SeeRoy

SeeRoy

Lives in United Kingdom south, United Kingdom
Works as a retired
Joined on Jan 13, 2009

Comments

Total: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1124 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: As someone who has rather a lot of money "invested" in high-end Nikon lenses which sometimes hang off a D700, I now mostly shoot M43. Obviously I'd like the option of shooting higher resolution FF now and again (mainly for the capacity to crop heavily when shooting wildlife). But there's no way I'm buying another DSLR. Maybe when Nikon eventually introduce a mirrorless FF camera that will accept my lenses I'll spend some more money with Nikon. It's long overdue. I'm well aware what DSLRs can do that mirrorless can't - yet - but for me the DSLR is a dinosaur and the sooner it's extinct the better.

People are emotionally invested in the things they buy. It then becomes necessary to rationalise away anything that conflicts. I have BOTH and M43 system AND a Nikon FF system (including the 3 2.8 zooms and a fair selection of primes and manual lenses from my film days). So I have something to compare. I shoot mostly M43. As for EVFs, having a live histogram is just irreplaceable. I'm concerned about what the RAW file looks like, not the viewfinder - which in any case is just fine.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 12:30 UTC
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1124 comments in total)

As someone who has rather a lot of money "invested" in high-end Nikon lenses which sometimes hang off a D700, I now mostly shoot M43. Obviously I'd like the option of shooting higher resolution FF now and again (mainly for the capacity to crop heavily when shooting wildlife). But there's no way I'm buying another DSLR. Maybe when Nikon eventually introduce a mirrorless FF camera that will accept my lenses I'll spend some more money with Nikon. It's long overdue. I'm well aware what DSLRs can do that mirrorless can't - yet - but for me the DSLR is a dinosaur and the sooner it's extinct the better.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 12:29 UTC as 197th comment | 12 replies
On WaterWeight rethinks the sandbag approach to stability article (77 comments in total)

Trific invention. Only one thought - will it hold urine without disintegrating?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 10:19 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

majicmoments: Progress is important i know... but i dont need 40 million pixels per image clogging up my i pad... How about achieving 25 iso Olympus?... or graduated filters in camera?..say grey/blue/nd grads.. now that would be a blast!

But, but, but.... iPads are kwoooool....

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 10:27 UTC

Let's hope it addresses the abominably bad ergonomics of the EM5.
The clustered, numb, tiny button group which, even after a couple of years practice with smallish hands constantly launches me into unwanted modes. Then there's the idiotically labrynthine firmware. Not presenting the whatever-it's-called quick access menu as a default shows just how little thought has gone into its design.
Of course they got round to fixing the huge (smallest!) focus box in a firmware release but try moving it around with the camera up to your eye... whoops, what's that grid that just appeared?
The files are great and don't particularly need gimmicky fixes. A viewfinder bezel that falls off if you don't use some tape does. Ah yes, the plasticky removable grommet-style bits, designed to be rapidly lost.
PDAF wouldn't hurt.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 10:25 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

TLD: It's a step too far for me. I could see myself with a Canon 15mm fisheye in my bag, but where as the Canon makes distorted but beautiful images, this appears to just make life ugly.

A question: In this review of the Canon by KR, he shows an image taken with the Canon fisheye after 'rectification in DXO'. It has done an amazing job of straightening the horizon, and I'm wondering if similar can be done with Photoshop?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/15mm-fisheye.htm

DXO's software has a very useful "volume anamorphosis" function for UWAs which goes a long way to eliminate disturbing peripheral stretching. Anyone who thinks all UWAs look, er, lousy - like defished FE files - hasn't owned a 14-24 2.8 I'd guess.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron801: It doesn't really seem all that expensive, though compared with the much better image quality and more usable, less distorted format of the Rockinon fisheye, it is... With that lens, I could de-fish and have a very nice super-wide, non-distortaed image. This one seems like more of a one trick pony and one without particularly great IQ at that. Not on my want list...

I've owned 4 FEs for commercial VR pano use. 10.5 Nikkor (DX); 16mm AIS Nikkor (FX); Samyang 7.5 (MFT); 15mm Zenitar (???). By far the best, overall, is the 10.5 Nikkor. Shooting interior VR panos always means dealing with flare (both kinds) and this lens is least susceptible. The Samyang is quite good too and by far the best value (if shooting MFT). For non-pano photography - ie everything else - FEs are not very often useful. Circular FEs, even for pano use, throw a lot of resolution away. It's hard to see why anyone would buy a CFE to defish (which looks lousy even with FF FEs.)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

TLD: It's a step too far for me. I could see myself with a Canon 15mm fisheye in my bag, but where as the Canon makes distorted but beautiful images, this appears to just make life ugly.

A question: In this review of the Canon by KR, he shows an image taken with the Canon fisheye after 'rectification in DXO'. It has done an amazing job of straightening the horizon, and I'm wondering if similar can be done with Photoshop?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/15mm-fisheye.htm

I've yet to see a "defished" image that didn't look lousy.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

thomash2: One benefit of having the new mount for Micro 4/3 is the ability to shoot spherical panorama photos in 4 shots. There aren't any other lenses that can do that for Micro 4/3 cameras. Here is an example panorama:
http://www.tomshot360.com/image/panorama/ptgui/baby-olym-43.htm

It's shot with a panoramic head, TOM SHOT 360 Ultralight Panohead:
http://www.tomshot360.com/ultralight-panohead/ultralight-panohead-lensbaby-circular-fisheye

The lens itself is fairly sharp at f8-f11. The lens flare is reduced when stopping also to f8-f11.

Hand-held nadir with viewpoint correction in PTGui?
Congrats, every time someone posts one of these there's usually a fudged nadir (and stitching errors...)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2014 at 10:36 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-CM1 to go on sale in UK article (160 comments in total)

£899. Very competitive.
I'm waiting for the red-dot version, which should be more realistically priced.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 11:51 UTC as 20th comment

Solution seeks problem.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 11:37 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On UK Landscape Photographer of the Year winners announced article (159 comments in total)

Please tell me no 2 is a joke?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2014 at 18:05 UTC as 22nd comment
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 rumored to be out of production article (211 comments in total)

Pix excellent. Handling abominable.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2014 at 18:03 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (125 comments in total)

Profit margins!
People have a near-insatiable appetite for photographic accessories irrespective of their actual utility. For manufacturers and retailers the margins on accessories are probably huge by comparison with the fierce competition in camera bodies and lenses. If you buy a lens in a store, what's the question every salesman asks before you pull out a credit card: "would you like to buy a 'protection' filter for the lens sir?" (of course you don't always get the "sir...") Other than ND and PL filters why bother putting additional glass - which however wunnerful still constitute another pair of air/glass surfaces - in front of good lenses unless in a hostile environment? When you could spend the money on yet another backpack...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 15:20 UTC as 4th comment

"...high-end goods designed to appeal to the five senses..."
Sic.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 17:21 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: Fact: Leica making digital cameras is like Patek Philippe making computer driven smart watches to compete with something like the Apple watch. The brand name carries the clout and the heritage, but what has made them mechanically great doesn't translate into electronics greatness. Leica, like Patek Philippe, isn't an electronics company. All the heritage in the world won't change that. And these types of camera are more than a lens and dial layout, they are sensors, circuit boards, hardware, software, etc. Like it or not, that's the truth about a modern day camera. Sure they can add a little old school pixie dust, but if you can't get the main ingredients right, the frosting can't make up for it.

Bottom line, Leica is not going to outdo the big electronics companies in designing electronics, no matter how many old German craftsman are hand making red dots. And the gap will continue to widen.

Patek were one of the earliest prestige watchmakers to offer electronic watches. Leica came very late to digital cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 17:11 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)

Hilarious confirmation of everything one might have expected. Still, it's got a focus scale that you can use.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 17:07 UTC as 47th comment

Trific stuff. There's such a terrible dearth of photographic luggage already available.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2014 at 15:16 UTC as 4th comment

There are a lot of exceptionally foolish (even for DPR) comments here about what constitutes "pro" hardware - often dismissing M43 out of hand. I'd suggest that those people who feel this way (who are themselves most unlikely to qualify as "pros" I suspect) take a look at the following site: http://www.russellrutherford.com/.
James Russell shoots M43, professionally, extensively. His observations about this format (for both still and video applications) can be found on the LL website (where he posts as bcooter). Here's one thread, comparing the A7 with M43: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85282.0
Personally I like to use M43 with the nice, affordable, excellent, little primes rather than hulking zooms. If I want to use the latter for some reason, I lug the FF Nikon gear: but not very often these days.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 17:58 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
On Price released for Brikk's 24k gold Nikon Df article (389 comments in total)

The bull5h!t never stops.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2014 at 18:55 UTC as 59th comment
Total: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »