keepreal

keepreal

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

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

Comments

Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: I had a go on one in a shop and it stopped working and none of the sales staff could figure out what was wrong. So we took the pro lens off and tried it on an EM-1 just to give me an idea and that packed up after five minutes and refused to focus.

Hardly an inspiring demo. But for the money I could get a FF Nikon which, if you can carry the extra weight, gives you more of everything except for a few gimmicky features. I look at these 4/3's offerings as jewellery more than serious cameras. YMMV.

You are wrong. I would have gone along with you until I bought the E-PL3 when it was replaced by the next model, as the price I had to pay was incredibly low. I thought at worst, for the price, it would be a useful addition to avoid always having the bulk and weight of my DSLR and three heavy lenses. Now I am considering whether to sell the lot and use MFT full time.

MFT turns out to be very high quality and the only thing I do not like with it and other compact interchangeable lens systems is the EVF. I can get quality prints in A2 size (60cm) from my 12 mp Nikon D300 and I suspect from MFT as well, even my 12 mp E-PL3.

The E-PL3 lacks some of the features of more expensive models but so what? All these bells and whistles and more and more megapixels is a load of nonsense if your interest is pictures of adequate content and technical quality, not buying and selling. Others may be content lining the pockets of the manufacturers, which many people seems all too happy to do. Not I.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

duckling: Lets face it, 16MP are more than enough for almost anything. And no, more pixels cannot substitute a proper focal length for the job.

It's about time DPReview gave more consideration to the overall useability of the tools they review. Perhaps they should change the scoring system and evaluate cameras according to their potential performance in various genres. It might be more useful than comparing features, many of which are obviously above and beyond the strictest of requirements. Let versatility and usefulness guide you.
When I choose a camera I want to know how it is expected to behave in landscape , portraiture, travel, night, social, nature and hiking scenarios (to name just a few). Those aspects of a camera are far more meaningful than infinitesimal differences in noise or DR at ISOxxxx.

"It's about time DPReview gave more consideration to the overall useability of the tools they review." Exactly.

As I said to them fifteen months ago, "You draw upon your politician-like ability to choose words to obfuscate when it suits you like you clearly tried over the M.Zuiko 9-18mm or feeble defence on how the Olympus E-P5 could get an award of any kind."

They don't like comments like that so I will leave it at that. Otherwise they may blacklist me again!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:46 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.

EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.

This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.

Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?

Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.

"If you want a great OVF (on a DSLR) you have to go to FF."

Or APSC.

Or, I imagine a Leica, presuming that their serious digital offerings are similar to their M series film cameras. They are even better than reflex, apart from the issues of parallax.

I once tried one of the film M series out on in a store and could focus without having to go past the optimal point and then back again, even once, it was so precise. And that was the first time I had tried it!

Compared with that, one way or another, most modern cameras are mediocre.

As I mentioned at the outset, most lenses these days have distortion, usually barrel distortion and even in many prime lenses. Take the Nikon 14mm f2.8 - at that price, they should have done better like in the Fuji X mount Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R and 23mm f1.4 XF R. Frankly with expensive prime lenses like these, we ought to be able to have some offerings even better than they are. The technology is there but manufacturers are more interested in profit.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:36 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.

EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.

This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.

Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?

Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.

However, Oli4D, most of your shots are not in brilliant sunshine into the sun, as most of mine are. In such conditions, the dynamic range is enormous and with an EVF most of the frame sometimes turns to solid black or nearly. I have to adjust the viewfinder brightness sometimes to get the best it can give.

My VF-4 gives an excellent view in many lighting conditions but not against the light. That is just a consequence of the huge accommodation of the eye relative to almost anything else. The Fuji XE-2 EVF is very low contrast and saturation, presumably, because of this. Because of that, it is impossible to judge the tones in your potential shot without taking your camera away from the eye to check.

I am not a volume merchant. With my Nikon D300, I have taken less than 5000 pictures in six years. Correspondingly, I put a lot of effort into the few pictures I take, as a result of which many of mine live up to expectations. IMO, with an EVF, there is too much guesswork.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:15 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.

EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.

This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.

Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?

Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.

My replies are split into three messages to allow enough space to reply.

Lovely to get two very sensible replies, and so quickly.

Firstly, TheEulerID, my E-PL3 is tiny and not the smallest MFT camera there is and I have the VF-4 with it, grudgingly, as I explain later on.

Given the minimal bulk of these MFT cameras, why not add on enough overall size to have a reflex optical viewfinder plus a range of lenses similar in size and weight to those now available for MFT but with designs to allow for the extra distance for the mirror box in front of the sensor. I see no logical reason at all, as I said earlier, for Olympus came close to that in the OM1. So at worst it ought to be possible to make it slightly bigger than that without being much heavier.

Oli4D, your work is very good and not so different to mine. Am I right in thinking that two pictures are of the Old Man of Hoy? I love the Scottish Highlands, especially the Isle of Skye, my favourite area of all of Britain.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:14 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (754 comments in total)

How good is the EVF, really? If only Olympus were to make a MFT camera with an optical viewfinder roughly the size and weight as in the full frame OM1 film camera.

EVFs are never going to come close to that, but is this one similar or better than the VF-4 or more like the EVF in the Fuji XE-2? The former is poor but bearable, I have one, but the latter is dreadful.

This trend to EVFs by all the leading manufacturers is a substantial backwards step, just as lenses with wild native barrel distortion.

Taking pictures with an EVF makes the job much more difficult to get right than with an optical viewfinder. Why do all the serious reviewers of cameras make light of EVFs and their deficiencies as if they are a real contender in a compact with interchangeable lenses versus a decent DSLR?

Visit http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, especially in the albums for South Western USA and Slovenia. Most shots there with a DSLR. Using an EVF for them would not have been a pleasant experience.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:01 UTC as 118th comment | 13 replies

IMO, a tablet is useful for checking shots while in the field but for proper processing, most sensible people will want to wait until they get home, then do the processing proper on their PCs or MACs. Moreover, like me with a Nexus 7 and limited storage with no micro slot, they may not want to clutter up tablet space with large RAW files.

In those circumstances, Nexus Media Importer is ideal because you can look at the embedded JPEGs from the RAW files without downloading anything onto your tablet. If you do not have the ability to judge your images from a JPEG preview and what is possible once you get to work on the RAW images proper, then I hasten to add that your skills and experience may not be up to using RAW to good effect anyway. That is especially so if you bracketed exposures as many RAW users do.

Who wants RAW on their tablet except for a preview? It makes little sense to invest in a quality camera only to limit the standard of the output by modifying images on a tablet.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 08:38 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)

I have found only one comment here critical of DP Review for buying into the Nikon story behind the D610.

"Nearly a year after the arrival of Nikon's full-frame D600, its replacement has arrived. The new D610 is a very minor upgrade to the D600, with just three new features"

and the forlorn hope that potential Nikon buyers will trust them after badly letting down D600 customers.

DP Review does give lots of info in most of their detailed reviews and this is useful but you have to read between the lines. In this instance they are economical with the obvious truth and I am afraid that makes them a littler less trustworthy and open to some suspicion where they get their funding from.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:47 UTC as 130th comment | 7 replies
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

crspych: does anyone want to buy my D600?

Its in great condition, just needs a sensor clean.
inbox me

p.s i like cheese

Your D600 cannot be in great condition. If it only needed a sensor clean once, no doubt you would not have said so, just done it and maybe even wanted to keep it.

I know your comment need not be taken literally but...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:33 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vesto: I was hesitant about picking up the d600 due to all the complaints being received about the sensor issues. Now I will definitely be making the purchase of the d610.

Interesting to see that d600 owners aren't happy there is a replacement for a defective camera they may have and upset that they won't get enough money for selling it. Due we buy cameras to takes pictures or to sell them in a year?

I would have been totally unwilling about picking up the D600 due to all the complaints being received about the sensor issues. Now, unlike Vesto, I will definitely not be making the purchase of the D610, D7100, D800, D800E or any later models.

Interesting to see that D600 owners aren't happy there is a replacement for a defective camera that Nikon will not take responsibility for. The damage has been done. End of.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:27 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

clarkent1234: Don't buy NIKON, simple as that. Physical problems they wont fix for you, this isnt firmware issues like every device on the planet. The garbage is broken out the box. And then they come out with D610 advertising new technology like silent shutter. Firmware update type crap

So Canon should have had 30 different 7Ds by now, a camera they STILL update with killer firmwares.

Call me biased and I'll call you a blind idiot.

mjordan1, what is your problem with clarkent1234 being biased by hard facts?

I am not repeating myself. Due to a bug, DP Review did so I edited this, the second, to say so.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:14 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

clarkent1234: Don't buy NIKON, simple as that. Physical problems they wont fix for you, this isnt firmware issues like every device on the planet. The garbage is broken out the box. And then they come out with D610 advertising new technology like silent shutter. Firmware update type crap

So Canon should have had 30 different 7Ds by now, a camera they STILL update with killer firmwares.

Call me biased and I'll call you a blind idiot.

mjordan1, what is your problem with clarkent1234 being biased by hard facts?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:13 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: If you can get a secondhand D600 at a bargain price then why would anyone want to risk it?

A few years ago I was interested in a Volvo car but read of dangerous flaws - the accelerator pedal sticking with the throttle open and electrical fires in the engines. Volvo refused to acknowledge the faults although they happened to quite a few vehicles.

When you buy a product at a premium price you expect service to match the outlay. In the 1960s I had a Contaflex with interchangeable lenses, not a brilliant design but so well engineered the results were way beyond expectations. I dropped one of the lenses, badly damaging it. I had it back perfectly repaired but Zeiss only charged 5 gbp when 50 would have been justified. When I expressed surprise they said when you buy Zeiss you also are buying service.

Nowadays too many manufacturers take your money and then do all they can to sidestep their responsibilities. If I were in the market for a new DSLR, I would not trust Nikon ever again.

Mr AJB, yes you would have expected the approach you describe for Volvo but in these instances they did a Nikon.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:03 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

bilcobarnes21: Canon and Nikon bashers are losers, get a life. They both make good and bad Cameras, turns out the D600 was a bad one and Nikon should take responsibilty, its funny how some Canon users take some sort of victory away from this situation (Nikon users would be the same if the show was on the other foot), spend more time bashing your wives not the rival camera mark.

Bye for now, i am off to see my wife;-)

lazy lightning, you are wrong. You allege mostly outsiders are bashing but you have no evidence for that - it is just wishful thinking.

I have Nikon DX and recently added MFT (or m4/3 if you must). Unless you want to make very, very large prints or take shots in pitch darkness, the latter is surprisingly good and in most circumstances the differences are very small or non-existent to the eye, as opposed to measuring instruments.

In fact, I was surprised by this and bought the Olympus E-PL3 for a song as a second camera but now it is competing for use in spite of not having an OVF, which I do miss. The VF-4 allegedly is the best EVF on the market and I have one but while it is good, it just is not the same.

The only problem is the lenses, even the 12mm f/2 which I also bought. It is super sharp, but like so many lenses these days, including DX, it sometimes shows rather wild curvilinear distortion. At least with many other brands the choice of lenses is wide enough to avoid this.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 22:50 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

VREN: I have used my brother's D600 and it is a really great camera, but I have also experienced the mess and understand the additional work required in post processing (to clean dirty pictures) or to regularly clean the sensor. Nikon response to these owners have been unsatisfactory.

Nikon's management seems to have used up all their "innovation fuel" after a period of exciting products. They need to refuel and remain profitable through good honest service to their customers. They also need to stop trying to manipulate money from their customers by crippling the exciting products that their engineering teams have developed and also replace what appears to be successful products like the D300s.

M DeNero: "at very low prices"? You must be joking!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 22:28 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

VREN: I have used my brother's D600 and it is a really great camera, but I have also experienced the mess and understand the additional work required in post processing (to clean dirty pictures) or to regularly clean the sensor. Nikon response to these owners have been unsatisfactory.

Nikon's management seems to have used up all their "innovation fuel" after a period of exciting products. They need to refuel and remain profitable through good honest service to their customers. They also need to stop trying to manipulate money from their customers by crippling the exciting products that their engineering teams have developed and also replace what appears to be successful products like the D300s.

I see absolutely no reason to replace my D300 as I can get A2 prints of pictures (as opposed to test charts) that are fully up to expectations with adequate sharpness and detail right up to the edges. So much for those who decry only having 12 megapixels.

Last year driving on holiday, I had to brake hard unexpectedly and the camera on the seat next to me flew into the foot well with quite a loud thud, but everything continues to work and not a mark on it or the lens. It must be built like a tank, maybe one of the last Nikon DSLR models that did not forego anything that one is entitled to expect at the price.

But even that is not perfect. The exposure bracketing stopped working properly until randomly changing one or two other settings and then back again, it has been working again ever since. No doubt a glitch in the software.

I agree with vesa1tahti (elsewhere here) that Micro Four Thirds for most people are too small but most DSLRs are far too big and heavy, including mine.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 22:22 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)

If you can get a secondhand D600 at a bargain price then why would anyone want to risk it?

A few years ago I was interested in a Volvo car but read of dangerous flaws - the accelerator pedal sticking with the throttle open and electrical fires in the engines. Volvo refused to acknowledge the faults although they happened to quite a few vehicles.

When you buy a product at a premium price you expect service to match the outlay. In the 1960s I had a Contaflex with interchangeable lenses, not a brilliant design but so well engineered the results were way beyond expectations. I dropped one of the lenses, badly damaging it. I had it back perfectly repaired but Zeiss only charged 5 gbp when 50 would have been justified. When I expressed surprise they said when you buy Zeiss you also are buying service.

Nowadays too many manufacturers take your money and then do all they can to sidestep their responsibilities. If I were in the market for a new DSLR, I would not trust Nikon ever again.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 21:45 UTC as 139th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For amateur use, DX and FX are just too big and heavy. Mike99999 is right.

In 2009 I bought the D300 and kept three high quality lenses from my film days but I get fed up lugging this around. When on a stroll with my equipment with me just in case an opportunity arises, that stroll turns into a keep fit session.

So in May 2013 I took the opportunity with the Olympus E-PL3 with the 14-42mm kit lens. It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price. I thought at worst it would make a useful second camera but did not rule out better than that.

That is just what has happened. Micro Four Thirds is so good, I recently added the 12mm f/2 and VF-4 EVF viewfinder. I do not like being forced into any lens with distortion even if it can be corrected in camera as I take RAW and use a RAW developer that does not correct it. Apart from that, MFT is close enough to DX or FX for me and for my normal work it is a pleasure to use and CARRY AROUND.

jado, who said DX and FX are outdated and pointless? I am keeping my D300 and the lenses even though I will use it less than before I got the E-PL3.

And when earlier, you said "In any case, and as other people here have (politely) suggested" who do you think you are kidding?

It is extremely common on DP Review for people to make comments which I warrant are not strictly on topic. So why should I be any different? If people do not like it they still can be civil about it which, for the most part until you abandoned it, you were.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 15:34 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For amateur use, DX and FX are just too big and heavy. Mike99999 is right.

In 2009 I bought the D300 and kept three high quality lenses from my film days but I get fed up lugging this around. When on a stroll with my equipment with me just in case an opportunity arises, that stroll turns into a keep fit session.

So in May 2013 I took the opportunity with the Olympus E-PL3 with the 14-42mm kit lens. It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price. I thought at worst it would make a useful second camera but did not rule out better than that.

That is just what has happened. Micro Four Thirds is so good, I recently added the 12mm f/2 and VF-4 EVF viewfinder. I do not like being forced into any lens with distortion even if it can be corrected in camera as I take RAW and use a RAW developer that does not correct it. Apart from that, MFT is close enough to DX or FX for me and for my normal work it is a pleasure to use and CARRY AROUND.

Antony John, you are a man after my own heart. Most of these guys are not interested in decent pictures and are not capable of making them. Their hobbies are wasting money and being rude.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 14:59 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For amateur use, DX and FX are just too big and heavy. Mike99999 is right.

In 2009 I bought the D300 and kept three high quality lenses from my film days but I get fed up lugging this around. When on a stroll with my equipment with me just in case an opportunity arises, that stroll turns into a keep fit session.

So in May 2013 I took the opportunity with the Olympus E-PL3 with the 14-42mm kit lens. It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price. I thought at worst it would make a useful second camera but did not rule out better than that.

That is just what has happened. Micro Four Thirds is so good, I recently added the 12mm f/2 and VF-4 EVF viewfinder. I do not like being forced into any lens with distortion even if it can be corrected in camera as I take RAW and use a RAW developer that does not correct it. Apart from that, MFT is close enough to DX or FX for me and for my normal work it is a pleasure to use and CARRY AROUND.

Other than these items, jadot, fair comment:

"I don't get the relevance of your post. It's so off topic" as indeed many others are, so I am among friends.

"And your playground replies come across as a bit embarrassing and somewhat childish" unlike the people to whom I refer?

"Enjoy your gear and don't worry about whether or not one is better than the other." They are the worry brigade, not me - they and indeed the DPR staff split hairs every time Nikon et al comes out with the slightest change as if the world has entered a new era.

"Unless you're simply trolling"

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 14:37 UTC
Total: 160, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »