PIX 2015
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: 621, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On #1 in France: Hands-on with DxO ONE article (238 comments in total)

Degueulasse objet du desir, c'est un mystere.. Comment est-il possible de se faire arnaquer a ce niveau-la? plus qu'un brique la combinaison. J'acheterais un occas D800, moi. SI! bon conseil. Laisse les tranquilles, c'est pas leur faute

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 20:21 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: Excuse me for saying, but now that I have watched the video, can somebody point out to Rishi that he is not at all comparing like for like, as he is using Sigma lenses on the DSLRs.

These give problems on Nikons as they focus in the opposite direction to the proper Nikon lenses!

In such poor light with a static subject you would probably prefer manual focus too, and this makes it even worse, as the Nikons do not like Sigma lenses overriding completely their directional arrows,

Plus to be objective, everyone knows that a 1D series Canon does better than the amateur grade 5D series focussing.........

THe claimed section of 15 other lenses is where? Point is, I would not even try off-brand lenses with ANY camera in a test specific to a particular brands machine and what it can do. I would use only Sony's own lens range designed for the camera. I have sigma lenses on a Nex, and I do NOT expect them to work as well in such a test.
Agreed we buy these lenses, but it is specifically unfair to put Sigma lenses on a Nikon as here, in very poor light.
Yes it should work better than a 1Dx. ANY mirrorless camera SHOULD AF better as the mirror affects focus accuracy in poor light

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 16:44 UTC

Excuse me for saying, but now that I have watched the video, can somebody point out to Rishi that he is not at all comparing like for like, as he is using Sigma lenses on the DSLRs.

These give problems on Nikons as they focus in the opposite direction to the proper Nikon lenses!

In such poor light with a static subject you would probably prefer manual focus too, and this makes it even worse, as the Nikons do not like Sigma lenses overriding completely their directional arrows,

Plus to be objective, everyone knows that a 1D series Canon does better than the amateur grade 5D series focussing.........

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 11:46 UTC as 82nd comment | 6 replies
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1090 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: 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??

Yes, of course I put them in named folders with the camera and lens used in the title, that is not the problem. The problem comes editing. In Photoshop, or worse, Lightroom, where your images get sorted by their filenumbers. And when you save, they get saved by their file numbers. So then you have to create another folder for each camera into which you save its images, and only its images, instead of being able to put all your jpegs or Tiffs or whatever into the same folder because Sony had the grace and insight to make sure each camera has either its own code (as so 1Ds Canons) or the ability to rename the file like Sony sensors in Nikons do.
What you wrote to help should be unnecessary!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 12:59 UTC
On Flowers ink girl in the Tattoo Girl challenge (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Tattoos that can wash off are just silly. Permanent ones are just wrong and that's Bible folks. That does not mean God will not forgive you. It means that He says do not mark up (yes or even puncture) your body; even to commemorate the dead. No this doesn't mean we shun people for it Nor that they can't receive heaven. It means your body is God's art work (though we sometimes see the genetic decay or mutation of death) and it's not a permanent canvas for our creations. As the picture shows, the faded "art" is not comparable to beautiful the woman. Not hardly. This is like your kid redoing a Rembrandt. Just stop it. It's not a good thing. It thumbing your nose at God and His creation and that will not end well.

Tatooing is ritual self-harm, and a desecration of your one and only body. You can always use temporary ones and henna, much less boring because you can change them all the time!!

As for creation, duh, well, if you lived for millions of years in your one body, do you really believe that you could "evolve" a tattooed skin? Or wings?

"Can YOU, by taking thought, change even so much as one hair on your head black or white" to quote Our Lord.

Or what woke me up to reality? Well, check how long it is estimated by those of the Darwinian faith, that it took for the neck of the giraffe to grow long enough to browse trees rather than grasses!!

Were evolution even a valid concept very few spieces would be on Earth, as evolution implies, for example, that we evolved from apes. As an advance on apes, there should be none left- as with Peking Man, Neanderthals etc.

But the giraffe really is logically the clincher-signs for righthinking men!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 15:34 UTC
On Flowers ink girl in the Tattoo Girl challenge (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Tattoos that can wash off are just silly. Permanent ones are just wrong and that's Bible folks. That does not mean God will not forgive you. It means that He says do not mark up (yes or even puncture) your body; even to commemorate the dead. No this doesn't mean we shun people for it Nor that they can't receive heaven. It means your body is God's art work (though we sometimes see the genetic decay or mutation of death) and it's not a permanent canvas for our creations. As the picture shows, the faded "art" is not comparable to beautiful the woman. Not hardly. This is like your kid redoing a Rembrandt. Just stop it. It's not a good thing. It thumbing your nose at God and His creation and that will not end well.

Throw the Bible away, and all the other books, as you cannot quote them or use them merely to bolster your own predjudices: surely looking at the disaster that is Israel teaches us all that.

If you are against war just dont photograph it, bungee, ditto, tattoos ditto... Me, I am merely an bserver of the social scene with no moral judgements to apply. If I did, most of those posting on Dpreview would be banned, straightaway!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:05 UTC
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1090 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!!

Vanitas, meh, weird pasta twig arms are unrelated to equipment!
The big Nikons and Canons power through 3 times what even a giant mountaineer or Arnie can appreciate relative to an A7 series or NEX machine, but their batteries are not 3 times the size and they have huge heavy pasta and twig-munching mirrors to raise and lower as well. So with the incompatible mount, lack of weatherproofing, etc, these machines do not sell well.
Even you mehumans do not buy them, because even a meh human can understand how the pasta armed Arnies of Creation need reliable stuff whose files can be renamed to suit, and whose lenses can work on other machines.

Those of the twig-armed pasta race salute you, because you realize, as do we, that the Sony Problem results from their devising lens mounts nobody else uses, like Apple with its ports and connectors, failing to notice that the market has rapidly provided adaptors that can replace all their expensive incompatible glass with anything BUT a Sony lens!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 00:17 UTC
On Flowers ink girl in the Tattoo Girl challenge (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Neodp: Tattoos that can wash off are just silly. Permanent ones are just wrong and that's Bible folks. That does not mean God will not forgive you. It means that He says do not mark up (yes or even puncture) your body; even to commemorate the dead. No this doesn't mean we shun people for it Nor that they can't receive heaven. It means your body is God's art work (though we sometimes see the genetic decay or mutation of death) and it's not a permanent canvas for our creations. As the picture shows, the faded "art" is not comparable to beautiful the woman. Not hardly. This is like your kid redoing a Rembrandt. Just stop it. It's not a good thing. It thumbing your nose at God and His creation and that will not end well.

It is depressing, even for atheists to see their kids wreck their appearance in this way. Today I saw a girl of around 18 on the bus, a huge rose tattooed on her bare thigh, and more over her shoulders and face, hair dyed a washed ut dead straw blonde colour, but dark growing out underneath. Could I have related when younger to such a person, or David Beckham, at all? No. I cannot imagine people that stupid, and that bad a role model to their children, it , like religion, abortion, war and murder, simply make no sense, when a normal peaceful existence is so much easier on the eye, the body, and the mind.

Same with Parcour and Bungee, I mean, why die, or cripple yourself? I cannot photograph such activities at all, it only encourages them more to injure themselves showing off...and THAT is exactly what tatooed folk have decided to do!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 23:54 UTC

Questions. 1The delay. 2.The price. 3. Zeiss 16-50 f2.8 since forever on Sony A.And Tokina
4. New Samsung and Sigma fast zooms too.

Something is not quite right: The lens is STILL too slow at the portrait end when it is to be used on machines where low ISO is a critical factor for all subjects.

It is VERY expensive relative to full-frame equivalents on cameras that date less easily now everything has reached tolerable standards in full-frame. Costs more than the cameras!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 23:29 UTC as 6th comment
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1090 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 (1090 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 19th comment | 9 replies
On Alpha dog: Hands-on with Sony a7R II article (1090 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 20th comment | 8 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 (216 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 (216 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 (216 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 (216 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 (216 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 42nd comment | 11 replies
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (146 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
Total: 621, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »