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: 414, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

munro harrap: Facts first. WE can see the logo, but WE need to see the photograph he claims it is derived from. UNtil then we can form neither opinion nor judgement, and perhaps DP needs to get the photographer to state his case.

Why talk to the monkey when you should be talking to the organ-grinder?

Steve, others read what you write. You're being a bully others know that. This is not an argument about anything you have mentioned at all. It is to do with third party reports about a photograph. We have yet to hear the phoptographer's evidence/point of view.
What you or I have to say, and what a lawyer has to say, has no meaning because neither Nike, Time, nor the man who photographed the athlete, nor the athlete have put in their 2centsworth.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Facts first. WE can see the logo, but WE need to see the photograph he claims it is derived from. UNtil then we can form neither opinion nor judgement, and perhaps DP needs to get the photographer to state his case.

Why talk to the monkey when you should be talking to the organ-grinder?

I have too. There is not a word from the Photographer. And not a word from Time magazine .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 14:48 UTC

Facts first. WE can see the logo, but WE need to see the photograph he claims it is derived from. UNtil then we can form neither opinion nor judgement, and perhaps DP needs to get the photographer to state his case.

Why talk to the monkey when you should be talking to the organ-grinder?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 13:10 UTC as 15th comment | 5 replies
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (358 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: D750 AA and low pass filter?
D7100, same res, half the price, no AA filter-better detail acuity and visibility, than ANY Canon, but why do Nikon continue to put filters in front of their sensors? WHY?
Why go back to the dark ages. Why did they ever fit them at all?
It is a good question.
The 5D Canon is better at making images than is the D3, or the D700, as was the first Canon 1Ds, due to their having weak AA filters.
You can see the difference even on a normal typists 1920x1080 monitor.

We should be sold machines without AA/low-pass etc filters, and then have them fitted IF we are unhappy, not have to pay a fortune to have them removed, or wait until the odd rare model appears without one.

Instead these greedy folk programme in obsolescence decades before they make anything, force you to pay upfront for software without which you are stuck with jpegs (and no jpeg 2000) and cant use the camera!!!!

AS bad as the banks.

AA filters cause problems with DSLR lenses, especially wide-angle zooms. The High ISO performance of a D3 is no better than that of a D800 (see DXOmark) incredible though that is.

The other beef is ageing. If people restrain themselves from buying D3 and 5D etc machines now, it is due to the fact that programmed obsolescence includes accelerated ageing, brought about by brittle tin soldered circuits that are devoid of lead content. Ordained by the EU RoHS legislation introduced in 2002 means a life of around 10 years for everything made since mid 2002, lenses, DSLRs, TVs Hi-Fi included.

It would not matter if Nikon et al didn't "upgrade" sensor size etc: you would still have to replace your equipment anyway.It just dies on you and you have to buy a replacement. Oh, and buy 2, to have a back-up- you NEVER used to have to do that!!

D750 twist and flip screen, no AA filter, 4K video could be the D750 you all moan about now

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 19:14 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (358 comments in total)

D750 AA and low pass filter?
D7100, same res, half the price, no AA filter-better detail acuity and visibility, than ANY Canon, but why do Nikon continue to put filters in front of their sensors? WHY?
Why go back to the dark ages. Why did they ever fit them at all?
It is a good question.
The 5D Canon is better at making images than is the D3, or the D700, as was the first Canon 1Ds, due to their having weak AA filters.
You can see the difference even on a normal typists 1920x1080 monitor.

We should be sold machines without AA/low-pass etc filters, and then have them fitted IF we are unhappy, not have to pay a fortune to have them removed, or wait until the odd rare model appears without one.

Instead these greedy folk programme in obsolescence decades before they make anything, force you to pay upfront for software without which you are stuck with jpegs (and no jpeg 2000) and cant use the camera!!!!

AS bad as the banks.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 14:20 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (358 comments in total)

Of course it is a concern too that my polite factual posts have both been deleted from here. This has happened before. I do not mind, because that way I learn about people, so it's OK.

I care that others are misled by such censorship.

Now they cannot read that I had to replace my D800 twice, each time by Nikon, who were more than helpful, to get the one I now have, and that in each case it was down to manufacturing defects, as is the case here.

Various people poo-pooed the need for the micrometre precision Nikon and I demand, and I said how glad I was that these characters did not make cameras.

Not exactly controversial, is it?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 00:04 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1836 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

In Feb 2012 I paid full price for a new D800. After a while It was obvious that the focus was out. It was replaced by a second new body from Nikon. I bought a new recommended in the manual SD card, put it in 2nd body. It would not come out and machine had to go back to Nikon for adjustment, after which it was OK 'cept the colour was "out". Eventually replaced by a third body direct from Nikon. ALL the result of your attitude to machine tolerances. Glad you guys do not make cameras!!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 12:58 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1836 comments in total)

Very disturbing article and comments, since all machines should be identical. If there is variation in even the placement of the AF module, in a thing you have had to pay £1700 for! the flare will be worse and the autofocus all the time will be inaccurate- return it for a FULL REFUND anytime within the two year warranty period: you are entitled to your money back as it does not work as it should because, among other things, it has not even been put together properly.

One wonders how many D800 owners complaining about autofocussing problems may have incorrect camera construction as a reason.

Very disturbing too that Dpreview aren't bothered......

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 18:19 UTC as 92nd comment | 11 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)

Lenses are the end of the upgrade path myth. Zoom lenses: we take them for granted but they alone have upgraded the process of making photographs.

There were times you needed to go around with two bodies at double the weight, and have a lens on each to be able to function.

But now, you really do need only to take ONE camera with you because your zoom lens not only replaces your primes on two bodies but expands the realm in which you can function.

a 24-85 gives you a 24mm lens, a 28mm lens, a 35mm lens, a 50mm lens, a 70mm lens and an 85mm lens simultaneously with all intermediate focal lengths in between.

You now exist in a continuum in which you can follow movement and action constantly reframing from the viewpoint that got the camera to your eye in the first place.

That is so important to record what you see as you see it on your terms, not the lens' terms, with fast responding AF and minimal shutter lag.

So the biggy here is your lens, IMHO

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2015 at 01:09 UTC as 83rd comment
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

RMGoodLight: I Agree with this article. Fullframe is not suitable for everyone.

I tried the sony Alpha FF cameras myself and from my experience I miss 1 critical point in most of this discussions: useful aperture and equivalence. With mFT and APSC I'm used to F1.8 and F1.4 lenses. After using this terrific Zeiss 55mm F1.8 wide open at a Sony A7R I had to commit I had to rethink which apertures to use. At F1.8 FF optics have a very thin DOF. Misfocus is more critical then with F1.8 at APSC or mFT.

After some trial-and-error I think that F2.0 or better F2.4 gives much more usable DOF at FF cameras. That explains why there are so many FF lenses starting at F2.0 or F2.8. F1.8 gives very nice image results at FF cameras but you need a good AF or a steady hand to get good use of it. And thats the tricky part of the quote from above "with the same shutter speed and f-number, a larger sensor ... allows better image quality." You will not use FF with the same ISO and F-number as APSC or mFT.

yes you could upgrade to get more and more of the subject in focus

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 17:55 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Now, if you can bear it, WHY it is a myth!
No cameras memory is sufficient to sustain a 10Fps burst for longer than a couple of seconds. the hi-speed machine does not exist. The best case for a 1D MkIV with a Lexar1000X pro card over 30 seconds is a mere 79 frames. If it were a ten frame a second machine that figure would be 300 frames.And that is only 16MP RAWs- 160Mb/sec- nothing these days for a computer's SSD memory.

This is because manufacturers refuse to "upgrade" their buffer memory to match their claims- and this is Canon's flagship pro sports machine- a thing of beauty, but no faster than my NEX7.......which is tiny-like an SD card is

They can go as fast for much longer IF we get the AMOUNT of memory installed and IF it is reliable and fast.Just think- internal memory like a Hudl or iPad or iPhone has.Hmmmm, why didn't they think of that??

Many other factors like this one mean that is is all a myth, and that progress has been put on hold, yawn...

No, its their choice of PLUG on a motherboard with a graphics card that outputs these high resolutions. Have you not noticed how plugs control life now, and SD formats? The 1D MkIV is speed and duration limited by Canon who did not ever since write or provide firmware updates to allow for the use, at their higher write speed of SDXC cards. That camera and others accepts SOME SDXC cards but reformats them to its own Fat32 lower speed interface

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 17:48 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Now, if you can bear it, WHY it is a myth!
No cameras memory is sufficient to sustain a 10Fps burst for longer than a couple of seconds. the hi-speed machine does not exist. The best case for a 1D MkIV with a Lexar1000X pro card over 30 seconds is a mere 79 frames. If it were a ten frame a second machine that figure would be 300 frames.And that is only 16MP RAWs- 160Mb/sec- nothing these days for a computer's SSD memory.

This is because manufacturers refuse to "upgrade" their buffer memory to match their claims- and this is Canon's flagship pro sports machine- a thing of beauty, but no faster than my NEX7.......which is tiny-like an SD card is

They can go as fast for much longer IF we get the AMOUNT of memory installed and IF it is reliable and fast.Just think- internal memory like a Hudl or iPad or iPhone has.Hmmmm, why didn't they think of that??

Many other factors like this one mean that is is all a myth, and that progress has been put on hold, yawn...

I was quoting test figures by Rob Galbraith. but I am wide awake and wanting a machine that SUSTAINS that frame rate, not one where the bufferfills and the rate slows. Buffers need not fill: provide buffers that are at least adequate.

I use RAW only, and I want to be able to use altered RAWs in movies, as people use time-lapse, and I want to be able to use long bursts to follow action in sequence.

As rates slow when they need not neither can yet be done. There's no point shooting a sequence of stills that speed up and slow down- ridiculous.

Your claim for the 7D MkII is unproven, and open to testers, but 20MP APS-C is duff IQ for me when even APS-H is so much better. One day someone will do 10fps for as long as you fancy into an internal fast SSD- they could now easily, but they do not and it is not the cost, no, anymore than cost is a factor in the vast majority of laptops (non-Apple) having only basic HDMI at 1920x1080 out when the same companies produce 4K monitors and TVs!!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 17:42 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I think that maybe the myth is still being believed in. Ideologies are always dangerous- I had a row years ago with a TV critic who was adamant there are rules applicable to painting, and here we find sincere photographers who imagine, recently for example that full-frame is better. No, its different.

I'm using an e5000 Coolpix at the moment because it has great depth of field being a2/3rds sensor. It can get everything into sharp focus at closer distances, as can my 8080.

They can do things my D800 cannot do at all, ever, regardless of what lens I put on it in attempts to duplicate its powers at a more useable magnification.(fine detail invisible at 5 and 8MP)

And I actually use it, as I really dig its medieval vision of the world: its lurid colour and the grain!!

Some people prefer squarer pictures so prefer 4/3 sensors.Some people like Hasselblad and Rollei square pictures. I want a 16:9 fullframe machine- a digital Xpan with no AA and 100MP sensor. Oh Yeah!

Visually the results are completely different, like a daguerrotype compared to a bromide print, like tea and coffee.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)

Now, if you can bear it, WHY it is a myth!
No cameras memory is sufficient to sustain a 10Fps burst for longer than a couple of seconds. the hi-speed machine does not exist. The best case for a 1D MkIV with a Lexar1000X pro card over 30 seconds is a mere 79 frames. If it were a ten frame a second machine that figure would be 300 frames.And that is only 16MP RAWs- 160Mb/sec- nothing these days for a computer's SSD memory.

This is because manufacturers refuse to "upgrade" their buffer memory to match their claims- and this is Canon's flagship pro sports machine- a thing of beauty, but no faster than my NEX7.......which is tiny-like an SD card is

They can go as fast for much longer IF we get the AMOUNT of memory installed and IF it is reliable and fast.Just think- internal memory like a Hudl or iPad or iPhone has.Hmmmm, why didn't they think of that??

Many other factors like this one mean that is is all a myth, and that progress has been put on hold, yawn...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 15:53 UTC as 142nd comment | 5 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)

I think that maybe the myth is still being believed in. Ideologies are always dangerous- I had a row years ago with a TV critic who was adamant there are rules applicable to painting, and here we find sincere photographers who imagine, recently for example that full-frame is better. No, its different.

I'm using an e5000 Coolpix at the moment because it has great depth of field being a2/3rds sensor. It can get everything into sharp focus at closer distances, as can my 8080.

They can do things my D800 cannot do at all, ever, regardless of what lens I put on it in attempts to duplicate its powers at a more useable magnification.(fine detail invisible at 5 and 8MP)

And I actually use it, as I really dig its medieval vision of the world: its lurid colour and the grain!!

Some people prefer squarer pictures so prefer 4/3 sensors.Some people like Hasselblad and Rollei square pictures. I want a 16:9 fullframe machine- a digital Xpan with no AA and 100MP sensor. Oh Yeah!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 15:31 UTC as 144th comment | 5 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1312 comments in total)

The upgrade path is an invention by product placement journalists that infects every website and radio and TV, but not so long ago digital cameras were so expensive, that cheaper alternatives had to be produced, otherwise companies would have gone bankrupt due to lack of sales.

I can remember having to pay £1200 for a Nikon D200, and the same for a Nikon D300, and £1200 again was the cost of a new Canon 20D, and these were the cheaper APS-C alternatives at a time when full-frame Canons cost £5000-£8000.

This is CALLED the upgrade path, but proves it a fiction.

Now you can buy them for £70-120, but they are EXACTLY the same bodies that were THEN the best anyone could actually afford to pay for themselves, and were used professionally by hundreds of thousands of people.

Then came the 5D canon you can buy now for 10% of what it cost ten years ago, and it was a little under £3000- or what a D810 Nikon costs now.

They take the same pictures. Pay more, see more, bigger: upSIZE path!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 19:34 UTC as 318th comment

Wait months after all reviews and tests appear for problems to appear in posts online you can find - like " Nikon D810 problems issues".

Go through every machine you fancy buying in the same way, and wait until one comes out that they have bothered to design for photography, rather than for money.

Lobby your governments to ensure that our equipment lasts, by reintroducing lead/tin solder that is what every old pre 2002 lens and camera has, AS, even if you get a camera without problems it WILL die on you about a decade after manufacture-or much earlier from vibration and shocks in the post and through couriers throwing around gear sellers having got your money couldn't care less about padding and packing properly.

The current image quality is good enough for the next 50 years so you now do not need to "upgrade" any more. Nobody should HAVE to.

Because it isn't always due to bad quality control in the manufacturing process- many a slip twixt cup and lip, don't you know.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 23:06 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies

Nice, possibly well-made. Are its electrical circuits using proper tin/lead solder, or will it stop working like all the others do?

Come on it is 2015 and I think it is about time that photographers equipment became again as long-lived and reliable as it was before the EU and others decided to RoHS everything we spend money on, forcing us to repurchase over and over again. My kids are in their teens now, but in their lifetime they will have to replace their DSLRs and lenses 7 or 8 times unless something is done, killing the planet and exhausting natural resources in the process, not to mention the west becoming utterly dependent on those of China and Taiwan and Japan in the most unhealthy way.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2015 at 22:38 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies

You can take good photographs with any camera. You can do it under these controlled lighting conditions with an e5000 nikon digicam- I have done, and you can do it with an Olympus E1 which is only 5MP. The Fujis are OK for snaps- they have good lenses and sensors. But given the choice between an XTI and a full-frame machine from any manufacturer what person who needs to make a living by selling photographs will happily prefer half-frame cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2015 at 02:49 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (801 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The high iso performance at 3200 iso is so bad the machine certainly does not merit a gold award.Manual focus and zoom are also questionably defective-slow to the point of useless for exactly the kind of quick snap stills photographers buy this sort of thing. so I guess it gets Gold as it has 4K nobody can yet see or edit properly. As we cannot see its 4K movies at their resolution we do not know if it is any improvement on the HD we can see. All that glisters....

Yes, at this price its a steal-of your money!!!

Dear lover of Fools, possibly yes at base ISO, but not really, and small sensor results cannot yet get anywhere near what a full-frame sensor produces. It is therefore BETTER to buy a full frame sensored DSLR camera that does video, but you are correct to suppose they are a real drag for video as the stupid things need the mirror raised. Then you have the Sony a6000 series which are ideal for video as you can see everything through the EVF as you can on an FZ1000. These have a big advantage. You can buy a NEX7 for £250 s/h with a years warranty and then put on it anylens using adaptors with the advantage that the manual lenses focus fine with focus-peaking etc AND for video make no noises-as there is no transference of the AF and Focussing motors to the chassis. So you can put on a 16-300mm for example, or a 70-200 f2.8 and record video with just the sound you want- and better resolution.
You can also do this on a Sony A7 A7R A7S seeing through the viewfinder.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2015 at 15:07 UTC
Total: 414, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »