keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.

Comments

Total: 177, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (306 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

12-15mm

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 08:45 UTC
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (306 comments in total)

For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 08:16 UTC as 30th comment | 13 replies
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)

Partly thanks to HowaboutRAW, where he commented on my entry five messages below, I discovered a solution to a problem which DNG 1.1 solved. However a later version of it probably also would have done so.

At high magnification, 400X, I noticed a grid like pattern on my images out of an ORF file, which disappeared when I used the DNG Converter 9.2 before my usual RAW developer.

If you are interested, have a look at PC Talk where I have posted "Beware mesh pattern after RAW conversion" at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56613641 and give a visual example.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2015 at 16:30 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: If you have a recent camera or lens, you might need the latest version of Camera Raw or the DNG Converter. Otherwise, it's about time more people were sensible and learned proper skills on less than the latest without falling prey to every new release of photo imaging software and indeed newer digital equipment.

Apart from professionals or serious amateurs who need to make prints ten feet wide, just learn to make the most of what you've got before you think of moving on.

I have a Nikon D300 and the lens I choose to use almost exclusively is the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Neither is near the best you can get today but I am not interested in looking at my 59.4 cm prints with a magnifying glass. Without it they are perfectly sharp enough. Not only that, I use Photoshop CS2 without the latest bells and whistles and now have a lot of skill with it. I won it in a competition because of what I could do with Elements 2. I would not have been prepared to pay for it out of my own pocket.

HowaboutRAW (9 min ago):

Good point, so I am glad you raised it. I always save the latest version of the DNG converter just in case I decide to upgrade my equipment and Adobe stop issuing it. But I had not realised that it probably is better to use the latest version anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: If you have a recent camera or lens, you might need the latest version of Camera Raw or the DNG Converter. Otherwise, it's about time more people were sensible and learned proper skills on less than the latest without falling prey to every new release of photo imaging software and indeed newer digital equipment.

Apart from professionals or serious amateurs who need to make prints ten feet wide, just learn to make the most of what you've got before you think of moving on.

I have a Nikon D300 and the lens I choose to use almost exclusively is the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Neither is near the best you can get today but I am not interested in looking at my 59.4 cm prints with a magnifying glass. Without it they are perfectly sharp enough. Not only that, I use Photoshop CS2 without the latest bells and whistles and now have a lot of skill with it. I won it in a competition because of what I could do with Elements 2. I would not have been prepared to pay for it out of my own pocket.

haha, I dunno why anyone feel the need to say I dunno thank-you.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 15:18 UTC
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)

If you have a recent camera or lens, you might need the latest version of Camera Raw or the DNG Converter. Otherwise, it's about time more people were sensible and learned proper skills on less than the latest without falling prey to every new release of photo imaging software and indeed newer digital equipment.

Apart from professionals or serious amateurs who need to make prints ten feet wide, just learn to make the most of what you've got before you think of moving on.

I have a Nikon D300 and the lens I choose to use almost exclusively is the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Neither is near the best you can get today but I am not interested in looking at my 59.4 cm prints with a magnifying glass. Without it they are perfectly sharp enough. Not only that, I use Photoshop CS2 without the latest bells and whistles and now have a lot of skill with it. I won it in a competition because of what I could do with Elements 2. I would not have been prepared to pay for it out of my own pocket.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 10:52 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

noncho: I have the old Meyer-Gorlitz Trioplan 100 2.8 and it's interesting, but I would not buy expensive new one. Here are some examples with mine - http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/2314

Everyone, have a look at this - all bokeh with a bit of image as well. Beautifully done, totally unexpected and ingenious.

Some other nice work on noncho's site too.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: This is yet another example of capitalism gone mad and some people having money way beyond their actual needs to spend frivolously. I had this lens in the early 1970s in a mount for Exakta Varex and, for a triplet design, it was surprisingly good. However, $1,699 is a ridiculous price. About a tenth of that would make sense, little more.

I, for example, make prints of my best photos in A2 size (16.53 x 23.39 inches) and my Nikon D300 bought in 2009 with the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG bought in 2006 are fine for landscapes in good light, even if there is better available today.

I would have been interested in the new m.Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds because that too would have been good enough. However I would not pay over $1000 for a hefty bit of glass, however good, when the saving in bulk and weight compared to APSC is so small.

Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity.

For a guy whose web site consists mostly of crap you talk with a lot of bravado. For you a Box Brownie will do.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: I'm surprised the Greek government hasn't tried launching a kickstarter campaign to save their failing economy.
Im sure they could make some sort of gyro lens with tzatziki effect, and flog it off for €1700 a pot, (earlybird special €1699.99)

I have been watching the Greek crisis closely and, while dire shortcomings there led to their financial difficulties, I condemn the creditors for existing and new measures they are trying to impose that will only make matters worse. From my point of view, the only good thing to come out of it is the greater likelihood of the collapse of the Euro and Cameron actually being able to negotiate one or two reforms in the EU of actual benefit to the UK which, otherwise, I do not think will happen.

I am 71 and glad that, even if I live into my nineties, I will not be around long enough to see the growing collapse of modern civilisation that is already beginning. The world is going mad, cretins with huge sums of money on the one hand and brain dead extremists parading as Islamists on the other and every other possible excess in between.

I only hope the sun dies before the 2.8 billion years or so predicted (or whatever the correct figure is). It cannot come soon enough.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 10:41 UTC

This is yet another example of capitalism gone mad and some people having money way beyond their actual needs to spend frivolously. I had this lens in the early 1970s in a mount for Exakta Varex and, for a triplet design, it was surprisingly good. However, $1,699 is a ridiculous price. About a tenth of that would make sense, little more.

I, for example, make prints of my best photos in A2 size (16.53 x 23.39 inches) and my Nikon D300 bought in 2009 with the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG bought in 2006 are fine for landscapes in good light, even if there is better available today.

I would have been interested in the new m.Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds because that too would have been good enough. However I would not pay over $1000 for a hefty bit of glass, however good, when the saving in bulk and weight compared to APSC is so small.

Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 10:22 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1132 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

<<By John Gellings Not one person I know with a Leica, and I know many, does HDR.>>

That proves it then!

<<By bgmonroe Quality (read: subtle) HDR can be made with two RAW exposures at most.>>

I trust you are speaking from experience? I do HDR almost all of the time with up to seven exposures, though mostly 5 one stop apart. Often I combine that with panoramas, so 15 frames through PTGui is quite frequent for me.

Unadulterated rubbish, even 1 stop apart, not just 1/3, occasionally two shots one stop apart will do, but that is not what HDR is about. Typically, I take against the light and want detail in clouds and shadows on the ground. Two shots for that? This guy is out to lunch.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 08:56 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1132 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

Strange question. Why not?

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 12:35 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1132 comments in total)

Sooner or later, many serious photographers want to get into bracketed exposures for HDR so, if it is correct that the Leica Q offers only 3 frames at 1/3 EV steps then that is ludicrous. Even 3 frames at 1 EV steps is totally inadequate.

The prices for the Leica Q and a fixed lens disqualifies it for me anyway but I would have been very interested in the Fuji X-E2 with 14mm, 18mm and 23mm lens to replace a large and weighty Nikon APSC outfit. However, limited exposure bracketing on that completely disqualifies it for me.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2015 at 11:30 UTC as 258th comment | 6 replies
On article Nikon D7200 Review (639 comments in total)

Latest news. NEW TWO THIRDS FORMAT DIGITAL SINGLE LENS REFLEX FORMAT PROPOSED. Like full frame SLRs, not DSLRS.

[See also my reply to Mr Low Notes below]

Anyone out there with the wherewithal to manufacture quality lightweight full frame DSLR camera bodies and lenses, without all the stupid hardware and software bells and whistles, menus of options to the cows come home?

For example, who needs fourteen settings for white balance when from RAW capture (or even on JPEG) in most cases you automatically get the right colour or close just by putting the image on your computer?

If all the unnecessary features and settings and the logic behind them were dispensed with to have all the required basics, a few really useful additional features like exposure bracketing for HDR, but none of the superfluous options like Live View and Movies, (which do have a use, but then for how many?) then maybe digital quality need not make everything bigger and heavier than it was with 35mm film. Surely?

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 09:34 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D7200 Review (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mr Low Notes: Why compare the size of this camera to a mirrorless as a CON? I don't think anybody expects a DSLR to be as small and light as a Mirrorless camera. Personally I own both and there are time I prefer to use a DLSR and times I prefer my mirrorless. Depends on what and where I'm shooting.

APSC and full frame cameras and lenses are far too big and heavy. I am sure a full frame with lenses no bigger and heavier than an Olympus OM1 ought now to be possible.

I have both APSC and MFT too and partly agree with Mr Low Notes, but would prefer to use my Olympus PEN all the time, in spite of the vastly inferior VF-4 EVF viewfinder compared with DSLR. I would do just that and was hoping the new Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm F2.8 PRO would be a suitable alternative to my Sigma 12-24mm on APSC. However, this MFT lens is nearly as large and heavy as my Sigma, so what's the point? Had they produced a much smaller Olympus 7-14mm F4 of PRO quality that weighed no more than 300 gm and was distortion free so I could use RAW without restriction, like with my Sigma on Nikon, I would have been happy. But instead on MFT they produce quality almost entirely only in fast and heavy lenses that only a minority have a legitimate need for and the pocket to boot. Likewise on bigger cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 09:11 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (639 comments in total)

Why do all the reviewers, not just DP Review, produce such rubbish sample photos? Especially with lenses, what is the point of them? See examples of the good and bad below.

What I would expect to see are images with fine detail right to the edges that are in focus, have no possibility of distance haze and from which you can judge sharpness everyhwere. One example of such a picture might be of modern city towers where windows and construction detail give that kind of information. This is especially needed for lens reviews, of course.

GOOD http://www.promptguides.com/london/_photos/piccadilly_circus/piccadilly_circus_002.jpg

BAD
DSC_2254 from this review

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 08:42 UTC as 79th comment | 2 replies
On article Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Once you have figured out just how tiny the image details are with these lenses on their titchy sensor, you may begin to accept that financially these days to invest in this way on an m4:3 sensor is to throw your money away.

Even on full-frame pro gear detail resolution at 16.7MP (Canon 1Ds MkII)though good is not sufficient to allow you to work at normal distances and see fine detail within the image-texture in cloth, skin etc. Its why I got a D800.

Bought s/h the cost is the same using Nikon D800s and the quality is just so much better.

Size matters

Totally agree.

See my articles on panoramas at

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/contrajur/album/507149

where I have written about this, including using 2 up two down with my E-PL3 and the Olympus 12mm f/4.

However, I am mostly going to stick to my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG, as I have written about seven entries above this one. The new Olympus PRO is too large, heavy and costly, so I have no interest in it.

I use Machinery HDR Effects to develop my RAW and PTGui to stitch them together.

Tip - Although PTGui will simultaneously deal with exposure bracketing and sets of those to make into a panorama, it is better to use your RAW developer first and stitch from those merged HDR results, especially if like Machinery, the tonal mapping is superb.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 14:39 UTC
On article Hands-on with new Olympus PRO 8mm and 7-14mm lenses (295 comments in total)

Why did Olympus not produce an f/4 PRO lens and kept the size, weight and price down? Built to the same quality, I probably would have been able to dispense with my DSLR kit. Lenses this gargantuan or even bigger on MFT are a bad joke.

A few months ago I asked "Panasonic 7-14mm on Olympus - how good?" on the DPR forum for "Micro Four Thirds Talk" and was put off for a number of reasons. It is not quite good enough for my liking. I had been considering it with my Olympus E-PL3 plus the VF-4 viewfinder.

That was because I would have preferred to use it instead of my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Since I bought that lens, I have used it almost all of the time. That should not surprise you, since most of my pictures are of landscapes, most shot near to or at 12mm.

See the more recent at http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, all but very few with this lens. Most people do not need large apertures or more than 12 megapixels, even for high quality very large size prints.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2015 at 14:10 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (865 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: I had a go on one in a shop and it stopped working and none of the sales staff could figure out what was wrong. So we took the pro lens off and tried it on an EM-1 just to give me an idea and that packed up after five minutes and refused to focus.

Hardly an inspiring demo. But for the money I could get a FF Nikon which, if you can carry the extra weight, gives you more of everything except for a few gimmicky features. I look at these 4/3's offerings as jewellery more than serious cameras. YMMV.

You are wrong. I would have gone along with you until I bought the E-PL3 when it was replaced by the next model, as the price I had to pay was incredibly low. I thought at worst, for the price, it would be a useful addition to avoid always having the bulk and weight of my DSLR and three heavy lenses. Now I am considering whether to sell the lot and use MFT full time.

MFT turns out to be very high quality and the only thing I do not like with it and other compact interchangeable lens systems is the EVF. I can get quality prints in A2 size (60cm) from my 12 mp Nikon D300 and I suspect from MFT as well, even my 12 mp E-PL3.

The E-PL3 lacks some of the features of more expensive models but so what? All these bells and whistles and more and more megapixels is a load of nonsense if your interest is pictures of adequate content and technical quality, not buying and selling. Others may be content lining the pockets of the manufacturers, which many people seems all too happy to do. Not I.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (865 comments in total)
In reply to:

duckling: Lets face it, 16MP are more than enough for almost anything. And no, more pixels cannot substitute a proper focal length for the job.

It's about time DPReview gave more consideration to the overall useability of the tools they review. Perhaps they should change the scoring system and evaluate cameras according to their potential performance in various genres. It might be more useful than comparing features, many of which are obviously above and beyond the strictest of requirements. Let versatility and usefulness guide you.
When I choose a camera I want to know how it is expected to behave in landscape , portraiture, travel, night, social, nature and hiking scenarios (to name just a few). Those aspects of a camera are far more meaningful than infinitesimal differences in noise or DR at ISOxxxx.

"It's about time DPReview gave more consideration to the overall useability of the tools they review." Exactly.

As I said to them fifteen months ago, "You draw upon your politician-like ability to choose words to obfuscate when it suits you like you clearly tried over the M.Zuiko 9-18mm or feeble defence on how the Olympus E-P5 could get an award of any kind."

They don't like comments like that so I will leave it at that. Otherwise they may blacklist me again!

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:46 UTC
Total: 177, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »