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: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

cheenachatze: Very impressive output even at ISO3200.
Many here complain about the price. If you compare this camera to an entry level SLR, this one has better build quality and better lens than any kit lens. The price of $800 is right on the mark. Maybe if Canon made this in silver, put a piece of leather on the hand grip and call it "retro", no one would mind paying $1500 for it.

"better lens than any kit lens"

Really? Where did you get that information from?

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 09:47 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

You are the one who is dreaming. I talk only of the lens. The rest of the G1X might be excellent but who cares?

If you set the C-5060 to lower than the default contrast and saturation which, like a lot of cameras are far too high, the results are consistently excellent. No perceptible colour fringing and no blown highlights except in HDR conditions. I have scores of shots with it that prove both. Anyone can look up the reviews and I did and then bought it not for keeps but to see what was possible with digital.

Then I was using film in my Nikon F80. Later, I sold the Olympus to my son at a hefty discount, waited awhile and bought a DSLR, partly because I wanted a far wider angle, wanted to use my three lenses which include a 12-24 mm on APS-C and partly because I wanted the best dynamic range.

People like you are perfect fodder for the manufacturers. New models every few months, unnecessary extra megapixels, progress hugely exaggerated but you fall for it hook, line and sinker.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 08:39 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

Exactly. The Olympus is a few years obsolete, has only 5 mega pixels and a tiny sensor but does much better than this. I have done a 16 x 20 from it which is much sharper than the G1X and is also sharp into the corners.

That's my point, proxy, what's yours?

If the lens in this sample is typical, then it is dreadful, certainly for any camera at this price, even at half the price. I cannot comments on anything else, not have I.

And you, douple. Don't you understand? An 5 mp true compact of 2005 vintage with a better lens than a very new camera with a hugely bigger sensor and costing a lot more. Given that, this comparison makes a great deal of sense.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 07:57 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

TX Photo Doc: I have a G12 that I can easily make nice 16x20 exhibition prints with. Instead of making a G12 with just a bigger sensor, I would have been willing to spend the money for the new camera if there were other improvements over the G12 like a 24mm equiv, as well as f2 at the wide end.

Richie Beans - amazing.

I have three lens on my Nikon D300 - 12-24mm, 24-85mm and 70-300mm. On holiday recently I took 768 shots and 87% were at 24mm or wider. It would be nice to have a smaller lighter camera as an alternative to the Nikon D300 with 12-24 but your stitch-up is not the answer.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:38 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

proxy: Those who waited for a camera like this will buy it in a heartbeat and never look back at current offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and more. This camera was long overdue despite, I know, no 24mm 2.0 lens and OLED EVF... no matter how many more trolls appear here it will sell and sell big. One good camera and no more lens bags... need I say more? at a still reasonable price and very good IQ. Dont forget retractable lens coupled with a sensor just 3.5 mm narrower then APS-C - the last one you need to get from Canon to put it to use. I understand the disappointemt of other brands fans. Yes, they didn't think of it, Canon did. Always wanted my G outfitted with a bigger sensor, just that. My wish was granted. Some of the posters will have to wait for their favourite brands to wake up and even if they do it WILL cost you dearly in lenses and bills for chiropractor services.
So instead of complaining here about Canon go make them deliver what you always wanted (at $150?)

Given what I think (see above) your decision shocks me! Why did you not wait for a proper test? Can you get your DSLR back?

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:28 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)

In two parts:

Part I

We have had bright sunny weather in London for the past few days so I would have expected enough umph at least for the outside shots to draw some conclusions from these samples even before a rigorous test. I decided to home in on wide angle shots and I think they are very disappointing:

Judging from a number, what follows assumes that sharpening has not been applied in camera or if so only very slightly:

1679997 taken at f/4.5 at 15mm (the wide angle)

The top corners are quite sharp and the chromatic aberration is reasonable but the bottom left corner is very unsharp. Not sure if this indicates decentering but the performance a stop down from the maximum is rather poor IMO.

1679548 was taken at f/5.6 and 15mm but it is more even but not especially sharp!

1679995 taken at f/6.3 is uniformly sharp to all the corners so by that aperture the shortcomings of the lens at the widest angle have disappeared.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:17 UTC as 72nd comment
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G1 X samples gallery (425 comments in total)

Part II

1679550 was taken at f/3.5 and even at this large aperture the definition and lack of chromatic aberration to the corners are very good, so it appears that the lens improves a lot increasing the focal length to 19mm.

This is fairly good performance from a compact sensor for a camera at a fairly modest price. The Olympus C-5060 I bought and passed onto my son is better than this and does have a compact camera sized sensor!. If these shots are truly representative then for a frame approaching APS-C and a price of 700 GBP this camera is rubbish.

Also, the DP Review studio test images are very, very poor. There is next to nothing to judge fine detail anywhere, let alone the corners. Why did they not use something similar if not identical to those before? Maybe a commission from Canon?

I look forward to a proper test, of course.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2012 at 06:16 UTC as 73rd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

g7star: I don't get the point. When it's the size of DSLR it should perform like DSLR and do better than smaller ILC options (for the comparable price). Otherwise it's just personal preference on styling and lens choices.

Continuing from immediately above …

Before Leica started marketing relatively for them rubbish compacts made by other companies there was no doubt that a Leica was Leica worthy of the name. Once they started allowing their name to be used in Panasonic Lumix compact zoom lenses, one could not avoid the question which Leica are we talking about and does the original Leica still exist today?

As I said elsewhere a prewar Leica IIIa with an uncoated Elmar was so well made that it held its own even years after the war and against film cameras would still do pretty well today. That's is nothing to do with old technology and heavy metal lens assemblies. It is about three things only - quality, quality and quality.

Today even the best, while they do deliver will be on the scrap heap in at most 10 years time. That is partly because science will have advanced by then but also because profit is the driver not the pursuit of excellence and quality that will still hold its own 30 years hence.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

g7star: I don't get the point. When it's the size of DSLR it should perform like DSLR and do better than smaller ILC options (for the comparable price). Otherwise it's just personal preference on styling and lens choices.

Zvonimir Tosic - What you say is extraordinary.

"Leica's lenses are prehistoric in concept compared to these new Fujis." I do not think anyone takes pictures with concepts. Those Summicron's were superb years ago when they first came onto the market and still are today.

"Leica's M9 is as impressive as an 18th century mechanical clock — a fine example of human engineering in mechanics we can admire, and applaud for its own sake. But far and away from any everyday use for everyday people today." Leicas were not built and hopefully still are not built for everyday people. That's is what made them special. They were made to be the best possible regardless of their affordability. If the Fuji X-Pro 1 were to be that good and long term engineered to last several decades then I would want to applaud them except the fact that they also make cameras for everyday people today would have to leave the doubt are they really good enough still to be around and worth using in 30 years time?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

... continued

The Contaflex was made almost to Leica standards. Included in the price was service which they explained when I carelessly dropped the tele lens onto a wooden floor from chest level and badly dented, causing the cement between some the glasses also to fail but fortunately no actual glass shattering. Returned absolutely perfect, like new for only 5 GBP.

Moreover in the 1950s my father bought and I sometimes borrowed his prewar Leica IIIa with uncoated prewar Elmar 50mm, also postwar 90mm Elmar. That prewar equipment was a match for anything of 1950s or 1960s vintage except another Leica, Contax and one or two other cameras. Even today it would hold its own as regards the quality of the result with film with many of the few contemporary film cameras still made. Only the user interface would be better, not the results.

I had a Tele-Rolleiflex in the 1960s. Beautifully made and beautiful to use. If I were still using film, I would love to have one today.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

FeignPhoto - I should have said this before:

The C-5060 is so good that I was able to print a beautiful shot my son took with it in China to 16 x 20 and you would have to look at it very closely from a few inches away to tell the difference had I taken it with my Nikon D300. That is surprising even for a top quality compact with 5 mb but it does prove that increasing megapixels is used as a marketing ploy by the manufacturers except for those who genuinely need them.

One of the cameras I had in the 1960s was a Contaflex with interchangeable lenses but only that part in front of the iris and Compur shutter. The director of a course I went to at the then famous Ealing Polytechnic said it was impossible to get top quality in a 16 x 20 from 35mm and he was a renowned photographer. He admitted he was wrong when he saw what I was able to achieve with Pan F in Beutler.

Continued...

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 08:43 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

FeignPhoto - answers to both questions yes. Your point about consumer grade cameras is valid but who can afford only flagships cameras. I have one now, the Nikon D300. And the C-5060 was prosumer grade.

Francis Carver - not all old-time cameras were clunkers but your last point is the clincher, isn't it? And you only are repeating what I said where I started!

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

As a smaller, lighter camera the Nikon D5000 with 18-55mm VR at 825g must seem absurd. However, that saves me 678g against my D300 with Sigma 12-24mm. It is the best compromise for a second camera, since I am not prepared to use one where I have doubts the quality is good enough to make fine prints as large as A2.

One magazine described the D5000 as having the best dynamic range of entry level DSLRs. I like HDR lighting in most of my landscapes, so that was a factor. I decided against compacts because their sensors are too small to give good dynamic range and sharpness. Lenses for compacts and mirrorless cameras with interchangeable in APS-C and Four Thirds all have too much distortion, especially in wide angle. I expect the Canon G1 X will too. I shoot RAW and want to have no constraint on which RAW developer I use, so distortion correction would be an issue, probably not for the Fuji X-Pro 1. I also wanted an optical viewfinder but the X-Pro 1 is too expensive as a second camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 22:26 UTC

I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:28 UTC as 16th comment

I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:28 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

In deference to those in this sub-thread, especially Len_Gee I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera. I am not in serious need of another pastime as Len_Gee suggests but I am retired so have much time to waste when I choose.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

(There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time wingeing!)

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:22 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

I whine when there are frequent entries that add little or nothing. I have an RSS feed and I thought it was worth having and that when I was informed there was something here it was not merely the pretence of something. It would make more sense when the updates had enough to add and that another visit was worth making.

Nevertheless, point taken. You are right. What has sense got to do with it? So goodbye.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 03:59 UTC

It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 01:57 UTC as 78th comment | 8 replies
On article Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy (379 comments in total)

What proportion of readers who use Photoshop share my view that upgrades for most people are a waste of money. I was the lucky winner of CS2 for my prowess with Elements 2 where the judge Martin Evening said he could not see any signs of the heavy retouching I had done to remove distracting elements even though I supplied him with a copy of the original. I would not dream of paying the hike for the full software. Of course if you are into graphics rather than photography, it might be a different story.

I have dabbled with trial versions of CS3 and CS4 but did not like them. CS2 has a lean uncluttered interface and I like it that way. Moreover if you are interested in pictures rather than photo technology, does it really matter having the latest version or is it Adobe merely cashing in on acquisitive users? I cannot imagine Claude Monet arguing over which kinds of brush or pigments to use with Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Frédéric Bazilleor, Alfred Sisley or having to keep trying new ones.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 01:21 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

I agree that it does affect the issue but the Olympus lens is superior at any focal length they have in common despite it being recorded with half the pixels.

Further to my original comments and Zvonimir Tosic disagreeing with me, look at the price of the Canon PowerShot G1 X, which I expect to be good. However, it does not even have interchangeable lens and how many full months earnings leaving nothing behind to get for most people?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 00:57 UTC
Total: 177, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »