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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (757 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
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?)

Given what I think (see above) your decision shocks me! Why did you not wait for a proper test? Can you get your DSLR back?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:28 UTC
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)

In two parts:

Part I

We have had bright sunny weather in London for the past few days so I would have expected enough umph at least for the outside shots to draw some conclusions from these samples even before a rigorous test. I decided to home in on wide angle shots and I think they are very disappointing:

Judging from a number, what follows assumes that sharpening has not been applied in camera or if so only very slightly:

1679997 taken at f/4.5 at 15mm (the wide angle)

The top corners are quite sharp and the chromatic aberration is reasonable but the bottom left corner is very unsharp. Not sure if this indicates decentering but the performance a stop down from the maximum is rather poor IMO.

1679548 was taken at f/5.6 and 15mm but it is more even but not especially sharp!

1679995 taken at f/6.3 is uniformly sharp to all the corners so by that aperture the shortcomings of the lens at the widest angle have disappeared.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:17 UTC as 72nd comment
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery article (425 comments in total)

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:16 UTC as 73rd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

g7star: I don't get the point. When it's the size of DSLR it should perform like DSLR and do better than smaller ILC options (for the comparable price). Otherwise it's just personal preference on styling and lens choices.

Continuing from immediately above …

Before Leica started marketing relatively for them rubbish compacts made by other companies there was no doubt that a Leica was Leica worthy of the name. Once they started allowing their name to be used in Panasonic Lumix compact zoom lenses, one could not avoid the question which Leica are we talking about and does the original Leica still exist today?

As I said elsewhere a prewar Leica IIIa with an uncoated Elmar was so well made that it held its own even years after the war and against film cameras would still do pretty well today. That's is nothing to do with old technology and heavy metal lens assemblies. It is about three things only - quality, quality and quality.

Today even the best, while they do deliver will be on the scrap heap in at most 10 years time. That is partly because science will have advanced by then but also because profit is the driver not the pursuit of excellence and quality that will still hold its own 30 years hence.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

g7star: I don't get the point. When it's the size of DSLR it should perform like DSLR and do better than smaller ILC options (for the comparable price). Otherwise it's just personal preference on styling and lens choices.

Zvonimir Tosic - What you say is extraordinary.

"Leica's lenses are prehistoric in concept compared to these new Fujis." I do not think anyone takes pictures with concepts. Those Summicron's were superb years ago when they first came onto the market and still are today.

"Leica's M9 is as impressive as an 18th century mechanical clock — a fine example of human engineering in mechanics we can admire, and applaud for its own sake. But far and away from any everyday use for everyday people today." Leicas were not built and hopefully still are not built for everyday people. That's is what made them special. They were made to be the best possible regardless of their affordability. If the Fuji X-Pro 1 were to be that good and long term engineered to last several decades then I would want to applaud them except the fact that they also make cameras for everyday people today would have to leave the doubt are they really good enough still to be around and worth using in 30 years time?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

... continued

The Contaflex was made almost to Leica standards. Included in the price was service which they explained when I carelessly dropped the tele lens onto a wooden floor from chest level and badly dented, causing the cement between some the glasses also to fail but fortunately no actual glass shattering. Returned absolutely perfect, like new for only 5 GBP.

Moreover in the 1950s my father bought and I sometimes borrowed his prewar Leica IIIa with uncoated prewar Elmar 50mm, also postwar 90mm Elmar. That prewar equipment was a match for anything of 1950s or 1960s vintage except another Leica, Contax and one or two other cameras. Even today it would hold its own as regards the quality of the result with film with many of the few contemporary film cameras still made. Only the user interface would be better, not the results.

I had a Tele-Rolleiflex in the 1960s. Beautifully made and beautiful to use. If I were still using film, I would love to have one today.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 08:59 UTC
Total: 154, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »