PIX 2015
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: 172, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

noncho: I have the old Meyer-Gorlitz Trioplan 100 2.8 and it's interesting, but I would not buy expensive new one. Here are some examples with mine - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/2314

Everyone, have a look at this - all bokeh with a bit of image as well. Beautifully done, totally unexpected and ingenious.

Some other nice work on noncho's site too.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: This is yet another example of capitalism gone mad and some people having money way beyond their actual needs to spend frivolously. I had this lens in the early 1970s in a mount for Exakta Varex and, for a triplet design, it was surprisingly good. However, $1,699 is a ridiculous price. About a tenth of that would make sense, little more.

I, for example, make prints of my best photos in A2 size (16.53 x 23.39 inches) and my Nikon D300 bought in 2009 with the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG bought in 2006 are fine for landscapes in good light, even if there is better available today.

I would have been interested in the new m.Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds because that too would have been good enough. However I would not pay over $1000 for a hefty bit of glass, however good, when the saving in bulk and weight compared to APSC is so small.

Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity.

For a guy whose web site consists mostly of crap you talk with a lot of bravado. For you a Box Brownie will do.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: I'm surprised the Greek government hasn't tried launching a kickstarter campaign to save their failing economy.
Im sure they could make some sort of gyro lens with tzatziki effect, and flog it off for €1700 a pot, (earlybird special €1699.99)

I have been watching the Greek crisis closely and, while dire shortcomings there led to their financial difficulties, I condemn the creditors for existing and new measures they are trying to impose that will only make matters worse. From my point of view, the only good thing to come out of it is the greater likelihood of the collapse of the Euro and Cameron actually being able to negotiate one or two reforms in the EU of actual benefit to the UK which, otherwise, I do not think will happen.

I am 71 and glad that, even if I live into my nineties, I will not be around long enough to see the growing collapse of modern civilisation that is already beginning. The world is going mad, cretins with huge sums of money on the one hand and brain dead extremists parading as Islamists on the other and every other possible excess in between.

I only hope the sun dies before the 2.8 billion years or so predicted (or whatever the correct figure is). It cannot come soon enough.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 10:41 UTC

This is yet another example of capitalism gone mad and some people having money way beyond their actual needs to spend frivolously. I had this lens in the early 1970s in a mount for Exakta Varex and, for a triplet design, it was surprisingly good. However, $1,699 is a ridiculous price. About a tenth of that would make sense, little more.

I, for example, make prints of my best photos in A2 size (16.53 x 23.39 inches) and my Nikon D300 bought in 2009 with the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG bought in 2006 are fine for landscapes in good light, even if there is better available today.

I would have been interested in the new m.Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds because that too would have been good enough. However I would not pay over $1000 for a hefty bit of glass, however good, when the saving in bulk and weight compared to APSC is so small.

Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 10:22 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (576 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

<<By John Gellings Not one person I know with a Leica, and I know many, does HDR.>>

That proves it then!

<<By bgmonroe Quality (read: subtle) HDR can be made with two RAW exposures at most.>>

I trust you are speaking from experience? I do HDR almost all of the time with up to seven exposures, though mostly 5 one stop apart. Often I combine that with panoramas, so 15 frames through PTGui is quite frequent for me.

Unadulterated rubbish, even 1 stop apart, not just 1/3, occasionally two shots one stop apart will do, but that is not what HDR is about. Typically, I take against the light and want detail in clouds and shadows on the ground. Two shots for that? This guy is out to lunch.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 08:56 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (576 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

Strange question. Why not?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 12:35 UTC
On Leica Q First Impressions Review preview (576 comments in total)

Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 11:30 UTC as 67th comment | 6 replies
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)

Latest news. NEW TWO THIRDS FORMAT DIGITAL SINGLE LENS REFLEX FORMAT PROPOSED. Like full frame SLRs, not DSLRS.

[See also my reply to Mr Low Notes below]

Anyone out there with the wherewithal to manufacture quality lightweight full frame DSLR camera bodies and lenses, without all the stupid hardware and software bells and whistles, menus of options to the cows come home?

For example, who needs fourteen settings for white balance when from RAW capture (or even on JPEG) in most cases you automatically get the right colour or close just by putting the image on your computer?

If all the unnecessary features and settings and the logic behind them were dispensed with to have all the required basics, a few really useful additional features like exposure bracketing for HDR, but none of the superfluous options like Live View and Movies, (which do have a use, but then for how many?) then maybe digital quality need not make everything bigger and heavier than it was with 35mm film. Surely?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 09:34 UTC as 58th comment | 1 reply
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mr Low Notes: Why compare the size of this camera to a mirrorless as a CON? I don't think anybody expects a DSLR to be as small and light as a Mirrorless camera. Personally I own both and there are time I prefer to use a DLSR and times I prefer my mirrorless. Depends on what and where I'm shooting.

APSC and full frame cameras and lenses are far too big and heavy. I am sure a full frame with lenses no bigger and heavier than an Olympus OM1 ought now to be possible.

I have both APSC and MFT too and partly agree with Mr Low Notes, but would prefer to use my Olympus PEN all the time, in spite of the vastly inferior VF-4 EVF viewfinder compared with DSLR. I would do just that and was hoping the new Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm F2.8 PRO would be a suitable alternative to my Sigma 12-24mm on APSC. However, this MFT lens is nearly as large and heavy as my Sigma, so what's the point? Had they produced a much smaller Olympus 7-14mm F4 of PRO quality that weighed no more than 300 gm and was distortion free so I could use RAW without restriction, like with my Sigma on Nikon, I would have been happy. But instead on MFT they produce quality almost entirely only in fast and heavy lenses that only a minority have a legitimate need for and the pocket to boot. Likewise on bigger cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 09:11 UTC
On Nikon D7200 Review preview (573 comments in total)

Why do all the reviewers, not just DP Review, produce such rubbish sample photos? Especially with lenses, what is the point of them? See examples of the good and bad below.

What I would expect to see are images with fine detail right to the edges that are in focus, have no possibility of distance haze and from which you can judge sharpness everyhwere. One example of such a picture might be of modern city towers where windows and construction detail give that kind of information. This is especially needed for lens reviews, of course.

GOOD http://www.promptguides.com/london/_photos/piccadilly_circus/piccadilly_circus_002.jpg

BAD
DSC_2254 from this review

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 08:42 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Once you have figured out just how tiny the image details are with these lenses on their titchy sensor, you may begin to accept that financially these days to invest in this way on an m4:3 sensor is to throw your money away.

Even on full-frame pro gear detail resolution at 16.7MP (Canon 1Ds MkII)though good is not sufficient to allow you to work at normal distances and see fine detail within the image-texture in cloth, skin etc. Its why I got a D800.

Bought s/h the cost is the same using Nikon D800s and the quality is just so much better.

Size matters

Totally agree.

See my articles on panoramas at

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/contrajur/album/507149

where I have written about this, including using 2 up two down with my E-PL3 and the Olympus 12mm f/4.

However, I am mostly going to stick to my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG, as I have written about seven entries above this one. The new Olympus PRO is too large, heavy and costly, so I have no interest in it.

I use Machinery HDR Effects to develop my RAW and PTGui to stitch them together.

Tip - Although PTGui will simultaneously deal with exposure bracketing and sets of those to make into a panorama, it is better to use your RAW developer first and stitch from those merged HDR results, especially if like Machinery, the tonal mapping is superb.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 14:39 UTC
On Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses article (285 comments in total)

Why did Olympus not produce an f/4 PRO lens and kept the size, weight and price down? Built to the same quality, I probably would have been able to dispense with my DSLR kit. Lenses this gargantuan or even bigger on MFT are a bad joke.

A few months ago I asked "Panasonic 7-14mm on Olympus - how good?" on the DPR forum for "Micro Four Thirds Talk" and was put off for a number of reasons. It is not quite good enough for my liking. I had been considering it with my Olympus E-PL3 plus the VF-4 viewfinder.

That was because I would have preferred to use it instead of my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Since I bought that lens, I have used it almost all of the time. That should not surprise you, since most of my pictures are of landscapes, most shot near to or at 12mm.

See the more recent at http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, all but very few with this lens. Most people do not need large apertures or more than 12 megapixels, even for high quality very large size prints.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 14:10 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review preview (827 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 (827 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 (827 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 (827 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 (827 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 (827 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 139th 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
Total: 172, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »