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: 282, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

IvanM, even now that I have seen the article, I have not changed my mind, the reason being that we are presented there only with tables and numbers. I am not disputing the information, merely saying that it is only part of the story. For that reason I do not accept that "you will see even the worst lenses at the worst apertures show[ing] an improvement".

The subjective impression of image quality partly depends upon the subjective impression of the overall level and how even it appears across the frame. From the examples in the article, it is to be noted that some lenses show more disparity with higher resolution sensors, maybe because sensors near the edge of the frame are affected by the angle of incidence. So you have to take each lens case by case, but my proposition is that lower but more even resolution sometimes will look better.

More pixels have their merits, especially to manufacturers who make a fortune by some people trading up for all the wrong reasons.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Have a look at page 11 of this review, download the tulips and see the dreadful grain even when viewed at 25%. I would not use this camera even if it was given to me free to get results like that. At 100 ISO this is attrocious in a camera at any price. This is the kind of thing I judge by. They say a picture is worth a thousand words - not this one.

IvanM "Even the worst lenses at the worst apertures show an improvement" Pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Cannot find anything at lensrentals. Are you pointing me towards tables and numbers, a verbal opinion or images?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 16:54 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

"The fall off would be more obvious at pixel-level, but not at the image-level like I said." No. How can you say that? At the image level, the deficiency would also show up - not always, but often.

Let's just agree to disagree. Not that I am accusing you, but what digital technology has done IMO is largely counter productive. Judging from what some people write in these forums, too many people are chasing technical progress rather than pictures and spending a lot of money with nothing to show for it unless they keep their equipment in the trophy cabinet.

I have a few full frame pictures I took and still rate from my F80 with the Sigma 12-24 that are perfectly sharp enough and as I am not a professional would see no point in upgrading even if I was loaded. That would not be true for everyone, of course. Depends upon whether you want to take pictures of a black cat in darkness! But with these Canons you'd get very sharp images and poor shadows. The shot of those tulips shows just that.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 16:11 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

We crossed while I edited to add my last paragraph.

" So where is the drawback image quality wise?" As I said just there.

That is precisely the reason I am not upgrading from the D300. I happen only to shoot in good light and at low ISO. If not for that, the limitations of my equipment would be an issue but even in A2 prints for my kind of photography the results are fine - not as sharp as now is possible, but I do not want that as it can destroy the mood, does not always enhance it. On film, I used to use prime lenses but gave them up in favour of zooms for that reason. Few lenses other than genuine Leicas are both very sharp and very smooth. That also could be an issue on the more expensive digital equipment.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:43 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Still think you are wrong, sometimes. If the lens is sharper than your camera is capable of capturing it may originally look sharp across the frame only for this no longer to be so. However, when the edges are not far behind the centre, then and only then you may be right.

If there are aberrations, the result may only be to have them show where originally they were not enough to matter.

You cannot judge these things properly by reading numbers from a table, so give DxO a rest. The figures there may be correct, but the impact they have visually is hard to ascertain.

Not quite the same, but my Sigma 12-24mm central performance is better on my Nikon D300 than on the F80 film camera I had before, because the camera resolution is higher. If I put that lens on a Nikon D750, it is possible that the centre would be sharper still (not necessarily) but the fall off at the edges on full frame would be more obvious than it was on the F80 and so more of issue. Similarly, with these Canons.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

I do not think this is right. The lenses perform the same but, unless they are stellar performers, their limitations are liable to be visible. Only if the lens performance exceeds what an inferior camera is capable of showing, can it possibly look better, and not necessarily even then.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
On article In Fine Detail: Canon EOS 5DS / 5DS R In-Depth Review (746 comments in total)

With cameras like these new Canons are not most people well past the point of diminishing returns? Unless one already has an expensive investment in Canon lenses of the very highest quality, why would one want to fork out the very high asking prices only to improve on certain aspects while going backwards on others? Just because there are more expensive models, that does not mean you are better off by getting them.

I, for one, would not be at all satisfied to have less than leading edge dynamic range when the Nikon D750 provides it for about half the price. I would also be worried, unless I replaced all my lenses and bought only those of professional quality, huge bulk and weight and with the very best specs going. Otherwise, surely, all I would succeed in doing is showing up their weaker points?

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 04:58 UTC as 81st comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

mrgooch2008: Why would large format be a necessary requirement in this day and age?

Yes, @shigzeo, you are quite right, except that a scanner for large film sizes would be very expensive, those that exist. I used to scan from 35mm in my latter days with film. Maybe I should go back to monochrome with film cameras. When I see pictures like this magnificent one http://www.clydebutcher.com/image/50 by Clyde Butcher it brings back memories of those days.

I have had quite a few cameras over many years. One I bought was a 1/4 plate Sanderson, an antique wooden camera, in beautiful condition. Kodak could not supply the lens I wanted but I jumped when they offered instead a new but obsolete 207mm F7.7 Ektar for 5 GBP in the 1960s. Wish I had kept all that and my Tele-Rollei.

You have quite an outfit, I think of it I'd choose the Leica over the others but I would also need the 16-18-21mm f/4 Tri-Elmar as I specialise in landscapes. Not up to Clyde Butler's standard yet, but give me another 30 years if I reach 101.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:57 UTC

Re my post below, though a bit at at a tangent:

Have a look at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-load-of-cobblers.html for the history of this expression.

It is something I am familiar with but not the origin. Hope it's true.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:35 UTC as 10th comment

Load of cobblers. (UK expression.)

I agree with mailman88, but not Michael Ma, both some way below.

Clyde Butcher's work is similar in style, comparable in standard to Ansel Adams and I sent CB a message on his website in case he'd like to know about it.

I doubt it though. Why would one with that kind of ability want to be on another's payroll? Its a bit like Groucho Marx's comment in reverse, where he said he'd like to join a gentleman's club but any worth joining would not have him.

Such a talent is bound to think any post on offer to him is not worth having. Had it been a long term assignment, concurrent with his other work rather than a full time job, that would be another matter.

I am sure Mr Butcher and others of similar ability are happier and more successful without being told what equipment they have to use, etc.

This vacancy will not be filled by anyone who aspires to be the next Ansel Adams, only someone that the US National Park Service, at worst, kid themselves is.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rob Bernhard: I immediately thought of the wonderful work QT Luong has done already in all the US National Parks, with a large format camera no less.

http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/

Some quite good but a mixed bag. Not on par with AA by a long way. Have a look at mailman88's message below, then visit Clyde Butcher's web site. That's a completely different kettle o fish.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

mrgooch2008: Why would large format be a necessary requirement in this day and age?

And, shigzeo, there are so many creative things you can EASILY do with digital, like enhance or change a sky or remove a lamppost growing out of someone's head. It can be done with film but is slow, difficult and a real pain.

The one thing I did like with film, especially larger formats, was that there was no temptation to press the shutter release like you were using a machine gun. Even with digital, I still take very few shots and know exactly what I have in mind in the result when I shoot. But I am sure the majority of photographers these days take a different approach.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: By stipulating the carrying of large format equipment into rugged areas it ensures that users of mirrorless cameras will not apply.

AEndrs "I would say that ALL large format cameras are mirrorless."

Not so, I saw some wonderful, top quality air to air photographs of combat aircraft from WW2 take with a single lens reflex quarter plate camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:39 UTC

As an amateur my speciality is landscapes and, while I admire the work of Ansel Adams, my successes are not as good as his, but have a look at my gallery or web site and disagree if you like.

This vacancy led me to contemplate applying for American citizenship. No doubt all that would be needed to get that done fast enough for the deadline would be a call to Donald Trump. After all, he seems to think anything is possible for him, including the presidency. Just have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003 to see what us Brits think of him, so far 444,014 in two days declaring their views there and the number continuing to rise very fast.

However, I am put off by having to use large format and film. Surely the end results are what count, not how you make them? I only gave up film because scarce supplies of the chemicals I wanted in amateur sized kits became unobtainable here and professional processing of my film was increasingly poor quality. So no going back.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:21 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (276 comments in total)

I was considering the Sony Alpha a6000 rather than the a5100, as I want a smaller, lighter alternative to my DSLR outfit but one with a viewfinder and not too expensive. My idea was to have that to use with something like the Samyang 12mm or 14mm to take landscapes on long walks where I wanted to avoid being overly laden.

I came across the fact that in the UK until 5th December you can get £100 cashback on the a6000, so thought I had better quickly look more closely into it. I do not like an EVF instead of an OVF but would be prepared to consider it, provided the rather low pixel count on this camera had no obvious adverse consequences. But I also want to be able to bracket exposures conveniently, so I thought the place to start was with the user manual, two versions of which I downloaded.

All I found was 38 pages of motherhood, no detail whatsoever. What a load of rubbish. If that had been a Quick Start Guide, fair enough, but that is all I found. So much for Sony and their support.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 11:40 UTC as 9th comment
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)
In reply to:

plasnu: The worst disappointment about mirrorless cameras having been evolved last 5 years is the LENS SIZE. The lenses ended to be so much larger than what I expected.

Even without this new technology, there is no good reason why so many lenses are so big and heavy. I hope you are right, riman and that a big step forward is around the corner. Even if it happens, no doubt it will not be for a while. And, even so, lens and cameras today rely upon software so much that I suspect they will continue to cut corners and that the new technology will not be allowed to reach its full potential.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 22:15 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: "No compromises in optical quality." Now there is a joke. Almost all mirrorless lenses rely upon software to correct distortion. That obstructs use of my chosen RAW developer for HDR.

For me the main issue with mirrorless is the viewfinder. An LCD is hopeless in bright light, not that good in any light. Also, it is much easier to hold a camera steady against your forehead. I would be happy with an Albalda optical viewfinder of Leica M quality especially if covered 21mm or wider on full frame or 14mm on APS-C.

My first camera is an APS-C DSLR and the second Olympus Micro Four Thirds. The VF-4 EVF for the latter is not bad but does not compare with an optical viewfinder. Against the light if the sun is nearby is a problem. The Fuji X is a nice camera but the EVF on it is dreadful, flat and I find very distracting. I have not bothered to look at anything else but initial comments on the Leica SL suggest it might be better. But look at the weight of it, let alone the price. Crazy.

I suppose that some people prefer LCDs; heavens knows why when the image is too small to see more than a general indication of the contents. Can you, for example, take a picture of people and see if their eyes are momentarily closed or if they are frowning or looking away from the camera? Definitely not, unless you look at them directly and do not worry about accurate framing.

The camera owners may have no difficulty holding the camera still while away from their body if rigor mortis already has set in, but otherwise it is not that easy.

Seeing an LCD sharply is not a problem because of one's vision. If you need glasses to see up close, most people wear them (unless they are vain) all the time as I do so they do not need to keep taking them off and on again, not just for using LCDs. This is not an issue and suggesting it is is complete nonsense.

Also, no LCD coating is ever going to be sufficient to prevent the glare of the sun making them unusable in bright lighting conditions.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 08:21 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

T3 and Perl, you are clutching at straws. Unless you are trying to capture a black cat at night when there is no moon, the low light ability of an EVF is not needed and the full tonal range of an OVF is preferable, Yes, with my VF-4 there is the advantage that it can tilt up for when I am looking down and for clos-ups that is useful for those into macro.

As far as the size of the viewfinder image one sees, this is a choice the manufacturer makes and not limited to one or the other type of format or whether EVF or OVF. Whether it is 0.7x or x1.0 or whatever does not affect their usability in the slightest and is hardly more important than whether the camera body is black or silver.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 07:57 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

T3, I agree that often a decent EVF is fine. I have the Olympus VF-4 on my second camera, but I mostly like to shoot landscapes into the sun and then they are seriously challenged. Do you not agree with that?

I found the Fuji X EVF especially poor in that situation, otherwise I might have bought one to have a small top quality camera with primes that generally are like they used to be.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 18:40 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (744 comments in total)

Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 17:51 UTC as 44th comment | 8 replies
Total: 282, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »