and what the hell, do them no credit. We are seeing swathes of underdesigned lenses- deliberately underdesigned, shutters that spray muck over everything in its path, and lenses that interfere with how cameras work and that focus and zoom in the reverse direction to the cameras they are designed for.

If these were cars or aeroplanes, or washing machines or TVs it would be unacceptable, but somehow cameras-more important than any of these-for which there are, after all, alternatives, seem to get the worst of it, because fed the habit we buy the stuff.

Leicas have not been made since film Leicas- now they get all their important bits from other companies. Imagine profiting from such torture?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 03:08 UTC as 25th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (498 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 6th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Review preview (498 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 7th comment
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1434 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 (1434 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 (1434 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 (250 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 3rd comment | 1 reply
On Nikon D750 First-impressions review preview (1434 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 33rd comment | 51 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 46th comment | 6 replies
Total: 391, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »