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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review article (271 comments in total)

X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding

Just a little below I said that the X-Pro1 is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum.

Furthermore, I want lenses that do not distort so that I can develop RAW images in any software I choose. Currently I use Oloneo PhotoEngine whose tone mapping is superb even for single frames and Photomatix Pro which can merge handheld bracketed shots into a single image without ghosting. When I need to employ the latter, I output the merged but otherwise unprocessed result as a radiance .hdr file and input that to PhotoEngine for tonemapping. I insist on being able to do that sort of thing with any camera, any lens but I cannot.

To allow distortion and rely upon software correction is appalling, especially in so-called Pro equipment. Thank goodness I still have my three full frame Nikon lenses from my film days with the D300 and can avoid all the modern rubbish glass.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 23:39 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review article (271 comments in total)

I am loathe to fork out a considerable sum when already I have done so once to buy a Nikon D300 and three expensive lenses even though I do not like the considerable weight of my Nikon outfit. That can be physically tiring out on foot for any length of time.

So, is the X-Pro1 able to equal or exceed the D300 in the quality of the output for a relatively lightweight outfit? That was the question I thought I should not ignore.

Well I need not have worried. Having only read the review here to page 16 so far and not even got to most important details of the resolution, dynamic range and alternative DR modes, any interest I had in the X-Pro1 is utterly dead.

I prefer a camera which is logical and intuitive. So I'll stick to the D300 and put up with the weight. The X-Pro1’s software is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum. I would not want one even at half the price!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 23:12 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.

I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.

I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?

Yes Hynee, I am aware you can correct distortion in RAW and I do that in Photoshop manually when the need arises. However, I expect you mean automatically but to allow that limits you to which RAW developer you use.

I rely upon Oloneo PhotoEngine for tonemapping single frames and bracketed shots as it is fast, very easy to use and gives superb results. Occasionally I have to use Photomatix first but just to merge bracketed frames into an .hdr file because PhotoEngine is not too good at merging frames from handheld shots. The .hdr files can still be input to PhotoEngine for tonermapping. Nothing in the foreseeable future is going to have me change that.

That leaves my comment on the distortion in most DX lenses when using RAW as I originally put it. Totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 06:08 UTC

The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.

I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.

I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 08:15 UTC as 79th comment | 4 replies
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (451 comments in total)

For a monochrome afficianado with deep pockets this camera must be the holy grail.

With black and white you need to have a very different eye and know how to use tones to convey mood. But it can be very powerful and is a completely different technique from colour.

IMO Karsh portraits are an order of magnitude better than any other portrait photographer but can you imagine them in colour? Likewise Ansel Adams landscapes and Eugene Smith's best shots at Minamata? In colour, each would lose something.

Back to these Leica samples, the detail from corner to corner looks extremely good in L1000492-DNG. However it is a pity that DP Review churns out samples haphazardly from one camera to another with nothing in common that allows you to compare the results from each. Also, if there were shots with genuine high dynamic range here, we might be able to come to some valid first conclusions about this aspect of the camera. The bigger DP Review gets, the lower their standards. A great pity.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 22:47 UTC as 147th comment
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

Infared: I said from DAY ONE....I have never seen a totally sharp photo from the Fuji. Is there some kind of error here? So the Fuji REALLY is THAT soft. WOW!?!?!?!

You need to use some sharpening on virtually all digital images as far as I can judge. DP Review avoid more than very limited use of it here (if any) as that would mask any differences between one camera and another.

I do not think that there is anything soft about the Fuji images here if you apply a sensible amount of sharpening and add a little contrast to these rather flat test images to bring them up to normal.

Some people do go for exaggerated sharpness and, in the process destroy subtle tones and smooth gradation. You always have to strike a balance whether using a modest camera, Leica, Hasselblad or even a Fuji.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 10:52 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)

No need to buy full frame or leading edge APS-C equipment unless you regularly produce prints 120 cm wide or your money is burning a hole in your pocket.

I downloaded JPEGs for the X-Pro1, Nikon D300S and D800 and enlarged on screen to 142cm wide for the whole image. The differences between all three was negligible and I am sure the same is true with RAW. I accept that the X-Pro1 may be able to compete with a full frame camera but so can an APS-C camera for most people in most circumstances.

I regularly make A2 prints (60cms wide) from my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens. I may be lucky because if the lens quality of this optic does vary, as has been suggested, I have one of the good ones! The results with this lens may not be the sharpest around but I have excellent images from it, many very sharp at A2 from edge to edge at that size, that is for pictures as opposed to lens tests. I also have a D5000 which to all practical intents and purposes gives indistinguishable results.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 10:38 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

dala: How much smaller and cheaper would a DX version be?

Yes, me too. Having migrated for Nikon SLRs to DSLR I was pleased that with my three FX lenses I would not suffer fall off, significant edge fuzziness or noticeable distortion which nearly all DX lenses for digital cameras routinely produce. The latter is less of a problems if you shoot JPEG but can undermine some of the benefits of RAW.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

panteraaa: won't u need a high quality glass for that 24MP??? how good will that kit lens be in this camera?

Yes, I also have this lens on my D5000 and it is first class. I had the misfortune to have it fall out of a bag onto concrete bouncing on the front lens cap and scratching both that and the rear cap with a second bounce but not the lens itself. Moreover, it still works perfectly and the images it produces at wide apertures show uniformity in the slight expected fall-off to the edges indicating it is not out of alignment. Quite remarkable for its price.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 06:00 UTC

SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200

No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?

Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 05:53 UTC as 153rd comment | 4 replies
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheenachatze: Very impressive output even at ISO3200.
Many here complain about the price. If you compare this camera to an entry level SLR, this one has better build quality and better lens than any kit lens. The price of $800 is right on the mark. Maybe if Canon made this in silver, put a piece of leather on the hand grip and call it "retro", no one would mind paying $1500 for it.

I see. You judge the quality by the zoom range and maximum aperture. Clever stuff! And on this basis the G1 X jusitifiesd a higher price than an entry level DSLR, even a good one.

DP Review, you are wasting your time with your reviews of equipment. Just do a little bit of arithmetic based on these two criteria. Everything else is a waste of time your checking out and us reading.

Also, so many people commenting here seem to have decided what a wonderful camera this is already. DP Review, why bother with a review at all?

I have had more than enough of this stupidity. I am saying goodbye, logging out, deleting my RSS feed and abandoning this website. This is not the first time but finally forever.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 13:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Thompson: Thease photos are awfull! we have had 3 days of frosty nights and crystal clear blue sky weather here in the UK and this is the best DPR can produce?

Once upon a time DPR had photographers who had skill experiance and passion i fear those days are gone - Amazon what have you done.

No wide angle Landscape photos in sunshine this to check image detail near and far, i could go on but what is the point.

A photography website without skilled photographers what a joke!
my neighbours 12 year old doughter could do better (with her mobile phone lol!
Michael

The goal is to quickly capture as many shots as possible to show what the equipment is capable of. None of them do. I agree with Michael Thompson.

DP Review's review of cameras is still pretty good and their lens reviews too although their use of new "scientific" methods to convey results make them less easy to read and come to conclusions over. Almost everything else is a complete waste of time including many of their previews which now overwhelms their site. For some people, judging by their comments, this is quickly becoming more and more annoying, including me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 13:38 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

MortonH: I reckon the only thing really wrong with this camera is the price. All the other 'issues' being complained about are design compromises, which have to be made in every camera.

At the end of the day, this camera is another option for taking pictures. Why complain about having more options?

Spot on. Give the suckers what they're willing to buy!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 11:53 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

proxy: Those who waited for a camera like this will buy it in a heartbeat and never look back at current offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and more. This camera was long overdue despite, I know, no 24mm 2.0 lens and OLED EVF... no matter how many more trolls appear here it will sell and sell big. One good camera and no more lens bags... need I say more? at a still reasonable price and very good IQ. Dont forget retractable lens coupled with a sensor just 3.5 mm narrower then APS-C - the last one you need to get from Canon to put it to use. I understand the disappointemt of other brands fans. Yes, they didn't think of it, Canon did. Always wanted my G outfitted with a bigger sensor, just that. My wish was granted. Some of the posters will have to wait for their favourite brands to wake up and even if they do it WILL cost you dearly in lenses and bills for chiropractor services.
So instead of complaining here about Canon go make them deliver what you always wanted (at $150?)

DonnyHiFi Almost everyone. Says who? Lemmings, you mean?

I would like to see some of the photos of these wise guys whose logic, IQ and invented evidence (eg. almost everyone) are about as advanced as a child. I expect their pictures are too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:31 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

M Jesper When you look at a picture, what you see is what you see. It makes no difference how many megapixels there are, you are still seeing what you see. And, if the result is better or worse it is better or worse regardless of anything. With or without a whole lot of ignorance. Yours.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:29 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

In your last comment, proxy , at last a lot of sense and I mostly agree . The concept behind the G1 X is excellent but it does need to have a good enough lens and, this sample at least does not. If it did I would be interested as my D300 with 12-24 mm Sigma weighs 1503g, a lot too much to carry around all of the time.

slncezgsi "nowhere near what the G1X puts out"On whose say so? If it was as good as it should be, but the lens is not...

In good light at low ISO the C-5060 was fine, still is. I suspect you are right at higher ISO not so, where I agree the G1 X appears to be good up to about 1600, may be more. In that respect at least, we do have progress. Who told you the C-5060 no longer is good? What makes you think so? I happen to like landscapes which generally have strong light. Maybe in poor light the C-50560 is awful, no idea! However if a lens is bad in decent light, it is not going to improve in bad light, is it? I would not be satisfied with the lens in the G1X in any light.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:05 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheenachatze: Very impressive output even at ISO3200.
Many here complain about the price. If you compare this camera to an entry level SLR, this one has better build quality and better lens than any kit lens. The price of $800 is right on the mark. Maybe if Canon made this in silver, put a piece of leather on the hand grip and call it "retro", no one would mind paying $1500 for it.

"better lens than any kit lens"

Really? Where did you get that information from?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 09:47 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

You are the one who is dreaming. I talk only of the lens. The rest of the G1X might be excellent but who cares?

If you set the C-5060 to lower than the default contrast and saturation which, like a lot of cameras are far too high, the results are consistently excellent. No perceptible colour fringing and no blown highlights except in HDR conditions. I have scores of shots with it that prove both. Anyone can look up the reviews and I did and then bought it not for keeps but to see what was possible with digital.

Then I was using film in my Nikon F80. Later, I sold the Olympus to my son at a hefty discount, waited awhile and bought a DSLR, partly because I wanted a far wider angle, wanted to use my three lenses which include a 12-24 mm on APS-C and partly because I wanted the best dynamic range.

People like you are perfect fodder for the manufacturers. New models every few months, unnecessary extra megapixels, progress hugely exaggerated but you fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 08:39 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

Exactly. The Olympus is a few years obsolete, has only 5 mega pixels and a tiny sensor but does much better than this. I have done a 16 x 20 from it which is much sharper than the G1X and is also sharp into the corners.

That's my point, proxy, what's yours?

If the lens in this sample is typical, then it is dreadful, certainly for any camera at this price, even at half the price. I cannot comments on anything else, not have I.

And you, douple. Don't you understand? An 5 mp true compact of 2005 vintage with a better lens than a very new camera with a hugely bigger sensor and costing a lot more. Given that, this comparison makes a great deal of sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 07:57 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

TX Photo Doc: I have a G12 that I can easily make nice 16x20 exhibition prints with. Instead of making a G12 with just a bigger sensor, I would have been willing to spend the money for the new camera if there were other improvements over the G12 like a 24mm equiv, as well as f2 at the wide end.

Richie Beans - amazing.

I have three lens on my Nikon D300 - 12-24mm, 24-85mm and 70-300mm. On holiday recently I took 768 shots and 87% were at 24mm or wider. It would be nice to have a smaller lighter camera as an alternative to the Nikon D300 with 12-24 but your stitch-up is not the answer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:38 UTC
Total: 160, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »