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: 612, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1034 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Well Eugene, if only. BUT, if you care about your equipment working well, there are serious caveats still with this camera. Its batteries are only good for a couple of hundred RAW files, with little or no live view or "chimping" through work. Yes, they are small: you can take loads, but running out at a crucial time is common with such small batteries- and they were designed for NEX little APS-C 14MP sensors.

The other bugbear is file numbering. Sony are all DSC something file numbers. That's right, no matter which camera, so if you have more than one Sony, you will have file numbers for different photographs that are all identical. Thousands of them, and you cannot rename the files in-camera.

Same if you buy a Nikon- all DSCxxxx just as are the Sont ones.
BUT, there is a vital difference, and that is that Nikon let your rename the file in-camera. No more DSC, JANxxxx FEBxxx or 115xxx 215xxx, and so no overwriting and thus loss of your vital work. Hmmmm!!

The battery grip negates the point of this small series of machines IMHO. And as you cannot rename their files, your new camera will run exactly the same file numbers in jpeg and raw as the Sonys you have/had already.

I have years of experience in software, but even I have overwritten several vital raw files, that cannot be retrieved. This only happens with Sony machines, and it simply highlights how little they consider photographers- as does the lack of weatherproofing.

These things are great in tests, but not so good in practice, and dare I venture the idea that shutter lag may not have improved over its predecessor, quite possible.

At least it now does 4K in-camera, just like an LX100! The £1800
A7S 12MP body could not- it was obsolete upon release and you had to have an expensive outboard thingy to use it at 4K, doubling its cost, and weight. All done on purpose. Crazy

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1034 comments in total)

And, as writers in forums here have confirmed, a couple of drops of water, and it'll just die, wont work, finished! FYI, I have several Sonys, but I just wish I could rename their files in-camera, as I can on my Nikon whose sensors are Sony, and whose batteries last for THREE times the number of shots at least.

I have lost irretrieveably valuable work overwriting RAW files by mistake because I cannot rename them.

What soes this tell you about Sony, as a company??

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 19:51 UTC as 9th comment
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1034 comments in total)

Well Eugene, if only. BUT, if you care about your equipment working well, there are serious caveats still with this camera. Its batteries are only good for a couple of hundred RAW files, with little or no live view or "chimping" through work. Yes, they are small: you can take loads, but running out at a crucial time is common with such small batteries- and they were designed for NEX little APS-C 14MP sensors.

The other bugbear is file numbering. Sony are all DSC something file numbers. That's right, no matter which camera, so if you have more than one Sony, you will have file numbers for different photographs that are all identical. Thousands of them, and you cannot rename the files in-camera.

Same if you buy a Nikon- all DSCxxxx just as are the Sont ones.
BUT, there is a vital difference, and that is that Nikon let your rename the file in-camera. No more DSC, JANxxxx FEBxxx or 115xxx 215xxx, and so no overwriting and thus loss of your vital work. Hmmmm!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 19:46 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies

TV companies paying for rights to record and broadcast the Olympics, Baseball, cricket, etcetera, is also recent. The millions that corrupt clubs and are used to hog coverage that used to be a free for all, it is recent. You can blame modern man, but modern man is helped by the internet.

Photographers suffer more than any group, as digital files are easily stolen, and copied and resold.

Thus we now cannot post OUR work online, secure in the knowledge that it will remain a source of income for us now, or in the future.

Rock stars have to pay vast number of people (pace Vlad) for the noise they make. Their companies want to video record for DVD and profit, and unfortunately freelances are subjected to restrictions designed to prevent competitors filming-as since the 5D MkII nobody can tell the difference !!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 17:04 UTC as 5th comment

The thing to do is simply boycott concerts by anyone saying you cannot take pictures there, or binding you contractually if you do.
All this nonsense is very recent. I never once ever signed any contract, either with an agency or any magazine or newspaper who commissioned work. Reason. We abided by existing laws that made such contracts unecessary.
Had it been otherwise the vast majority of historically important documentation of musical events, and sport etc would simply not have been done! No pics of the Stones, Stooges, Beatles, Talking Heads, Springsteen, Ravi Shankar, Stockhausen, etcetera would have been taken.
And for Vlad: no sunshine! God made it all and we use LIGHT to make our photographs . Something ,( Sunshine!) that NOBODY can copyright, including electric light, as, of course, it is derived from the Sun. It pains me to read stuff by such as you, who, of course, living only by the Moon's reflected light, probably is unaware, or even afraid, of The Living Daylights!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 16:55 UTC as 6th comment
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The Static shots are dreadfull. The noise much greater than it should be. How long since anyone on Dpreview got hold of a Lunar Pro meter with incident light cone and went and stood facing the camera where the subject is.? Eh? Too Bl**** lazy!!

Plus stopping down a lot gets rubbish results on a 50MP sensor-more than f8 is trouble ( I notice it gets worse after f9 on a D800.)

Plus, another thing called reciprocity law failure, the bugbear of digital sensors.
Just as doubling the distance from a light source reduces the illumination level FOUR times (not to half what it was before) so too reducing the illumination levels by stopping down reduces the ability of the sensor to record such low light levels properly at all.
A theoretically perfect standard lens with no vignetting at any aperture will still produce darker and darker results as you stop down more and more. Try it!

Rinse and repeat!!

Confusion??!! The way they write it its plus a 100, and plus 50, by moving the sliders to the right you open up detail in the shadows, but by getting rid of black (which does not exist, remember?), the real available dynamic range of the sensor can be made use of. My settings optimize detail in midtones and shadows and well, in many cases double dynamic range, but at the expense of what you call contrast, but is not, being achieved through the noisy addition of black. Of course , what you then discover is all the noise in the shadows, but it goes quicker and retains more detail when all black has been removed ("Trust ME!"). adding around 32 Clarity then gives you back (with anti-haze on around 18-44) the actual definition captured and the true dynamic range of the scene, because it looks right!
Colour problems are aided by looking at the highlight triangle, and if it is coloured, increasing white until it turns white, just. Then reduce the highlights to match what your eyes see

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 00:32 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The Static shots are dreadfull. The noise much greater than it should be. How long since anyone on Dpreview got hold of a Lunar Pro meter with incident light cone and went and stood facing the camera where the subject is.? Eh? Too Bl**** lazy!!

Plus stopping down a lot gets rubbish results on a 50MP sensor-more than f8 is trouble ( I notice it gets worse after f9 on a D800.)

Plus, another thing called reciprocity law failure, the bugbear of digital sensors.
Just as doubling the distance from a light source reduces the illumination level FOUR times (not to half what it was before) so too reducing the illumination levels by stopping down reduces the ability of the sensor to record such low light levels properly at all.
A theoretically perfect standard lens with no vignetting at any aperture will still produce darker and darker results as you stop down more and more. Try it!

Rinse and repeat!!

Me? I just expose more and more to the right. I get rid of all blacks, moving the black slider to the right -100, and then the shadow slider to the right -50 and set moderate contrast and +32 clarity in LR or CC, adding whatever anti-haze in CC does it for me. IN other words I cheat massively, because with what comes out of the camera RAW makes you do so. I'm perfectly aware that I am using the software that the makers refuse to supply to create the photographic quality the makers cannot manage (like their TERRIBLE colour problems (still!), and I am also certain the sensors cheat as well being nowhere near that number of actual physical individually wired lightrapping pixels at all!
However I can get great results as the low shutter lag of a D Nikon means I get what I take, and not what a 5D type shutter lag gets you!
So far no word about shutter lag on the 5Ds bodies? Dont buy till you know.
It cant be good, or Canon would advertise it!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 09:45 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The Static shots are dreadfull. The noise much greater than it should be. How long since anyone on Dpreview got hold of a Lunar Pro meter with incident light cone and went and stood facing the camera where the subject is.? Eh? Too Bl**** lazy!!

Plus stopping down a lot gets rubbish results on a 50MP sensor-more than f8 is trouble ( I notice it gets worse after f9 on a D800.)

Plus, another thing called reciprocity law failure, the bugbear of digital sensors.
Just as doubling the distance from a light source reduces the illumination level FOUR times (not to half what it was before) so too reducing the illumination levels by stopping down reduces the ability of the sensor to record such low light levels properly at all.
A theoretically perfect standard lens with no vignetting at any aperture will still produce darker and darker results as you stop down more and more. Try it!

Rinse and repeat!!

The Canon samples too, only work at base ISO. There are stuuudio shots of moels, evenly lit with highkey lighting and virtually no shadow areas at all, that are what you get from ANY camera under the same conditions, but there overhead urban shots are bad at 800iso with dreadful noise clogging up the terrible corner resolution of the zoom used, just as the shadows in all cases here are clogged with noise, even including that 100 iso headshot of a man, where around and below the line of his jaw the noise destroys the detail- even at 100 iso. And this is unacceptable to me, especially as, being huge, you can see it straightaway!
Add the high cost of body, the exhorbitant price of lenses good enough, and the less than 10 year life all these things now have due to RoHS legislation (lead-free everything) and there's a very good case for photographers to avoid new tech until it is capable of working properly, and for long enough

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 09:34 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (215 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: The Static shots are dreadfull. The noise much greater than it should be. How long since anyone on Dpreview got hold of a Lunar Pro meter with incident light cone and went and stood facing the camera where the subject is.? Eh? Too Bl**** lazy!!

Plus stopping down a lot gets rubbish results on a 50MP sensor-more than f8 is trouble ( I notice it gets worse after f9 on a D800.)

Plus, another thing called reciprocity law failure, the bugbear of digital sensors.
Just as doubling the distance from a light source reduces the illumination level FOUR times (not to half what it was before) so too reducing the illumination levels by stopping down reduces the ability of the sensor to record such low light levels properly at all.
A theoretically perfect standard lens with no vignetting at any aperture will still produce darker and darker results as you stop down more and more. Try it!

Rinse and repeat!!

Looking at the shots any exposure compensation has been omitted, very suspect! Other than that only 100 iso shots appear OK. Yes there's been huge improvement up to now, but these new files made on a £3000 camera using premium software are only technically noise-free enough at 100iso.
My D800 is happiest at 100, using the cameras own metering which as you go up the scale clogs up the shadows with noise that reduces both enjoyment and detail resolution from 400iso up, just as the Canon 1Ds MkII did before it.
I'm certain that the inverse square law DOES apply in-camera, and that dark current noise must increase the more pixels you wire up, but I, like others still feel that these sensors are not actually composed of that many pixels at all, and that other things are going on.
Whatever, only the 100 iso interior shot is OK (and thats with a huge white area included, whereas all the others fail to convince, including the first one of the glove

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 09:23 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS real-world sample gallery article (215 comments in total)

The Static shots are dreadfull. The noise much greater than it should be. How long since anyone on Dpreview got hold of a Lunar Pro meter with incident light cone and went and stood facing the camera where the subject is.? Eh? Too Bl**** lazy!!

Plus stopping down a lot gets rubbish results on a 50MP sensor-more than f8 is trouble ( I notice it gets worse after f9 on a D800.)

Plus, another thing called reciprocity law failure, the bugbear of digital sensors.
Just as doubling the distance from a light source reduces the illumination level FOUR times (not to half what it was before) so too reducing the illumination levels by stopping down reduces the ability of the sensor to record such low light levels properly at all.
A theoretically perfect standard lens with no vignetting at any aperture will still produce darker and darker results as you stop down more and more. Try it!

Rinse and repeat!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 23:44 UTC as 41st comment | 11 replies
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (139 comments in total)

Image quality is improved by use of Capture One, which in my experience gives cleaner crisper results than Adobe products, and gets as good results with a good 35mm sensor, but its always nice to remind yourself once in a while, as here, of what a photogragh SHOULD look like.

Bet you can do exactly the same with the new Canon, right? You're going to, aren't you? Do tell!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 18:47 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review preview (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I am still trying to understand, yet I cannot, as the format itself is so poor. The published samples here are worse than any 16MP APS-C camera, and are certainly not as good IMHO, as I get from an FZ1000: they do not have a photographic quality.

I try to be generous, I try to make allowances, but in a medium in which the lenses now cost as much as full-frame lenses do, why should anybody?

There is no comparison between the results here and those you can get from ANY full-frame SLR, and my ancient 20D and D200 both do better.

The mediums limitations have it stuck at 16MP as well, so it appears that nobody possessing excellent Olympus, Leitz and Panasonic lenses has any possibility of enlarging their work to match other more competent media, and I feel sorry always for people who have bought into the system when I see them.

As noted in the review several pictures show shake they ascribe to shutter shock I dont get ever with 10 year-old equipment. And certainly not with an FZ1000

I wish I could use a micro 4/3rds, though now Schneider are not going to do lenses for them any more...

Its just the size limitation.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 18:49 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Review preview (425 comments in total)

I am still trying to understand, yet I cannot, as the format itself is so poor. The published samples here are worse than any 16MP APS-C camera, and are certainly not as good IMHO, as I get from an FZ1000: they do not have a photographic quality.

I try to be generous, I try to make allowances, but in a medium in which the lenses now cost as much as full-frame lenses do, why should anybody?

There is no comparison between the results here and those you can get from ANY full-frame SLR, and my ancient 20D and D200 both do better.

The mediums limitations have it stuck at 16MP as well, so it appears that nobody possessing excellent Olympus, Leitz and Panasonic lenses has any possibility of enlarging their work to match other more competent media, and I feel sorry always for people who have bought into the system when I see them.

As noted in the review several pictures show shake they ascribe to shutter shock I dont get ever with 10 year-old equipment. And certainly not with an FZ1000

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 20:06 UTC as 55th comment | 6 replies

And the lawyer in me still maintains that we are recording the light the buildings reflect. This is not copyright, Duh!!
Do a twelth night to Sherlocks, it usually works.
Like the business of not being allowed to photograph policemen or serving military personnel- both enacted in law by the present GB regime: both unworkable, laughable, ridicul;ous as policemen pose all the time and tourists photograph the changing of the guard, the Trooping of the Colours, and soldiers and police are everywhere a part of street life in any case, just as are buildings.

Next fashion designers will demand royalties for wedding photographs....

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 23:24 UTC as 22nd comment

THe London skyline is arguably the ugliest of any major city on earth: the "architecture" of recent years is an absolute disgrace-whether it is copyrighted or not.The Gherkin, the Shard etc should all br demolished as they detract from the harmonious view that London had prior to their construction-and the construction of the other buildings shown in the diagram.

That would be harmonization.

Further inhabitants of London, and visitors to it should be financially compensated for their loss of Panorama, as the views, as a result of bad design, are now very disappointing, hardly worth the visit.

Those still interested in photographing said mess should be compensated financially for being charged to do so.

Since millions of snaps already exist, just upload them CC to Flickr etc, and thats the end of their nasty little game. As if millionaire architects need the money (they get 10% of build cost you know!)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 23:19 UTC as 23rd comment
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2132 comments in total)

I love small sensors. I love them because in theory they solve all our problems, and that is why manufacturers continue to strive to eliminate the one glitch-NOISE- from the equation.

Depth of field freaks need not worry at all because all you need do is use hyperfocal distance and put your subject at the back third of it, or just get closer.

But this misses the point of what these sensors will be one day soon, able to do.

You'll be able to use the best aperture giving the greatest depth of field to produce all in focus shots. You will be able to see a scene from front to back captured at high shutter speeds, in poor light as you can now only in blinding sunlight with a full-frame sensor.

You will have problems though unless you use Leica M, and Voightlanders, because nobody else can be bothered to inscribe large scale accurate depth of field scales on their lenses, even though their lenses are huge compared to M lenses and there are acres of space thereon.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 00:39 UTC as 32nd comment
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)

And as aforementioned in MANY complaints, SHUTTER LAG figures, accurate ones please.

Since all the pinpoint eye-focus (if not wearing sunglasses, spectacles or patterned clothing etc), accuracy in the whole world, even in a perfect system is of NO use outside of studio and your test conditions, if, when you then press the shutter, your £2,600 Sony body then takes a sixth of a second before it releases the shutter after you press it, as did the A7R.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 11:00 UTC as 32nd comment | 7 replies
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)

Eye recognition can be confused by similar objects, oh yes. The reason it is not universally adopted is DARK GLASSES and SPECTACLES, sported by huge numbers of people, such that FACE recognition alone works better always (as long as you dont then get told you have to ID the face and save it!).

So what all good Nikons have will always be better, unfortunately
The huge amounts of guff included to promote this Sony model in Dpreview is typical of gamers, not photographers.

Possibly they would be a lot more useful devoting time to a topic never mentioned in recent years- the speed and amount of RAM in digital cameras.
Lets get manufacturers to vastly increase on that first, shall we?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 10:52 UTC as 33rd comment | 8 replies

A few years ago, a "suit" on a demolition site approached me,because he was determined to stop me taking pictures. I wasnt onsite. I was looking through the space above the site to record a building, the view of which had been blocked prior to the demolition. I had no interest in his site, his staff etc.

I explained this, and he said it made no difference, but that owning the site he owned the airspace above it and could prevent me photographing across it.

End of! You cannot own the atmosphere. Thus there is NO possible copyright applicable to buildings, or in fact to anything, as we are not copying buildings or any 3D structure: we cannot.

A person has NO copyright to their appearance or inclusion in a photo either, because we are not recording them, but the light they reflect, which comes from God, who holds the copyright on everything, being a very great artist and the creator of whatever we use cameras to record.

They thus have NO case morally or in law. The defence rests.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 11:49 UTC as 213th comment | 1 reply
On Sony: An eye on focus article (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Whilst having so many sensors there is great, not being able to switch them off and get a much smaller central pattern as other cameras have, would be disastrous, as you will lose many many shots if you cannot reduce that area when you actually need to.

THe FZ1000 and the a6000 series etc have large areas like this, but the Panasonic can be reconfigured without even going into the menues, such that you have a very narrow central area at work. Essential for sports and wildlife photography.

I just hope that manual focus applied to native Sony lenses and other brands works as well as it does on a Nex7 for example, as nobody can cope with all those sensors active all of the time.

This is all good news, but do I keep having to go to other sites Rishi, just to find out about autofocus speeds and shutter lag? Its great to see that here there is now getting to be more of a workable approach to these machines, but here we cannot find that information, at all, ever.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 23:48 UTC
Total: 612, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »