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: 307, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Leica SL Review (1092 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 (1092 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 (1092 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 51st comment | 4 replies
On article Leica SL Review (1092 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 (1092 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 61st 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
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)

Would anybody like to join crowd funding for my design with a cheese grater and a bag of onions? It is ideal when you want to get pictures of people crying or appearing to. There are several models in different sizes, depending upon the size of the tear drops desired. Also, if you do not have a camera, never mind, just use it anyway.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 20:53 UTC as 32nd comment
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wildbegonia: This is so amazing. Congratulations for an original project that shows the principle behind the pinhole camera. And it has an extra twist of ingenuity, its potential for recycling waste materials.

Wildbegonia, is the waste you are talk about DPR articles?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
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.

landscaper1, so when there is no news any old rubbish will do.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 20:43 UTC

I shoot landscapes, mostly in good enough light that f/8 is my usual aperture and the 20mm f/1.8 is very good to the edges then. Panorama stitching, when the need arises, will involve only two frames vertical or four in two rows with the camera orientated horizontally, either benefiting from prime lens quality.

Very recently I traded up to the Nikon D610 from the D300 and bought the 20mm f/1.8 at the same time. I will use it most of the time instead of my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM (MK I). Surprisingly, the edge definition of the latter is quite reasonable to the edges on the D610 whereas, when using film, I used not to be too happy about it. Unless I want my feet in the frame, I am not sure I will have too much need of the Sigma any more but I will keep it for the odd occasion.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2017 at 10:40 UTC as 21st comment
On article Close-up: Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 (127 comments in total)

Why on earth buy a MFT camera this size and weight? Crazy.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 13:39 UTC as 17th comment | 10 replies

Not going to buy this but would have been interested to see what images from it are like, ones you can judge the quality from, that is...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 17:06 UTC as 94th comment

This lens at a monster price has no electronic connections with the camera. That is because it is designed for people without all the usual connections within their brains.

Maybe Donald will slap such a high tariff on Meyer that they cease trading with the US. He did say jobs at home first and that is one of the more sensible things he has said. I live across the pond but am equally against the global village wherever the fat cats reside.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2016 at 15:09 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)

I have completely lost interest after reading the review at http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/981-laowa12f28. The qualities of this lens appear to have been exaggerated in other reviews and the deficiencies played down. I'll stick to my Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 and panorama stitching when necessary. I now suspect that this Laowa may be another example of the photographic media hyping up to encourage sales when the quality of the item is not really in line with the price. People are so keen to part with their money, perhaps the view of industry is why bother.

I will also try out my Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM which I have not used with my Nikon D610 yet, only just having bought that camera. You never know it might be better than I expect. although on film I did notice less than ideal edge sharpness.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 23:39 UTC as 5th comment
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: See https://www.ephotozine.com/article/venus-laowa-12mm-f-2-8-review-29779 for a very favourable review and then ignore what it says, even though it appears to concur with the sample photos here.

"The lens had to be placed very close to the test chart, something that it is not really designed for."

IMO that review is garbage unless one is talking only about macro photography. As I have suspected for a long time, lens reviewers shoot charts set very near to test lenses and most have sharpness and distortion characteristics that differ considerably at distance.

I am not sure optically if it is feasible, but one needs a system to send a virtual image of an industry standard source as if at infinity, failing that at a considerable distance, into the lens, not a chart or near set up like DP Review and other reviewers use.

I imagine the set at the end of the samples of the same subject with a lot of detail in it to the edges at various apertures makes for a much more reliable "chart".

Regarding what I wrote above about the dubious quality of lens testing due to the use of charts placed near to the camera, I can now say that the use of a collimator to make a virtual object much farther away is perfectly feasible.

I had my eyes checked earlier this afternoon and there for distance vision they used to use letters of various sizes backlit on the other side of the room about 20 feet away. Now, they are using a collimator set much nearer, at about half the distance.

Of course, equipment of this nature for testing lenses would be very expensive and to be suitable for a very wide angle lens it would cost considerably more and be quite a bulky piece of apparatus. What they now use for testing eyes is child's play by comparison.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 20:33 UTC
On article The whole nine yards: Canon 35mm F1.4L II USM review (338 comments in total)

This lens clearly is sharp. This lens clearly is big, heavy and expensive. This lens clearly is insane. Is there no limit to what extreme lengths lens designers will go, sometimes quite literally?

In the days of 35mm film, cameras often were described as miniature. Now increasingly with digital, we have monsters. Apart from professionals needing to capture the back side of the moon, I see no point in it. Unless, that is, the exercise is merely intended to have wealthy people with muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger part with their cash.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 09:55 UTC as 40th comment | 5 replies
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: This is making me nostalgic. A really wide lens without tons of barrel distortion. (This was the norm in the film era when there was no way to correct the distortion.)

Personally, I'd rather see more lenses with low distortion than more gold coatings and bubble-shaped bokeh, etc. And the bonus is when there is no distortion to correct, sharpness does not suffer from having to move all those pixels.

Fotopizza, not many lenses at fairly reasonable prices are good enough towards the edges and especially in the corners. So the end result after software correction for distortion is not particularly good. If not for that, I would be quite happy to use them. For example, with the Olympus M.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO "the auto-correction comes at the price of a bit of softness - it is simply not lossless". (photozone.de) But as joribama suggests, in time this may improve.

Most modern Zeiss lens for full frame or APSC suffer from very bad vignetting, quite a few also have a lot of distortion. It makes me wonder if they are based on designs from the film era. The Voigtlander Heliars also appear to be and while very good, suffer from severe vignetting. Correcting that can result in noise.

I was surprised through your comments to learn that Alpa is still in business along with Rodenstock lenses for their equipment. I last heard of Alpa nearly sixty years ago with their rather nice 35mm SLRs.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 02:36 UTC
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)

See https://www.ephotozine.com/article/venus-laowa-12mm-f-2-8-review-29779 for a very favourable review and then ignore what it says, even though it appears to concur with the sample photos here.

"The lens had to be placed very close to the test chart, something that it is not really designed for."

IMO that review is garbage unless one is talking only about macro photography. As I have suspected for a long time, lens reviewers shoot charts set very near to test lenses and most have sharpness and distortion characteristics that differ considerably at distance.

I am not sure optically if it is feasible, but one needs a system to send a virtual image of an industry standard source as if at infinity, failing that at a considerable distance, into the lens, not a chart or near set up like DP Review and other reviewers use.

I imagine the set at the end of the samples of the same subject with a lot of detail in it to the edges at various apertures makes for a much more reliable "chart".

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 20:58 UTC as 13th comment | 6 replies
Total: 307, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »