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: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price.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.

What marike6 says is the only response to my original entry here that is fair comment because he talks in a neutral tone and is not derisory.

However, to answer his question, to my way of thinking - shared by others - the point is that for most camera users DX and FX DSLRs are way beyond the cost and quality they need and the manufacturers are playing up to the gullibility of people who are ignorant of the actual facts.

You do not need ever increasing megapixels, mega prices and a caddy to carry around your equipment to get results, so it is the manufacturers who are LOL.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 13:55 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 It having recently been superceded, I picked one up new at about 40% of the hitherto normal price.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.

I think rhlpetrus and all of us should judge and be judged primarily by our prowess with photography, so let us have a look at his work and decided who, if anyone, is toying around.

To be fair to the man, I just had a look at his stuff on Flickr and much of it is excellent. But so is mine at http://www.ipernity.com/doc/contrajur/album.

Truth is mine there mostly is DX so far but the point is I have discovered by recent pretty meticulous field testing that MFT would have done virtually as well for high quality prints up to A2 size from shots taken in decent natural dalylight.

And for panoramas, unless I spent more than a thousand dollars, GB pounds or whatever currency they have in Brazil on a professional quality wide angle prime or zoom lens, I actually can get slightly better with the Olympus to the very edge with the 12mm f/2 than my excellent 12-24mm at 12mm on DX and as near as makes no difference the same as with my 24-85 f/2.8-4 on DX at 24mm.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 13:38 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.

toomanycanons dismisses this as an old story as if dismissing any story as an old story with no coherent arguments one way or the other is what is laughable. LOL squared.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 13:19 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.

Sorry Mrrowe8 , but Olympus have been anything but crap for many decades, quite the opposite in fact. If you really believe what you said, then it is you who needs to get registered ..

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 13:13 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.

No offense marike6, but nobody cares that you do not consider that Mike and I have a point in saying that DSLRs are too heavy, what cameras are appropriate for amateurs.

Sorry to be blunt, you are going to hear a lot more about mirrorless both off topic or on. If you have heard enough of this for your lifetime, you had better stop reading comments on sites like this.

You are entitled to your view, just as we are and us folks will have our say for as many lifetimes as we choose.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 13:08 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 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.

Sorry. DP Review says I am too late to edit the entry immediately above. I wanted to just leave a stub as I duplicated it above on its own because replies are hidden by default when there are many of them, including mine, so few will see it!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:20 UTC
On Nikon D610 preview (627 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 (627 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 (140 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 33rd 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 (1852 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 (1852 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 539th comment
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (492 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 (492 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 (492 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 (492 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 (492 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
Total: 160, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »