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: 379, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
On article Leica offers free fix for faulty AF in some S lenses (92 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: It is quite clear that Leica is not the company it used to be. Not only are some of their digital cameras not up to that much, like the SL, some of their lenses have been suspect.

Also they lend their name to lenses for Panasonic compact camera that can be nothing more than a marketing gimmick, nothing to do with what made Leica famous.

But then, while the technology in many brands continues to progress apace, one can no longer expect the quality necessarily to be up to par.

I regret the passing of film as the mainstay of photography. True in those days processing the stuff after exposure was much, much more hassle, quality was good but not exceptional but one could trust that when one bought one got value for money and one's focus was entirely on pictures, not exaggerated and unnecessary expectations of over-sized images. The profit motive was not so overwhelming as it is today and people just got on with it without all this fuss.

You could be right but my point was that it was what we remember and valued, then not now. Our standards were set by what then was possible and, for that time, we were usually satisfied and well served.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 07:40 UTC
On article Leica offers free fix for faulty AF in some S lenses (92 comments in total)

It is quite clear that Leica is not the company it used to be. Not only are some of their digital cameras not up to that much, like the SL, some of their lenses have been suspect.

Also they lend their name to lenses for Panasonic compact camera that can be nothing more than a marketing gimmick, nothing to do with what made Leica famous.

But then, while the technology in many brands continues to progress apace, one can no longer expect the quality necessarily to be up to par.

I regret the passing of film as the mainstay of photography. True in those days processing the stuff after exposure was much, much more hassle, quality was good but not exceptional but one could trust that when one bought one got value for money and one's focus was entirely on pictures, not exaggerated and unnecessary expectations of over-sized images. The profit motive was not so overwhelming as it is today and people just got on with it without all this fuss.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 06:34 UTC as 22nd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: Dimensions: of 86.4 x 182.3mm are reasonable for 100-400mm but since when is 1180g lightweight?

You could say the same of may lenses these days where that claim is made.

All those weights are outrageous.

Design these days are computerised and designs less imaginative. My Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR weighs 745g. A similar design to 400mm need weigh no more than another 100g and that is quite heavy enough. But why the public puts up with it, heaven knows.

Take the Nikon AIS series and compare with contemporary Nikkors. Many of them are not as good and much, much bigger and/or heavier. Don't dispute what I am saying by pointing out auto focus adds to the bulk and weight. Yes it does, but not by that much.

Frankly I think modern equipment is crazy and the public equally crazy for going along with it. The technology allows huge size images of high quality but so good it is overkill for most people's real needs. Bulk and weight havein most cases entirely been sacrificed. Even MFT now is competing for bluk and weight with the more reasonable APS-C. Quite pointless. Real photographers, other than some professionals do not need that.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 16:47 UTC

Dimensions: of 86.4 x 182.3mm are reasonable for 100-400mm but since when is 1180g lightweight?

You could say the same of may lenses these days where that claim is made.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 07:47 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: Since it has a bearing on whether it is necessary for the wife and kids to go hungry, it would be interesting to know what apertures are used most by photographers. For professionals, I am sure the tendency would generally be larger. It may also influence which camera body is chosen.

Digital results in little noise, so there is little reason to use wide apertures unlees differential focus is being employed. Of course, it is nice to have them, but how often are very wide apertures actually used?

I suspect for most people taking pictures with their cameras, certainly with most amateurs, apertures generally used are f/4 or smaller. I use f/8 most of the time.

Those who are more interested in having equipment for reasons other than taking pictures may hanker after lenses like the 5mm f/0.8 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794
but in the real world (not obssessed with f nos) who needs bigger than FX and moderate aperture lenses unless the pictures are to make a living?

@Tella Day - a lot of sense here but I think the only point you raise that matters is that a really good f/2 at smaller apertures will usually be better than a slower lens. However, usually not any point going faster than that as few f1/4 lenses rival them.

I do not think one needs that fast to get shallow depth of field unless yuo go wider than 28mm on FF.

I never have any problems focusing with much smaller aperture lenses. Except for macro work, I think that reason for large apertures is grossly over-played. ,

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

TORN: Most things said are pretty relevant for any interformat comparison. So if you do not want to buy highly expensive cameras with expensive and huge lenses then APS-C like Fuji compares pretty nicely to full frame. Fuji x just offers some nice and small 1.2/1.4 lenses which usually are costly to beat with full frame.

In addition I wonder how lenses wide open and base or max iso are the only relevant camera settings? Use other settings and you can pretty much enjoy the advantages of a bigger sensor with an equivalent lens.

Richard Bulter, for once you have hit the nail on the head.

"To understand the differences in capability, you need to look at the extremes (the setting that gives the most DR, the setting that gives the shallowest depth-of-field, the setting that shows most noise). The point is that away from these extremes, you can probably use equivalent settings, at which point there is little to no advantage of a bigger sensor."

Apart from professionals and amateurs with similar skills and a heavy involvement, expensive photo equipment is an exercise in greed which the manufacturers are only too ready to feed.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:25 UTC

Since it has a bearing on whether it is necessary for the wife and kids to go hungry, it would be interesting to know what apertures are used most by photographers. For professionals, I am sure the tendency would generally be larger. It may also influence which camera body is chosen.

Digital results in little noise, so there is little reason to use wide apertures unlees differential focus is being employed. Of course, it is nice to have them, but how often are very wide apertures actually used?

I suspect for most people taking pictures with their cameras, certainly with most amateurs, apertures generally used are f/4 or smaller. I use f/8 most of the time.

Those who are more interested in having equipment for reasons other than taking pictures may hanker after lenses like the 5mm f/0.8 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59208794
but in the real world (not obssessed with f nos) who needs bigger than FX and moderate aperture lenses unless the pictures are to make a living?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 18:15 UTC as 329th comment | 5 replies
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: There is a subthread where replies now are, by default hidden, so there is no point in adding another reply there.

Re: Iloveaircraftnoise "His compositions are interesting but the photos have more processing than supermarket cheese."

Which I do not agree with.

At the end of that section, @quietrich accuses Erez Marom of over processing because he combines frames. I do the same because the media we use cannot reproduce the dynamic range, so the technique is to compensate for that, not to exaggerate.

I like Erez Marom's photographs on his site a lot but think he should stick to pictures, not pompous articles trying to make something of meta-photography.

You are entitle to your opinion but comparing apples to oranges is an odd way to reach it.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Alexis D says "Does not matter to me. I shoot landscape. Even MF is OK."

Well I shoot landscapes too and use focus hold to facilitate placing and keeping focus where I want it, having disabled it on the shutter release.

However, I appreciate at last knowing what subject tracking does. I may never use it but it is worth finding out how to and experimenting with it in case an unexpected opportunity warrants its use. Suppose, for example, I see several monkeys moving around and very near in a place like Gibraltar. Just because I am a landscape photographer would I necessarily say not for me?

In any case, the technology used in many aspects of photographic equipment is ingenuous, fascinating and worth knowing about regardless. Knowledge for its own sake.

So it does matters to me and I am grateful for an excellent article. Now where in my camera manual does it tell you how to use it and where else is that better explained? I imagine with a little surfing, it will all be made very clear.

The monkeys in Gibraltar are used to humans, so come up really close.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (105 comments in total)

There is a subthread where replies now are, by default hidden, so there is no point in adding another reply there.

Re: Iloveaircraftnoise "His compositions are interesting but the photos have more processing than supermarket cheese."

Which I do not agree with.

At the end of that section, @quietrich accuses Erez Marom of over processing because he combines frames. I do the same because the media we use cannot reproduce the dynamic range, so the technique is to compensate for that, not to exaggerate.

I like Erez Marom's photographs on his site a lot but think he should stick to pictures, not pompous articles trying to make something of meta-photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:33 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This article seems very contrived to me. It may sometimes make sense that the artist has a concept in mind when he creates a work but to expect the viewer to appreciate or even look out for it is ridiculous.

For example, that picture of the sun, reflected on the walls of this ice cave above. This image does not tell the story of the glacial melting, and if the inclusion of the cause and its effect influences the picture's visual appeal, it does so because of the visual effect, no more no less.

What arrant nonsense. There is no story, it is just a picture of ice melting.

quietrich asks why is it "entirely unrealistic"/ It is fine that the photographer thinks things through just before he takes the picture. I also do that as in this shot of mine at https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3894780139/photos/3302686/, where if you view it at a reasonable size you should appreciate the slightly dreamy mood. That took a lot of work in post processing to achieve but conforms to what I wanted when I took it. But that is not a story, just a picture.

You cannot expect the viewer to get into the mind of the photographer except in science fiction. Well I am afraid that I think the topic is this article is also a fiction and why the guy indulges in this, only heaven knows. To me it is just pompous self-delusion.

Looking at his site, Erez Marom does come across as an accomplished photographer. But there is no need for a mystique to promote his work, the quality of the images is enough, all there actually is or can be.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jarvis Grant: What's the point of this again?

The point of this is that an image of the whole of the universe in 3D will still be huge, but somewhat smaller to store - so pictures of objects larger than that become more feasible. LOL

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 09:45 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (105 comments in total)

This article seems very contrived to me. It may sometimes make sense that the artist has a concept in mind when he creates a work but to expect the viewer to appreciate or even look out for it is ridiculous.

For example, that picture of the sun, reflected on the walls of this ice cave above. This image does not tell the story of the glacial melting, and if the inclusion of the cause and its effect influences the picture's visual appeal, it does so because of the visual effect, no more no less.

What arrant nonsense. There is no story, it is just a picture of ice melting.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 09:31 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies

Alexis D says "Does not matter to me. I shoot landscape. Even MF is OK."

Well I shoot landscapes too and use focus hold to facilitate placing and keeping focus where I want it, having disabled it on the shutter release.

However, I appreciate at last knowing what subject tracking does. I may never use it but it is worth finding out how to and experimenting with it in case an unexpected opportunity warrants its use. Suppose, for example, I see several monkeys moving around and very near in a place like Gibraltar. Just because I am a landscape photographer would I necessarily say not for me?

In any case, the technology used in many aspects of photographic equipment is ingenuous, fascinating and worth knowing about regardless. Knowledge for its own sake.

So it does matters to me and I am grateful for an excellent article. Now where in my camera manual does it tell you how to use it and where else is that better explained? I imagine with a little surfing, it will all be made very clear.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 09:10 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies

Makes a good door stop.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 19:12 UTC as 50th comment
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

BBQue: "I also collect vinyl. Not because I believe it sounds better than CD or MP3 (it doesn't), but because..."

If you don't find vinyl sounds better than MP3 then you haven't heard a classical music recording on vinyl on a high end audio setup. Just saying :)

Quite so. I know from a top audio store where a very, very cheap moving magnet cartrige Linn K9 in a Linn turntable sounded better than the CD with an expensive player and amp-preamp setup. With the vinyl you could hear the ambience of the concert hall with Kiri Te Kanawa singing Strauss's Four Last Songs. With the CD there was no ambience whatsover.

Even so, I prefer a good setup for CD because the worst clicks and pops really used too get to me. I have the complete set of symphonies by Anton Bruckner conducted by Eugene Jochum with Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. These are 1960s recordings but I have not heard better interpretations and performances. However, I could not unremember where the worst clicks are and could not avoid waiting for them, not really listening the music.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: I tried an M3 in a shop many years ago and found the rangefinder optics so precise I did not need to go past the optimum point and back again even once, the first time I had used it. That's how good it was. No SLR or DSLR is as good as that. No doubt the later M series are the same. When Leica gets it right no need for frequent new models.

I always choose where to focus manually and use focus and hold, with focus disabled on the shutter release. That also means I can keep the setting across frames without refocusing for a burst. Admittedly for moving subjects, there is something to be said for auto focus and tracking but, apart from that, I prefer my judgement rather than a program choice I have less control of.

Likewise with exposure, I use AE hold, again across frames when I want. I take a spot reading at the centre focus point and base it on a mid tone.

In essence I am using auto to set focus and exposure manually, but then I started 64 years ago, so I know what I am doing.

Part 2

Or should I go back to film, get an M3 and lenses to match? (Rhetorical) Actually, I do miss the aura of those good old days and the gradation with film (Pan F in Beutler) good equipment, good developers, good technique, a lovely rich chlorobromide paper slightly toned in selenium to make the blacks slightly purple and even deeper. Those were the days!

I think I will cost it out just in case I am tempted. I could not entirely rule that out. I'll know better when i see the figures. An M3 in good condition probably does not cost that much even if that Tri-Elmar would. But then there's the enlarger, a good lens for that and lack of space in my home for a darkroom, even a temporary one over the bath, as I have to store it when not in use or not wash for months at a time. Seems a bit wet to me.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: I tried an M3 in a shop many years ago and found the rangefinder optics so precise I did not need to go past the optimum point and back again even once, the first time I had used it. That's how good it was. No SLR or DSLR is as good as that. No doubt the later M series are the same. When Leica gets it right no need for frequent new models.

I always choose where to focus manually and use focus and hold, with focus disabled on the shutter release. That also means I can keep the setting across frames without refocusing for a burst. Admittedly for moving subjects, there is something to be said for auto focus and tracking but, apart from that, I prefer my judgement rather than a program choice I have less control of.

Likewise with exposure, I use AE hold, again across frames when I want. I take a spot reading at the centre focus point and base it on a mid tone.

In essence I am using auto to set focus and exposure manually, but then I started 64 years ago, so I know what I am doing.

Part 1

But that solves a problem for me unless...

I like to shoot very wide and the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm f/4 would suit me best. I would not mind an auxiliary viewfinder for each provided they were of the Albalda type and up to Leica quality, not a huge lump to switch between all three.

My father had a SBOOI with his Leica IIIa, gave it to me for my Retina 1a as a teenager. That was a lovely little camera. I also loved the SBOOI. But he sold the IIia and got a Pentax SLR and my SBOOI disappeared. I was very upset but said nothing.

If the M > 3 are not as good then maybe I can be more content to keep to my Nikon D610, no longer having the Leica M on my wish list. Then no need to sell the house and live in the car. Vintage Leica lenses are magnificent, maybe some of the recent ones too but you can keep Leica digital from what I have read. It sounds to me as if the electronics and software are more like Panasonic-Leica than a real Leica.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: I tried an M3 in a shop many years ago and found the rangefinder optics so precise I did not need to go past the optimum point and back again even once, the first time I had used it. That's how good it was. No SLR or DSLR is as good as that. No doubt the later M series are the same. When Leica gets it right no need for frequent new models.

I always choose where to focus manually and use focus and hold, with focus disabled on the shutter release. That also means I can keep the setting across frames without refocusing for a burst. Admittedly for moving subjects, there is something to be said for auto focus and tracking but, apart from that, I prefer my judgement rather than a program choice I have less control of.

Likewise with exposure, I use AE hold, again across frames when I want. I take a spot reading at the centre focus point and base it on a mid tone.

In essence I am using auto to set focus and exposure manually, but then I started 64 years ago, so I know what I am doing.

Touché

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)

I tried an M3 in a shop many years ago and found the rangefinder optics so precise I did not need to go past the optimum point and back again even once, the first time I had used it. That's how good it was. No SLR or DSLR is as good as that. No doubt the later M series are the same. When Leica gets it right no need for frequent new models.

I always choose where to focus manually and use focus and hold, with focus disabled on the shutter release. That also means I can keep the setting across frames without refocusing for a burst. Admittedly for moving subjects, there is something to be said for auto focus and tracking but, apart from that, I prefer my judgement rather than a program choice I have less control of.

Likewise with exposure, I use AE hold, again across frames when I want. I take a spot reading at the centre focus point and base it on a mid tone.

In essence I am using auto to set focus and exposure manually, but then I started 64 years ago, so I know what I am doing.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 15:41 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
Total: 379, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »