keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.

Comments

Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nicoboston: Nikon is launching three 1"-sensor cameras. Why not. But Panasonic strategy with the ZS100 seems more logical IMO. I'm looking for a decent travel/backup compact and I do not see the rationale behind all these confusing Canon G*X and now Nikon DL cameras. I never had a Panasonic before, but if the ZS100 continues getting good reviews (so far they are quite encouraging), it could be my next 2nd camera! I may change my mind if IQ from these DL is very high above the other ones, but I doubt it.

@ThatCamFan, would be if lens distortion on RAW were non-existent like my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM (Mk I) on APS-C. I expect when I see a review it will be about 5% barrel distortion.

Customers are being treated like fools and products brought to market on that basis.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: I have decided to sell my Nikon gear, this was the last straw to be honest for me. Im not going to say what brand I am going to because I dont want people to go "ewww this brand or that brand stinks" I used to work in Quality Control at two companies, neither were camera companies but knowing about Quality Control this just annoys me. I see this as complete incompetence. I love my Nikon but I dont want to be in the "you dont know what your getting until after you bought it" (aka: Will my new product work or not when I put it on my camera or use this camera?")

Totally agree with your sentiments and, if I wanted to add to or replace my Nikon equipment, I'd do the same. Fortunately my older Nikon equipment is from a time when they were reliable.

Onnly thing is that if I did which to change, what to? Short of a Leica 240 and a huge outlay, in my opinion there is nothing worth having, for one reason or another. Same goes for lenses, unless you are happy with distortion and software correction.

Just have a look at http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS6000x4000~sample_galleries/9996097469/2181421848.jpg in the A6300 samples gallery. Of course this building is curved but you can expect results like this even if it were not if you want to shoot RAW with a wide angle.

IMO, photographic product design and quality are in decline, even if the techlnogy and what is possible are making great strides.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 18:41 UTC

No Nikon camera upgrade to avoid the risk, but also none of the more recent lens designs from any manufacturer at any price. Almost all are so big and heavy too, which is ridiculous, More importantly, even the primes now have medium to high distortion and rely upon software correction - a dreadful fudge, with serious side effects..

Considering a somewhat lighter outfit than my DSLR, a Leica M Type 240 plus Voigtlander 15mm Heliar or 16-18-21mm Tri-Elmar, would appeal to me other than the price. But not a Zeiss lens because they have bad vignetting on digital unless, perhaps, the pixels at the edge of the sensor are turned inwards, Leica style.

I would not consider a Sony AR II because of the likelihood of the risk of vignetting with very wide lenses. Their prices are too high prices for a multinational, as opposed to a genuine photo manufacturer. It could be OK, but like Panasonic, too risky.

Slightly reluctantly, I am sticking to my D300 plus Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 10:57 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

lacikuss: Thanks God I've moved away from Nikon right after the garbage D600 came out...jey!

I have similar sentiments as I have mentioned above.

I've moved away from any Nikon upgrade, having a D300 which I will keep. At least that performs as it should.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 10:25 UTC

There have been too many Nikon flaws and recalls since the oil problem on the D600. Nikon quality control is not what it used to be. That puts me off thinking about an upgrade.

I had been toying with replacing my D300, but not with FX as that more likely also would mean needing to get new lenses. I am only bothered about small apertures at 200 ISO in bright light and better IQ is not something I actually need.

The most likely alternative I had in mind was the D7200 but possibly the D500, if the dynamic range of the latter is substantially better than earlier models. With less than a genuine 14 stops on RAW - however small or large - I will stick to exposure bracketing and HDR where the smaller range of older models then makes no difference.

But, after so many service advisories, I will not bother. Better to play safe.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 11:15 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

keepreal: It is a pity that Richard Butler did not discuss dynamic range and megapixels.

When it is possible to capture 14 stops dynamic range in a single frame I might upgrade but, until then, I will continue with exposure bracketing. Also, until I start printing larger than A2 (60 cm) from near to a full frame, 12 mp will be perfectly adequate for good quality where pictures are the end product, not tables of performance figures.

I am far from alone in that the pictures in my gallery almost always are taken in good light at moderate apertures on APS-C and the subjects are static. If not for that, a better camera than my D300 might be justified.

Only a specific few camera cope well in all kinds of conditions, in which case one can understand an interest in the like of the new Nikon D5 and D500. But, if you look at the galleries of those here who have them, many appear to be using cameras way beyond their needs. I rarely find that their subject matter, equipment and results are on a par.

There is no genuine 14-ish camera.

Try Bill Claff for more realistic DR ratings at http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

His figure for the D5500 is 10.3, that for my D300 is 8.4 and those figures are more in line.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 05:54 UTC

It is a pity that Richard Butler did not discuss dynamic range and megapixels.

When it is possible to capture 14 stops dynamic range in a single frame I might upgrade but, until then, I will continue with exposure bracketing. Also, until I start printing larger than A2 (60 cm) from near to a full frame, 12 mp will be perfectly adequate for good quality where pictures are the end product, not tables of performance figures.

I am far from alone in that the pictures in my gallery almost always are taken in good light at moderate apertures on APS-C and the subjects are static. If not for that, a better camera than my D300 might be justified.

Only a specific few camera cope well in all kinds of conditions, in which case one can understand an interest in the like of the new Nikon D5 and D500. But, if you look at the galleries of those here who have them, many appear to be using cameras way beyond their needs. I rarely find that their subject matter, equipment and results are on a par.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 13:07 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (742 comments in total)
In reply to:

Muskokaphotog: The new Nikons are unquestionably great cameras. Apart from "professionals", who uses anyone of these cameras enough to justify spending the extra $? The other issue is the lenses. I have been using cameras and lenses for over 40 years and I think lens quality has actually regressed at the professional end. Sure we have better AF, but most lenses now need serious computer rejigging to compensate for distortions and other aberrations. When will Nikon create a standard lens with the corner to corner sharpness and a distortion free horizon?

That is something that very much concerns me too.

Sure, software can correct a lot of the distortion but there is nothing to compare with the best lenses designed to suffice without it. I mostly use exposure bracketed frames for HDR and choose which software to use to read my RAW frames and merge them based entirely upon the quality of the tonal mapping of the result. That conflicts with lenses needing software correction, although by first converting to DNG 1.1 the Adobe RAW converter does incorporate distortion correction.

However, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 12:09 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (742 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: Ultimately the D500 question will be whether the sum total of all its technology adds up to better pictures... comparing the D5500 and 5200 and 5300 predecessors, which are, by the way, great cameras, Nikon APS-c sensors have not advanced much in the past three years. Comparing to the same priced D750 the question is going to be whether in real world shooting, you take an IQ hit in low light. To me this camera is going to have to show some significant advance in image quality over prior APS-C cameras. A key element is going to be the sensor. Not much publicity about the sensor, but hoping Nikon is using Sony's new BSI CMOS sensor technology. If it does I think the camera will be on everyone's list.

Quite so.

Apart from professionals or highly demanding and skilled amateurs to whom the leading equipment obviously is of benefit for some kinds of subject, I am convinced that the majority of people spending a lot of money do so principally because of the pride of ownership, not because they need expensive cameras to take great pictures. You only have to look into the galleries to see that the vast majority of the results there could be taken with a decent, slightly better than entry level DSLR, mirrorless system camera or good bridge camera. Even a true 1/1.6" or smaller would often suffice if it is a good one and many of them are.

I have a fairly large print of a picture my son took in China with an Olympus C-5060 and it would have been no better taken with anything better whatsoever today.

The D5 and D500 will make it easier to capture fast moving subjects more sharply and for those regularly into that, they have to be of interest. But who else actually needs either of them?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 11:42 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (742 comments in total)

Having now had a close look, it is clear that the focusing capabilities of the D500 and D5 should prove to be an amazing improvement on anything else Nikon to date has produced and for anyone into demanding action, especially professionals, they must be jumping with joy.

I like to look at DP Review to see what equipment has become available and how the technology has advanced but it will take me a hell of a lot of persuasion to move on from my D300. That is because for landscapes in good light I do not need any better.

However, the asking price for the D500 should prove to be very good value for money, especially once that drops, which eventually it is likely to do. The D5 is so much more expensive, it is difficult to judge about that, but professionals will not be too worried.

It will be interesting to see if the quality of the best action photos put before the public takes a giant leap forward. I would not rule that out by any means but we will have to wait and see. Let's hope so.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2016 at 22:10 UTC as 24th comment
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)

I agree with IvanM below where he is critical that DPR award a silver to an expensive camera which is full of shortcomings but not as to why. I do not think it is what readers want, I think more likely it is because they kowtow to the manufacturers to maintain a good working relationship.

There is a lot of detail but you have to take a pinch of salt, figure out what to accept and what to set aside. I also agree with IvanM that photographing test charts is a thankless task but I also maintain it is badly flawed, much more so when testing lenses than cameras.

In thirteen years I have never once seen any distortion with my full frame AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF in spite of what reviews elsewhere say. That probably is I because I never used it to photograph a chart at a very near distance. Even my Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2 is better than the reviews would suggest, although the distortion at near distances is very pronounced, but not at normal distances where I set the focus.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 22:37 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

IvanM, even now that I have seen the article, I have not changed my mind, the reason being that we are presented there only with tables and numbers. I am not disputing the information, merely saying that it is only part of the story. For that reason I do not accept that "you will see even the worst lenses at the worst apertures show[ing] an improvement".

The subjective impression of image quality partly depends upon the subjective impression of the overall level and how even it appears across the frame. From the examples in the article, it is to be noted that some lenses show more disparity with higher resolution sensors, maybe because sensors near the edge of the frame are affected by the angle of incidence. So you have to take each lens case by case, but my proposition is that lower but more even resolution sometimes will look better.

More pixels have their merits, especially to manufacturers who make a fortune by some people trading up for all the wrong reasons.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Have a look at page 11 of this review, download the tulips and see the dreadful grain even when viewed at 25%. I would not use this camera even if it was given to me free to get results like that. At 100 ISO this is attrocious in a camera at any price. This is the kind of thing I judge by. They say a picture is worth a thousand words - not this one.

IvanM "Even the worst lenses at the worst apertures show an improvement" Pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Cannot find anything at lensrentals. Are you pointing me towards tables and numbers, a verbal opinion or images?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 16:54 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

"The fall off would be more obvious at pixel-level, but not at the image-level like I said." No. How can you say that? At the image level, the deficiency would also show up - not always, but often.

Let's just agree to disagree. Not that I am accusing you, but what digital technology has done IMO is largely counter productive. Judging from what some people write in these forums, too many people are chasing technical progress rather than pictures and spending a lot of money with nothing to show for it unless they keep their equipment in the trophy cabinet.

I have a few full frame pictures I took and still rate from my F80 with the Sigma 12-24 that are perfectly sharp enough and as I am not a professional would see no point in upgrading even if I was loaded. That would not be true for everyone, of course. Depends upon whether you want to take pictures of a black cat in darkness! But with these Canons you'd get very sharp images and poor shadows. The shot of those tulips shows just that.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

We crossed while I edited to add my last paragraph.

" So where is the drawback image quality wise?" As I said just there.

That is precisely the reason I am not upgrading from the D300. I happen only to shoot in good light and at low ISO. If not for that, the limitations of my equipment would be an issue but even in A2 prints for my kind of photography the results are fine - not as sharp as now is possible, but I do not want that as it can destroy the mood, does not always enhance it. On film, I used to use prime lenses but gave them up in favour of zooms for that reason. Few lenses other than genuine Leicas are both very sharp and very smooth. That also could be an issue on the more expensive digital equipment.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Still think you are wrong, sometimes. If the lens is sharper than your camera is capable of capturing it may originally look sharp across the frame only for this no longer to be so. However, when the edges are not far behind the centre, then and only then you may be right.

If there are aberrations, the result may only be to have them show where originally they were not enough to matter.

You cannot judge these things properly by reading numbers from a table, so give DxO a rest. The figures there may be correct, but the impact they have visually is hard to ascertain.

Not quite the same, but my Sigma 12-24mm central performance is better on my Nikon D300 than on the F80 film camera I had before, because the camera resolution is higher. If I put that lens on a Nikon D750, it is possible that the centre would be sharper still (not necessarily) but the fall off at the edges on full frame would be more obvious than it was on the F80 and so more of issue. Similarly, with these Canons.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

I do not think this is right. The lenses perform the same but, unless they are stellar performers, their limitations are liable to be visible. Only if the lens performance exceeds what an inferior camera is capable of showing, can it possibly look better, and not necessarily even then.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (718 comments in total)

With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 04:58 UTC as 65th comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

mrgooch2008: Why would large format be a necessary requirement in this day and age?

Yes, @shigzeo, you are quite right, except that a scanner for large film sizes would be very expensive, those that exist. I used to scan from 35mm in my latter days with film. Maybe I should go back to monochrome with film cameras. When I see pictures like this magnificent one http://www.clydebutcher.com/image/50 by Clyde Butcher it brings back memories of those days.

I have had quite a few cameras over many years. One I bought was a 1/4 plate Sanderson, an antique wooden camera, in beautiful condition. Kodak could not supply the lens I wanted but I jumped when they offered instead a new but obsolete 207mm F7.7 Ektar for 5 GBP in the 1960s. Wish I had kept all that and my Tele-Rollei.

You have quite an outfit, I think of it I'd choose the Leica over the others but I would also need the 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar as I specialise in landscapes. Not up to Clyde Butler's standard yet, but give me another 30 years if I reach 101.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:57 UTC

Re my post below, though a bit at at a tangent:

Have a look at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-load-of-cobblers.html for the history of this expression.

It is something I am familiar with but not the origin. Hope it's true.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:35 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »