Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Photoshop tutor / photographer
Has a website at
Joined on Aug 2, 2004


Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Canon EOS 80D Field Test: Barney builds a boat (209 comments in total)

Very well done, good compositions, great presentation of interesting subjects.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 13:58 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

Cdog: Wait, the 14mm has filter threads? If true, how would 67mm be remotely wide enough to avoid vignetting?

The APS-C 12mm has a 67mm filter thread and without the hood you get a little wider than that on full frame. The Sony 10-18 manages to cover the full frame around 12mm and has a 62mm filter thread.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2016 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

SETI: Of course you can have an opinion. I've been using one A7RII battery and less than one 5DIII battery. The A7RII is actually better in low light without flash with the Canon 35L and Viltrox, with 5DIII is much better balanced with the flash and the heavier lens. Battery life isn't stopping me shooting with two A7RIIs, not having two card slots is. I think you'd love eye AF for your fantastic portraits btw.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

SETI - if the parents are not as sharp at the sides of a print as the couple is in the middle, field curvature matters. I just try and do the best job I can, if the technical side can help that I'm not running away from it.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

salamander1: my 4 year old 5D mark III still takes better pictures than these, with better living color and character. patiently waiting for mark IV. ( it's about time)

I have a 5Diii and A7RII. If I could have the A7RII sensor in the 5Diii body as well I'd be really happy. It's ridiculously good.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2016 at 09:17 UTC
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

You don't actually own the 24-70II then? I have had mine on the A7RII as well as the Canon bodies. Tell me, what do you know of how its field curvature varies with focal length, aperture and focus distance? Its a very good lens on a 5DIII, exceptionally snappy to lock focus, well balanced, very low CA, good into the Sun. Its sharpness across the frame other than at 24mm isn't as impressive as is hyped unless your scene has distant middle and nearer corners. For PJ uses its great, great for scene setting at 24mm sharp at 70mm in the middle and the bokeh is best ay 70mm also. What you don't get is a flat focus field like some of the FE lens shows on some of the images. That's why near corners might look a little less sharp but the sides are much better. Anyway, buy one, use it for three years professionally and get back to me.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

SETI: Not as good as Canon 24-70mm mkII

How many 24-70II images have you seen at 42MP? For sharpness, I'd take this over my 24-70II.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 15:05 UTC

18-50 is a great niche to find. I can see why they did it but even 18-35 would have done me. Hope to be able to try this at the photography show at the NEC next month?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 20:17 UTC as 55th comment
In reply to:

Raist3d: So Sony *finally* cares about making good solid lenses. About time :-)
(though the 55 F1.8 prime is as good as it gets).

It is only as dead as your imagination.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 13:12 UTC

First thing I'd try for outdoor is using an orange filter, orange filter + PL, etc.
Try a blue filter on daffodils etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2016 at 14:33 UTC as 83rd comment
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2155 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerlings: I have the A7II but don't like it much (e.g. control, colors, AF speed). The A7RII seems a very advanced camera but is it much different to the A7II?

Thank you. You could try lowering the colour noise reduction and try to get a better average skin colour some other way. I'd have to take a look at the RAW file. I've not had to deal with this specifically recently but I used to use "selective colour" adjustment in photoshop, the reds are adjusted by default, slide to add some yellow and maybe remove some magenta. Skintones usually have a Y:M balance of at least 50:50 (except wind blown faces, thinning skin, high blood pressure which is why I sometimes still need to do it) so a check with the eye dropper afterwards to see if you are in the ballpark of Y>M. I think the additional problem is that it makes it difficult to judge color temperature and tint as you may be tempted to tint towards green just to get the skintones less magenta but neutrals end up with a green cast. I did ask one couple if the best man knew he had very high blood pressure because I'd struggled with the Y/M balance, turned out he was on already on tablets. :)

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 17:32 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2155 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerlings: I have the A7II but don't like it much (e.g. control, colors, AF speed). The A7RII seems a very advanced camera but is it much different to the A7II?

Oh btw, the Sony A7RII is exceptionally good at maintaining colour at high ISO even in extremely warm light (camp fire, tungsten with warm coloured shades).

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 10:02 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2155 comments in total)
In reply to:

zerlings: I have the A7II but don't like it much (e.g. control, colors, AF speed). The A7RII seems a very advanced camera but is it much different to the A7II?

I you a seeing reds turning towards magenta at high ISO... In low tungsten light the blue channel is underexposed. Less blue, more yellow. Since noise is uneven you get speckles of yellow. Camera tries to target this yellow noise by processing the image to remove saturated yellows. This upsets the yellow/magenta balance in reds, remove the yellow and your reds turn magentaish. First saw this in a fuji f11 near 10 years ago.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 10:00 UTC
On article Sony brings uncompressed Raw to a7S II, a7R II and... (562 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Lotus Eater: There seems to be a fair amount of concern as to whether Sony will offer lossless compressed files with these updates - I'm sure not many people want unnecessarily large raw files.

The terms lossless/uncompressed and lossy/compressed seem to have become almost interchangeable throughout this whole saga, to the extent that I suspect Sony's press team either doesn't understand the difference or hasn't communicated it as well as they could have.

Hopefully we can assume Sony's engineers will deal with it properly and to the satisfaction of everybody. Well, almost everybody.

But this lossy compression algorithm is nothing like mp3 compression. What if 99.9% of music tracks compressed fine but 0.1%, those with a triangle instrument playing in them, introduced farting sounds over the top of that instument. So its great for most things but Tubular Bells is going to sound like a bad trip to the toilet.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:12 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: After examining the details of ARW, the Sony RAW format, I am convinced that it is a very good RAW format. In particular, I don't think a lossless RAW is absolutely necessary.

The ARW format has the following strengths:

1) High efficiency, just one byte per pixel
2) effective resolution of 13 bits for small levels
3) great simplicity, which allows on-the-fly encoding
4) virtually invisible artifacts, except in very special cases when artifacts are provoked by a heavy/forced PP

The criticisms of the Sony RAW format are concentrated on item 4, and these criticisms only appeared after a few experiments revealed the visibility of artifacts in underexposed images of startrails that were submitted to strong pushing. It is very important to note here that the artifacts always appeared in combination with noise, which became highly visible because of the pushing.

A proposal to fix the "defect" of the Sony RAW format is next.

The compression artifacts are visible unless you only want 11stops of DR. You can't fix the raw convertor unless you get it to paint a pretty picture where there is insufficient data. Slow, inaccurate and totally ridiculous when you could simply not screw up the data in the first place.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 07:52 UTC

I still like the camera, been using it for over a month now, I had one of the first in the UK. However, on two occassions, the lossy compression has been a big issue.
Nothing like as minor as the dpreview samples. Affecting the image in over 100 places. I've messaged Richard and Rishi but not heard back. I'm happy to supply them the RAW file.
What you need is
1) an image with a lot of detail (the image is compressed to 1MB per 1MP whatever the content of the image)
2) an image with a lot of high contrast edges (because of the bizarre compression method)
The moon image only has a handful of high contrast edges and most of the image is sky. It doesn't show anything like a worse case.

Excellent camera for a lot of uses, truly awful RAW file format.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 09:40 UTC as 61st comment
On article Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study (369 comments in total)

Check out the two tree trunks on the left hand side. Notice the one without a light behind is fine, the one with the bright shop window behind is barcoded.
Who would come up with an algorithm that compresses the more noticable details in an image? Its a ludicrous compression scheme for a photograph especially when the size reduction of the file is so small.
You do need a high dynamic range scene with high contrast edges to see it but the camera would be capable of tackling these scenes without the compression issue. Took the shine off for me when I found a very strong example of the issue in the first week with the camera (visible with far less of a push than here).

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2015 at 13:12 UTC as 29th comment | 1 reply
On article Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (600 comments in total)

I'm happy with the camera overall and the combination with the 55mm is amazing.
The lossy compression can be a big deal though if you do want to make the most of the dynamic range.
Your example doesn't bother me, I got far worse examples in my first week with the camera. Thanks for raising the issue at least.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 21:41 UTC as 79th comment

I'd like to see it used with an orange filter on the lens and compared to 1) the same filter on a bayer DSLR and 2) compared to channel mixing an image from a bayer DSLR with no colour filter on the lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 08:52 UTC as 70th comment
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

Emacs23: Obviously marketing material for amazon to help to sell tons of low quality APS-C crap. Funny to see bunch of nerds here in comments who either have several systems on their shelves or ones shooting crappy pictures who is now talking about "it is photographer".
Obvious: in case of the same mount there is no need at smaller sensor at all, just make larger with higher density sensor and this will end up in the way D8X0 eliminated any need in 16Mp APS-C or A7r made old 16Mp NEXes obsolete in terms of IQ.

If you think APS-C is "low quality" then you must think 'full frame' is low quality at ISO200? There is also more DR on a 16MP NEX than on a 5DIII both at ISO100. The quality is great despite there being cameras that are even better.
The 'need' for the APS-C? With a much lighter and smaller camera bag I'm getting out and shooting far more often. A full frame fisheye lens weighs as much at my 5R + fisheye combined.
Which format is better very much depends on what you photograph and how you like to photograph it.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 12:08 UTC
Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »