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. Likes to communicate and learn from others with expert knowledge, especially if they also live in the real world, have galleries or links to really good photos and put their camera to good use.

Comments

Total: 279, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

rev32: It will be interesting to see if people coming into photography with EVF start developing a strong preference for them. Personally I grew up with OVF so thats what I prefer. EVF just seems weird.

Very interested in what you say and I am sure you are right. A large transparency looks better than an image on any monitor and that looks better than any print.

Yet my preference is for an A2 size print on matt paper framed and hanging on the wall and a picture good enough to warrant that treatment. It is for that reason I thought my D300 was perfectly good enough even if more recent cameras are better. Recently I bought a D610 and the primary benefit is that lenses I bought when using film and still rel;y upon now give me the wider angles I most like for landscapes. If the images with it are better quality that is also worth having.

However, image quality is not the only consideration. I think it must be psychological - if it is good enough to hang on the wall, it might be good enough to see in a gallery - the picture that is, not the image quality.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:25 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

Luisifer: ... i prefere http://www.photoextract.com/photo/568263.html
(it looks like electronic, isn't it) ,-)

Not sure what this has to do with anything - unless you are saying that EVF images look like this!

But WOWWWWWWWWWWWW. Best collection at http://www.photoextract.com I have ever seen by a long, long way.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

I once picked up a Leica M3 in a store many years ago and found that the focusing through the rangefinder is optically so precise you turn the lens focusing ring one way and know immediately when to stop without going past the right point. This was the case even the first time you ever tried the camera. That is amazing.

A Leica rangefinder OV > any OVF > any EVF and so much so even having to have an accessory viewfinder for ultra wide on a Leica M would not put me off.

The film Leica M was the gold standard, especially the viewfinder / rangefinder. I expect it still is. If I could get an accessory Albalda viewfinder for it to cover 20mm, better still even wider, I would not be put off, might even get an M10 and a Tri-Elmar and, if I have to, sell the house and live in the car.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:47 UTC as 344th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Strictly electronic, and tiltable is a must.

Bothering to say just as much as this conveys more about the writer than what he writes.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)
In reply to:

UneVache: I presume that if you use finder only for framing and don't really pay attention to its content, any kind of finder will do (and so will a display screen too). If you need to see the controls displayed in the image, then EVF would be preferred. But, if you don't want your vision to be disturbed or oriented the way the camera manufacturers have decided it, then OVF is the best. I'm more in this last league. To me, WYSIWYG means "What you see is what they decided" and as I shoot raw to be able to extract from shots the most I can, this WYSIWYG is really useless. I'm only interested in what I see and what I can do with it, not what the camera is rendering as a manufacturer's standard JPEG. Though, I must say focus peaking in EVF is cool.
Anyway, when EVFs will be able to show also a "real scene TTL" vision then they will be perfect. For the moment, I find them to give only a limited vision of what I see. Hybrid View Finders are a cool feature though.

Totally agree and beautifully put.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:25 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

And why do camera reviews say so little about the viewfinder that you are totally left in the dark about their strengths and weaknesses. I get the impression that some of the latest Leicas may have overcome some of the shortcomings of EVF, maybe even all of them. But I only can guess that might be so, given the lack of sufficently detailed information.

But the reviewer never says enough that you have the slightest clue on that, unless you are already totally sold on an EVF under any circumstances.

In that case the omission does not matter, But is he only writing for them?

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:24 UTC as 351st comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

I have both. I bought the EVF as an add-on to my second camera to avoid the LCD screen which I only ever use to go into the menus.

No EVF I have seen gives detail from highlights to shadows looking into the sun. Either the shadows are solid black or the contrast is so low that I cannot judge what the result will look like. With an OVF it looks natural and I can always figure it out.

In lower dynamic range lighting , there is no problem at all with an EVF.

A black cat lit by candle demands an EVF just to find where it is, but an OVF works fine in normal situations - the only ones I am interested in. I can easily judge from what I see. Not so with an EVF - I often have to think about it and I do not enjoy looking at something rather odd through the viewfinder.

For me that is the deciding factor. OVF every time regardless of the burdensome size and weight. Some of the latest mirrorless with EVFs are as large and heavy as DSLRs, which I think makes them totally ludicrous.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:08 UTC as 354th comment

There seems to be quite a few new high quality, large aperture, wide angle lenses coming onto the market. Here is another with a couple of pictures.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 14:13 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

keepreal: IMO Sigma would have done better to produce a smaller aperture version up to Art standards, but weighing in at no more than about 600 gm and costing half as much.

Unlike goactive, I sold off my D300 and bought a D610, keeping the full frame lenses I had bought while still using film. I also bought the AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED as I mostly like to shoot landscapes very wide. Had a suitable shorter focal length lens been available, I probably would have bough that instead. Perhaps the Irix 15mm would have done.

I will be keeping my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Mk I. Testing it on the D610 last week I found that it was even across the frame and was already performing close to its optimum even at full aperture. Mine is quite sharp and has negligible distortion. On the D300 it was only so-so.

So why does it happen then? Currently, there is a lunatic craze to produce large, heavy and expensive wide aperture lenses. Is the intent to turn photography into an exercise in weight lifting?

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

geekyrocketguy: A gallery of f/5.6 images isn't very helpful. Any non-crap lens should be able to produce sharp photos at f/5.6. We need lots of images at f/2.8 and faster, ESPECIALLY with detail in the corners. The images in this gallery with objects in the corner tend to have them very close to the camera, so it's difficult to tell whether the massive softness is due to lens aberrations or just focus limitations.

Come on, DPR, you can produce a more helpful sample gallery than this.

The single most important test for this lens, a field of stars at various apertures, wasn't included. That single scene tells you everything you need to know about a lens: corner sharpness, vignetting, astigmatism/coma, and field curvature!

All the reviews of lenses here and almost elsewhere else are totally haphazard and next to useless. When they go into such detail about many cameras, it is utterly ludicrous that they bother so little.

If I am interested in a new lens, I have to spend hours on the web trying to find useful pictures to judge by, but in the end I always have to resort to guesswork and a large serving of hope.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 08:48 UTC

IMO Sigma would have done better to produce a smaller aperture version up to Art standards, but weighing in at no more than about 600 gm and costing half as much.

Unlike goactive, I sold off my D300 and bought a D610, keeping the full frame lenses I had bought while still using film. I also bought the AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED as I mostly like to shoot landscapes very wide. Had a suitable shorter focal length lens been available, I probably would have bough that instead. Perhaps the Irix 15mm would have done.

I will be keeping my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM Mk I. Testing it on the D610 last week I found that it was even across the frame and was already performing close to its optimum even at full aperture. Mine is quite sharp and has negligible distortion. On the D300 it was only so-so.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 08:36 UTC as 28th comment | 9 replies

The results look good but the size, weight and high price are off-putting, considering you will also need to pay for a caddy or daily exercises in the gym.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 08:01 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthias jurisch: The biggest market for Leica cameras is Asia...specifically Japan and China. A few years ago I was in Tokyo and I can say from my own experience that the Japanese are crazy (nuts) about Leica cameras. There is even a exclusive Leica Photoclub in Tokyo..
The upbeat photostore where I buy my Canon gear from here in Berlin also has one of the best Leica collections in Europe and the salesman told me that the best Leica customers are tourists from Japan, China, Russia, England and North America...very few Germans buy into the Leica system...to me it seems that Made in Germany is the strongest selling point...

The predecessor of the company, formerly known as Ernst Leitz GmbH, is now three companies: Leica Camera AG, Leica Geosystems AG, and Leica Microsystems GmbH, which manufacture cameras, geosurvey equipment, and microscopes, respectively. Leica Microsystems AG owns the Leica brand and licenses the sister companies to use it.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Now if Leitz made proper Leica quality lenses (not that compact and MFT stuff) to fit full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras that would be much to the liking of those who aspire to Leica lens quality without having to have a pointless camera like the SL.

Since lenses with the Leica name are available for other cameras - I am not going to assume Leitz has much else to do with them than literally that - then Leica ought to be persuaded to do us and themselves the favour, for those of us with deep pockets that is.

Really

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)

Now if Leitz made proper Leica quality lenses (not that compact and MFT stuff) to fit full frame Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras that would be much to the liking of those who aspire to Leica lens quality without having to have a pointless camera like the SL.

Since lenses with the Leica name are available for other cameras - I am not going to assume Leitz has much else to do with them than literally that - then Leica ought to be persuaded to do us and themselves the favour, for those of us with deep pockets that is.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 17:35 UTC as 50th comment | 4 replies
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthias jurisch: The biggest market for Leica cameras is Asia...specifically Japan and China. A few years ago I was in Tokyo and I can say from my own experience that the Japanese are crazy (nuts) about Leica cameras. There is even a exclusive Leica Photoclub in Tokyo..
The upbeat photostore where I buy my Canon gear from here in Berlin also has one of the best Leica collections in Europe and the salesman told me that the best Leica customers are tourists from Japan, China, Russia, England and North America...very few Germans buy into the Leica system...to me it seems that Made in Germany is the strongest selling point...

IMO Leitz tarnished their reputation making lenses for Panasonic and the like or, more likely, licensing the name and letting others do the construction - just as Voigtlander have with Cosina, but I am guessing that last point.

It is fair enough for Leitz to diversify but, like car manufacturers, they should have used different brand names to differentiate their premium products. This is not a cosmetic distinction, for Leica on a product should mean there is no better, not just that it is another also ran.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)

This review restores my faith in DP Review. Even less costly cameras deserve this frankness, even if their flaws sometimes are less obvious. Especially in the post truth society, saying it as it really is is very refreshing.

Few people aspire to Leica and, as far as I am concerned, with this camera they have done me a favour. I do not aspire to Leica prices, did aspire to Leica M quality in the days when we only had film. So now, I am even happier with the Nikon D610 I bought recently. There is nothing that suits me better at any price.

I do prefer optical viewfinders but if Leica have contrived to make the view through their EVF look like an OVF even in HDR lighting into the sun, then that would be real progress. However this camera is as heavy as mine without a mirror, so for most people what's the point?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:12 UTC as 60th comment | 17 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: I recently bought the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 and at 355g that is quite heavy enough for that focal length and aperture, slightly excessive in fact unless a professional needs image quality unavailable without glass of huge weight and size. Unless there are many professionals out there to which this applies and I do not believe there can be more than a few, then Sigma and other manufacturers are collectively forcing us all into a corner that need not have happened. I understand that part of the reason is that the design process is computerised so that the flair has gone (no pun intended).

There is no doubt that the technology today is wonderful but how it is applied often is utterly stupid. We live in an age of collective excess where going to the extremes is becoming the norm across the spectrum of human activity. Since photography went digital, the scientific know-how has made huge bounds but the designs put to market very often are ridiculous. Yet still people buy them.

"Are the rest of us stupid for buying it?"

I think not but the manufacturers need not have focussed such a disproportionate amount of their endeavours on the heavyweight class.

Just answer honestly - how often do you use the bigger apertures and is it really worthwhile having all that extra cost, bulk and weight for when you want it? For most people I think the honest, sensible answer is no, but I am not at all at odds with the genuine number who see it the other way.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 21:05 UTC

I recently bought the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 and at 355g that is quite heavy enough for that focal length and aperture, slightly excessive in fact unless a professional needs image quality unavailable without glass of huge weight and size. Unless there are many professionals out there to which this applies and I do not believe there can be more than a few, then Sigma and other manufacturers are collectively forcing us all into a corner that need not have happened. I understand that part of the reason is that the design process is computerised so that the flair has gone (no pun intended).

There is no doubt that the technology today is wonderful but how it is applied often is utterly stupid. We live in an age of collective excess where going to the extremes is becoming the norm across the spectrum of human activity. Since photography went digital, the scientific know-how has made huge bounds but the designs put to market very often are ridiculous. Yet still people buy them.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 10:37 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Cool. Truly creative.

Not digital though. DPR is losing its focus quite often.

"Some readers of this site do find the off topics interesting from time to time." So what's it doing here?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 22:10 UTC
Total: 279, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »