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: 154, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D610 preview (634 comments in total)

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 It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price.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.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:15 UTC as 201st comment | 17 replies
On Nikon D610 preview (634 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: With the FF NEX around the corner, even if the D600 drops to $1000 I would not touch it.

Buying a FF Nikon or Canon is like buying a giant CRT screen. It's ancient technology. The D600 and 6D are a desperate last fart from Canon and Nikon to push their remaining stock as the world switches to mirrorless.

I largely agree and the same can be said of DX too - just too big and heavy.

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 It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price.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.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:02 UTC
On Sigma USB Dock quick review article (139 comments in total)

This is another example of technology getting out of hand. As I went digital, I had to familiarise myself with all sorts of concepts only to subsequently dispose of most of them, like having twenty two subject modes, none of which are needed for serious photography where the camera operator still knows what he is doing and remains in control.

I am not saying that this Sigma device is unnecessary, just that it ought to be in the labs of manufacturers. If one is using high quality equipment where fine tuning to this degree makes sense, for the exorbitant amounts one has to pay, let them get it right before the user gets to buy anything or, if we are talking about an option like adjusting the autofocus seek range, let them build that into the camera to adjust, where it should be in the first place, so that one is not stuck with one setting per shooting session.

Everything now is becoming so unnecessarily complicated that soon you will need training just to suck eggs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 06:51 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies

Judging from readers of DP Review in particular, quite a number of people replace their expensive equipment merely because there is a new model. Of course, a few do so legitimately because they do need the new features. And sometimes the improvements are not just marketing or splitting hairs.

But I am quite sure that the overwhelming majority never take pictures of sufficient quality or reproduce them in way that justifies the original outlay, let alone for the replacements.

It is all a part of the consumer society, this mad acquisition as a way of life.

If you wonder if I am as guilty as the people I am criticising, you will have some difficulty because, after a mere sixty years as an amateur photographer I have little to show for myself. I throw most of it away. That is because I have no time for the dreadful stuff I see everywhere, including among my own efforts!

However, I have kept a few of my best, some of the most recent being at http://www.ipernity.com/doc/contrajur/album.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2013 at 14:13 UTC as 22nd comment | 5 replies
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: None of this matters to me. I'm still running CS2 and am perfectly happy.

I totally agree - except that when I upgrade my PC at some point will CS2 be compatible with the latest version of Windows?

If not, what I would like is either to keep my old PC just to run CS2 on it or buy two new machines and keep Photoshop on one of them with XP as the operating system. Achieving that might be an initial problem because all recent PCs seem to have this hidden partition from which to restore a vanilla setup should you need to and clearing this out and installing XP without it is complicated by not having a floppy drive from which to boot any more.

My belief is that there is a conspiracy on all machines to slow the processor chip over time. Otherwise I'd always choose to go for keeping an old machine on which to run CS2 except for that.

Every machine I have ever owned always slows down over time, even with a complete reinstall. I also notice that every one often hangs even now for several seconds at a time and I do not believe I have a virus that is responsible.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 10:28 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1879 comments in total)

Adobe is only interested in making money. I hate Lightroom, not least of all because I do not want to use a catalogue when a hierarchy of folders gives me all the organisation I need and I can also use that for all my other image applications.

It has been pretty obvious to me that the development of different versions of CS had been an exercise more in marketing than in product development. I like the clean uncluttered GUI of CS2 but I hate the confusion of too much on screen with later versions. I also believe that most of what I need to do with my photos is no easier with later versions. The point it that it takes a lot of practice to learn how to use any version, so I am quite happy being out of date.

I was lucky enough to win a free copy of CS2 some years ago, especially since the cost of Photoshop even then was way too high for an amateur on a sensible budget was prepared to spend. Up until then, I had been using Elements 2 and I won CS2 by showing what I cold do with it!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 09:42 UTC as 537th comment
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

gabriel foto: I was struck by the difference in the two 100% crops - just about as evident, or subtle, depending on how you look at them, as differences between a good FX and a good DX camera, or a 16 Mp camera compared to a 12 Mp. I wouldn't just say the differences are minor.

The most striking difference may not be the amount of detail, but the acuteness of the details, the sharp outlining, or the 'microcontrast' if you prefer that term.

Seems like a brilliant move to remove the OPLF in the D7100.

Then again, the ultimate capacity of this sensor may not be visible in each and every photograph. Focus may be off a little, you may have reason to use a very wide or a very small aperture. Or you may be using a lens which doesn't resolve the ultimate details, for good reason other than resolution.

Ultimately, photography is all about the picture, isn't it? But there is nothing wrong with a stunning sensor like this one!

Gabriel / nikonsystem.blogspot.se

You have some nice shots, especially the moody winter ones. Keep using the D50. Keep your money or buy a Van Gogh from the Rijksmuseum!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 12:45 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

gabriel foto: I was struck by the difference in the two 100% crops - just about as evident, or subtle, depending on how you look at them, as differences between a good FX and a good DX camera, or a 16 Mp camera compared to a 12 Mp. I wouldn't just say the differences are minor.

The most striking difference may not be the amount of detail, but the acuteness of the details, the sharp outlining, or the 'microcontrast' if you prefer that term.

Seems like a brilliant move to remove the OPLF in the D7100.

Then again, the ultimate capacity of this sensor may not be visible in each and every photograph. Focus may be off a little, you may have reason to use a very wide or a very small aperture. Or you may be using a lens which doesn't resolve the ultimate details, for good reason other than resolution.

Ultimately, photography is all about the picture, isn't it? But there is nothing wrong with a stunning sensor like this one!

Gabriel / nikonsystem.blogspot.se

"I'm not seeing a difference..." Even if you can see a slight difference, so what!

I defy anyone looking at the examples of mine (link given in my last entry above) could tell if they were taken on a D800E or D3100. As I keep stressing, other than for in testing lighting conditions or for the pleasure of handling in the ergonomically better models, for most people it matters not.

Having bought the D300, Nikon send me their Nikon Pro magazine every few months. IMO most of the pictures in it are rubbish as indeed I think generally is the case elsewhere and anything but inspiring. Let's remember what photography is supposed to be all about and focus on that!

I hasten to add that Shaftesbury, Dorset at my Flickr site won me a copy of Photoshop. Just as well as the price is far too high. That was for a shot taken with a Canon T90, scanned to digital and edited extensively to remove several distracting details with Elements 2 in 2003. The quality is pretty good too, even with 35mm film!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 11:40 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

gabriel foto: I was struck by the difference in the two 100% crops - just about as evident, or subtle, depending on how you look at them, as differences between a good FX and a good DX camera, or a 16 Mp camera compared to a 12 Mp. I wouldn't just say the differences are minor.

The most striking difference may not be the amount of detail, but the acuteness of the details, the sharp outlining, or the 'microcontrast' if you prefer that term.

Seems like a brilliant move to remove the OPLF in the D7100.

Then again, the ultimate capacity of this sensor may not be visible in each and every photograph. Focus may be off a little, you may have reason to use a very wide or a very small aperture. Or you may be using a lens which doesn't resolve the ultimate details, for good reason other than resolution.

Ultimately, photography is all about the picture, isn't it? But there is nothing wrong with a stunning sensor like this one!

Gabriel / nikonsystem.blogspot.se

Actually, I think we still are in agreement. I would not trade my D300. 12mp is adequate for A2 prints from good quality non-pro Nikon zoom lenses and even the Sigma 12-24mm at mid-range apertures in daylight. I am mostly into landscapes where the lighting is rarely testing for me. I use RAW, Oloneo PhotoEngine which gives superb tonemapping but always Photoshop to tweak the results, sometimes very extensively.

If anyone is interested, I have a selection of my recent shots at flickr.com/photos/contrajur where the best are in the sets for Slovenia and SW USA though one of Piazza Grande, Arezzo, Italy is a composite using the Sigma at 24mm that probably is sharp enough to print A1. [Use the options for full screen.]

I rarely shoot below f/8 so the top quality lenses are not a requirement. In fact my Nikkor AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D IF is a little too sharp for my liking and, as a result, less ideal for a pictorial rendering.

You I see use JPEG and an entirely different approach. Fair dos!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 11:02 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

gabriel foto: I was struck by the difference in the two 100% crops - just about as evident, or subtle, depending on how you look at them, as differences between a good FX and a good DX camera, or a 16 Mp camera compared to a 12 Mp. I wouldn't just say the differences are minor.

The most striking difference may not be the amount of detail, but the acuteness of the details, the sharp outlining, or the 'microcontrast' if you prefer that term.

Seems like a brilliant move to remove the OPLF in the D7100.

Then again, the ultimate capacity of this sensor may not be visible in each and every photograph. Focus may be off a little, you may have reason to use a very wide or a very small aperture. Or you may be using a lens which doesn't resolve the ultimate details, for good reason other than resolution.

Ultimately, photography is all about the picture, isn't it? But there is nothing wrong with a stunning sensor like this one!

Gabriel / nikonsystem.blogspot.se

When I first started reading your comment, I thought you were going to take the typical line that newer models, more pixels and spending a lot more dosh must be better but in fact there is common ground between your entry and mine below.

Yes indeed, the better of the newer crop of cameras do improve on earlier models but IMO not enough if it is pictures you are interested in rather than a new camera every year or two and lining Nikon's pockets unnecessarily.

Originally I bought an Olympus C5060 just to try out digital. This was a quality compact (not APSC) with only 5mp a few years ago now. I made some A3 prints from it including a super shot my son, who now owns the camera, took with it in China. It is amazing what is possible even with a good compact camera and I'd go as far as saying that a lot of snap shooters (rather than photo enthusiasts) are wasting a huge amount of money on DSLRs with loads of over the top megapixels quite needlessly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 08:29 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)

These tests confirm that for most of us, it is splitting hairs to worry about the differences in resolution between DSLR models in fairly bright daylight when using smaller apertures.

Most amateur are wasting their money buying better than the so-called entry level DSLRs if the criterion is only the quality of results, not in tests like here, but in practical working conditions.

I do prefer my D300 which has superb ergonomics and with which I can easily hold steady at longer exposures while using a moderate focal length. I also bought a D5000 with the 18-55mm VR kit lens which is surprisingly good simply to have a low weight alternative on a long trek and can say with confidence its lower specs are not an issue even for edge to edge sharpness in prints up to two feet long (A2). Moreover, I can manage with the one cheap lens even for very wide angle shots by shooting and stitching together multiple frames into a panorama. The kit lens generally is perfectly good enough for that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 07:20 UTC as 37th comment
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview article (311 comments in total)
In reply to:

sunkenbranch: Where is the monitor cover!! I think they eliminated that. Make the LCD bigger and not protect it. Brilliant.

Sorry - my entry below the next entry was intended to be a reply to this!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 19:39 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview article (311 comments in total)
In reply to:

mbrobich: Have to wonder if the buffer increases if you use the "M" 12MP setting ? Hopefully it does.

Especially if the LCD is welded into the back and the whole of that would have to be replaced. See what iFixit say about that in regard to the D600:

See http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nikon+D600+Teardown/10708/2

"We were disappointed to find that the LCD is fused to the rear case, and cannot be replaced without replacing the entire panel.

If you scratch or crack the display glass on an older Nikon DSLR like the D90, it's possible to find an inexpensive replacement and fix it yourself. With the inseparable glass, though, D600 users will definitely want to opt for some type of screen protection."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 17:56 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 Hands-On Preview article (311 comments in total)

Those of us who say that the D7100 is not the legitimate successor to the D300s might be interested to learn that according to Businessweek Feb 7 Nikon are having financial problems. This might also have a bearing in problems with the D600 and lead to other quality issues. Let's hope not.

See http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-06/nikon-plunges-most-since-1985-after-forecast-cut-tokyo-mover

"Nikon Corp., Japan’s third-biggest camera-maker, plunged the most since 1985 in Tokyo trading after cutting its profit forecast because of slowing demand in Europe and falling prices.

The company dropped 19 percent to 2,139 yen at the close. That was the biggest decline among the 225 members of the Nikkei 225 Stock Average."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2013 at 17:52 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
On Nikon issues service advisory on D600's dust issue article (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

daciangroza: I do architectural photography mostly at f/8-f/11 with a D600 and even though oil spots are visible in the top left corner when shooting a white wall, I have never had a problem with them in real photos.

I'll send the camera in sometime for cleaning and I'm curious if they'll show up again. My guess is that they won't. From what I read the shutter splutters oil on the sensor when the camera is new and stops after the excess oil is off the mechanisms. I don't worry too much about it, I found imperfections in all my gear. Nothing is flawless, unfortunately.

Your suggestion of Copper Hill is very reassuring as they give very detailed information. I have always been very careful to avoid external dirt getting into the camera body from outside, as I explain a little more just below, so far with complete success. Of course, if the source is within the camera no amount of care is going to help.

One of my concerns has been the risk of doing more harm than good by ever going near the plate in front of the sensor but, if the need arises, Copper Hill instructions avoid the need for guesswork on precisely how to go about it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 23:12 UTC
On Nikon issues service advisory on D600's dust issue article (240 comments in total)

I have a Nikon D300 and a D5000. Once I had to gently blow away a speck of dust in the viewfinder of the D300 but that is all. In three years I have never even had to use the sensor cleaning utility built into either camera. I am always very careful when changing lenses, mind.

This just suggests as I have commented upon elsewhere at DP Review, specifically the preview of the D7100 that Nikon may be cutting back on quality, at least in its more recent cheaper and mid-range DSLRs. Some of the comments below also suggest the same thing.

Of course I have no proof but the general trends do make me and some other commentators at DP Review suspicious. In the case of the D7100, the reason for this is that it replaces the D300/D300s while in most respects it is more like the next range down, indeed the D7000. The only thing they defintely have in common is the price. Less features and less quality for the same price?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 20:23 UTC as 84th comment
On Nikon posts sample images from new D7100 article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Why are such galleries almost always such a joke? I think it is because the providers are far too lazy to do the job properly. Unfortunately, that also includes DP Review.

The pictures in the Nikon 6-image sample gallery have to be the worst selection I have ever seen. Usually the selection DP Review provides is pretty poor too but this is a new low, so much so I have not even bothered to download the full size images to take a closer look.

One needs a good amount of detail and colour to judge sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberrations right into the corners and at a typical distance one might use for taking real pictures.

DP Review uses a standard indoors setup but but why, oh why show a closeup of a coin in which the colours are limited and the sharpness of the minted coin original so inadequate to judge by?

Their out of doors shots from one review to another are never the same, so making a judgement about the results is always a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Interesting replies already:

Revenant, you are perfectly correct - only I would choose real-world sample images like that part in sunlight of one of mine at http://www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/8360729475/in/set-72157632473974640/

(Click on it to see it larger.)

With that kind of image you'd really be able to make a significant judgement - not with the even toned wing of a plane and no detail on it apart from the edges. And on your point about different conditions for different reviews I'd agree if you said different kinds of apple!

In the close-ups, they could have chosen something better than the coin to start you off with in the first place so you could just view as is!

IMO Hugo808 is spot on - prosumer cameras are all so good it is splitting hairs from a practical point of view. Clever point about the missing LOPF. So much for what marike6 thinks – Nikon can do no wrong!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 15:13 UTC
On Nikon posts sample images from new D7100 article (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: good lenses,
but it's very unefficient shooting APS-C with full-frame lenses,
but it's more difficult to make same good lenses for APS-C DSLRs
at the same quality and cost, that APS-C DSLRs deserve to die.

btw, 24.00MP DX translates to 56.56MP FX, that we know there should be no problem we go double D800, and maybe quad D800 resolutions.

I totally agree with Digitall, just above. When I moved from film to digital, I was glad to have some good FX lenses and kept them all.

The only DX I have is the Nikkor 18-55mm VR along with a D5000 body which I sometimes use instead of my D300 and three FX lenses as collectively the latter are very heavy.

Most APSC or smaller provide noticeable distortion. In many DX, distortion is downright ridiculous. If not for that I would have bought a 4/3 as a second camera but instead got the D5000. Other than cutting off the edges, maybe that's no worry if you use jpeg or a RAW developer that uses the Nikon profiles, but I do not, as others out there give superior tonal mapping.

In Digital, the DX format has its advantages for those who realise that the resolution already is more than good enough even for large blow-ups. That also gives the advantage that FX lenses on DX bodies only use the centre of their coverage, delivering good edge sharpness and next to no vignetting either.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:31 UTC
On Nikon posts sample images from new D7100 article (95 comments in total)

Why are such galleries almost always such a joke? I think it is because the providers are far too lazy to do the job properly. Unfortunately, that also includes DP Review.

The pictures in the Nikon 6-image sample gallery have to be the worst selection I have ever seen. Usually the selection DP Review provides is pretty poor too but this is a new low, so much so I have not even bothered to download the full size images to take a closer look.

One needs a good amount of detail and colour to judge sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberrations right into the corners and at a typical distance one might use for taking real pictures.

DP Review uses a standard indoors setup but but why, oh why show a closeup of a coin in which the colours are limited and the sharpness of the minted coin original so inadequate to judge by?

Their out of doors shots from one review to another are never the same, so making a judgement about the results is always a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:06 UTC as 12th comment | 7 replies
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

midimid: As a long-time D5100 amateur photographer, I've been waiting forever for this release. But at $1200, I now have to contemplate jumping up to the D600 and replacing all of my lenses (18-105, 35, 11-16, 60 macro). The D600 body can easily be had for ~$1600.

Any thoughts on a D600 / D7100 comparison?

"As a long-time D5100 amateur photographer"... The D5100 has only been out for about a year, so if a year seems such a long time to you, you must be about five years old. I suppose if you do buy the D600, in a year or two that also will have to go!

Isn't it ludicrous how people talk as if only a short time ago was ancient history and anything produced then totally out of date? That is anything but the case but the manufacturers are quite content to pander to people with more money than sense who trade up for the tiniest of changes which make absolutely no significant difference to what they add in most respects to one's ability to take good pictures or, these days, is that the last thing on anyone's mind?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2013 at 19:50 UTC
Total: 154, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »