larrytusaz

larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, United States
Works as a Database Design
Has a website at http://bit.ly/1DT7VSN
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Sony NEX-6
16-50PZ
50mm 1.8 OSS

Nikon 1 J1, 10-30VR

Comments

Total: 389, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mendocino Steve: Thanks from me (but not my gear budget, sigh...) for the answers RE: the level gauge.

And to all who are complaining about the lack of lenses, do check out the Sigma f2.8 E-Mount primes. They are inexpensive and stellar performers. The results I'm getting with the 30mm on an A6000 are incredible.

Agreed. The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is fantastic. I had one with my NEX-C3 in early 2013, like a dummy I sold it in late 2014 after getting the Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS. The price went UP in the meanwhile. However last week I spotted one for $110 and grabbed it. I'm using it on my A6000 now, and man oh man the detail. It's smaller and lighter than the 50mm too (I will be keeping both, sometimes the 50mm is worth the extra weight and size).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: To each his/her own, but if I had the $ for something like this or a Nikon D5, I'd buy it for the photos. Who cares what its video modes offer? It's not a camcorder. (I know, I'm drudging up an old Nikon D90 2008 era argument, but it's still my opinion to this day.) Why should a photographer be aggravated to produce video if it's not their forte? Let them be PHOTOGRAPHERS, period.

That aside, this certainly looks impressive overall, but again they still haven't yet figured out how to get AF sensors to cover the ENTIRE screen vs being all clustered in the center. I'm used to how on my Sony A6000 I can have it focus just about anywhere on the screen I want to. This is a multi-thousand dollar camera, for Pete's sake.

If that's really the case anymore, that's messed up. I know that when I hire an electrician, I don't expect him to know plumbing, or vice versa. A photographer shouldn't have to do video as well if that's not his or her thing. I don't know why photographers are now expected to be videographers, we should let them be pictures takers exclusively (and let videographers be videographers exclusively) vs all of this "convergence" nonsense. Oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:25 UTC

I'm relieved to see this. I love my A6000, but the lack of any E-mount updates while they were going nuts with the FE system had me worried their E mount system was about to go the way of Samsung.

Silent shooting is especially good to see also. Also, autofocusing to the edges of the frame? You're darned right. Why DSLRs can't be made this way is beyond me, it's ridiculous the way they're made as if all composition happens (or is meant to happen) solely in the center.

Does anyone know if this regains the level gauge? I miss that from my previous NEX-6. Update: it does. Major "yah!"

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:23 UTC as 172nd comment | 2 replies
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (95 comments in total)

To each his/her own, but if I had the $ for something like this or a Nikon D5, I'd buy it for the photos. Who cares what its video modes offer? It's not a camcorder. (I know, I'm drudging up an old Nikon D90 2008 era argument, but it's still my opinion to this day.) Why should a photographer be aggravated to produce video if it's not their forte? Let them be PHOTOGRAPHERS, period.

That aside, this certainly looks impressive overall, but again they still haven't yet figured out how to get AF sensors to cover the ENTIRE screen vs being all clustered in the center. I'm used to how on my Sony A6000 I can have it focus just about anywhere on the screen I want to. This is a multi-thousand dollar camera, for Pete's sake.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 3rd comment | 4 replies
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (396 comments in total)

Regarding the tool one uses to accomplish something, looks shouldn't matter so much. It's not a woman in a bikini.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 01:32 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies

I like Olympus, they got me away from D-SLRs and into the whole mirrorless thing with their E-PL1 (go ahead, laugh), and their JPEG engine is fantastic, but they lost me when I kept encountering shutter shock vibration (much of it courtesy of the original 14-42 having "lens wobble," but my E-PM1 had it too). Since going Sony E-mount (NEX-C3, 3n, NEX-6, A6000), I've never had a tad of it since.

Even if this doesn't have that issue, you can't help but notice the excellent A6000 selling for much less. And yes, I know one can nit-pick things to death, but what's with the front dial being mapped to ART settings? It would make much more sense for it to be user-customized. I think user settings banks would be good--have custom settings (AF-area, drive, quality, exposure mode, 2-second delay off/on) for portrait, landscape, action, "handing the camera to a point & clicker" etc. Simply select the "profile" in an instant. I'll select my "look" in Lightroom, thank you very much.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 17:42 UTC as 96th comment
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: I think that D5000 is far more important to Nikon than D5. A great mid level cam, a cam evangelist of Nikon spirit and a great investment for the future.

I assume you meant the D500 (hundred), not D5000 (thousand), which came out in 2009 and was based on the D300 technology. Where have you been the past 7 years? Ha ha.(It was a fine camera though, would make a great "everyday beater" model you don't much worry about.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 14:20 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

Are they serious? This is ridiculous.

Super 8 image quality is awful. Heck, as much as I deride SERIOUS photographers using their phones for "photography," my Moto G 2015 would shoot WAY better video than this, at 1 millionth of the cost and hassle--and it's as much "you press the button [tap the screen] we do the rest" as it gets. Why would any rational person EVER want to do this?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 19:20 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: the awkward moment when Nikon rep was asked about mirrorless cameras

I agree. I left Nikon largely because of what Sony NEX/E-mount can give you. The NEX-6 gave you D7000 image quality in a much smaller package, the A6000 gives you D7200 image quality in a much smaller package--AND they're improving AF and EVF "lag" etc all the time. The EVF shows a "real time preview" of what will result, even as you apply WB and exposure compensation. You get tons of AF sensors that DSLRs don't provide unless you get a top level model.

Then there's absolute focusing accuracy. Especially as sensors now have 24mp sensors, well I found the D5300 I briefly tried out was HARD to achieve sharp focus with, and I mean HARD. I upgraded my NEX-6 to the A6000, focus is always dead to rights. Electronic first curtain shutter means no "shutter shock." Meanwhile look at what Sony is doing via the A7r II.

I'm not saying DSLRs aren't great, but Nikon is pretty much dismissing mirrorless, and they shouldn't.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

scottcraig: Newer generation prefer to opt for the easier way of doing things which accounts for many people turning to their smart phones to take pictures. That said while there are some devices which can produce bitingly sharp photos, a true photographer takes pride in his or her technique to achieve their desired result. Everyone wants to be a photographer but few want to do the hard work.

Exactly, and it's ridiculous. If the principle was "everyone wants to take photos, but not everyone wants to be a photographer, they're ok with snapshots," that would be ok. But when they want to be PHOTOGRAPHERS yet not do any of the work, yes that's ridiculous. It's like saying "I want to make food just like the chefs do, but I don't want to have to learn all of their techniques or use more than my microwave." That's just plain lazy.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The one poster at that page (Andrew Freeman) is spot on. It's laziness, and people not appreciating fine craftsmanship.

WHO CARES if a Kodak Instamatic soccer mom finds a camera like my Sony A6000 "complex?" WHO CARES if they don't know what all the buttons are for? I do. Let them have their smartphones or Kodaks, but cameras like the A6000 aren't meant for them. They're meant for people who know what they're doing.

It's like the one person said, people are getting lazy with everything. You see it in grammar too, people mixing up your vs you're and it's vs its, and them saying "who cares, it doesn't matter" when you point out the proper spelling etc. That's lazy. It DOES matter. Get it right.

"The best camera is what's with you"--more excuses. Pop a Sigma 30mm 2.8 on my A5000 and it's tiny. They also make the Sony RX series, and they can upload to a smartphone for instant sharing. Soccer moms are one thing, but REAL photographers take a REAL camera with them. To not do so is lazy.

It's not a stretch, they ARE lazy in that they don't care about quality. Quality matters, one need only have the decency and taste to appreciate it. Yes, I will admit it and I am not ashamed--I do tend to think "those 20 people are stupid, whereas I'm smart" or at least I'm more serious about it anyway. Why should my excellence have to be dumbed down on account of their apathy? Why should their habits subsidize mine? I don't see chefs worrying about what McDonald's is doing. If we are having to worry, then that is what needs to change, and without a Sony A6000 suddenly costing $5000 or whatever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The one poster at that page (Andrew Freeman) is spot on. It's laziness, and people not appreciating fine craftsmanship.

WHO CARES if a Kodak Instamatic soccer mom finds a camera like my Sony A6000 "complex?" WHO CARES if they don't know what all the buttons are for? I do. Let them have their smartphones or Kodaks, but cameras like the A6000 aren't meant for them. They're meant for people who know what they're doing.

It's like the one person said, people are getting lazy with everything. You see it in grammar too, people mixing up your vs you're and it's vs its, and them saying "who cares, it doesn't matter" when you point out the proper spelling etc. That's lazy. It DOES matter. Get it right.

"The best camera is what's with you"--more excuses. Pop a Sigma 30mm 2.8 on my A5000 and it's tiny. They also make the Sony RX series, and they can upload to a smartphone for instant sharing. Soccer moms are one thing, but REAL photographers take a REAL camera with them. To not do so is lazy.

Nope, don't care. Do you think painters care what is going on in the Crayon business? Do you think fine chefs care how McDonald's is doing?

Then I don't care what snapshooters like. They have their tool. I don't buy a Kodak griping about its limitations, so snapshooters have no business griping that a Sony A6000 is too complex for them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The one poster at that page (Andrew Freeman) is spot on. It's laziness, and people not appreciating fine craftsmanship.

WHO CARES if a Kodak Instamatic soccer mom finds a camera like my Sony A6000 "complex?" WHO CARES if they don't know what all the buttons are for? I do. Let them have their smartphones or Kodaks, but cameras like the A6000 aren't meant for them. They're meant for people who know what they're doing.

It's like the one person said, people are getting lazy with everything. You see it in grammar too, people mixing up your vs you're and it's vs its, and them saying "who cares, it doesn't matter" when you point out the proper spelling etc. That's lazy. It DOES matter. Get it right.

"The best camera is what's with you"--more excuses. Pop a Sigma 30mm 2.8 on my A5000 and it's tiny. They also make the Sony RX series, and they can upload to a smartphone for instant sharing. Soccer moms are one thing, but REAL photographers take a REAL camera with them. To not do so is lazy.

You didn't read, I said that for a soccer mom type that's one thing, but for someone to call themselves a "photographer" and find carrying an A5000/Sigma 30mm or Sony RX to be too much, that's lazy.

I DON'T CARE about the "vast majority of people," I'm not them. The vast majority of people would be satisfied playing basketball with $20 shoes from PayLess, but I doubt LeBron James would be.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 18:05 UTC

The one poster at that page (Andrew Freeman) is spot on. It's laziness, and people not appreciating fine craftsmanship.

WHO CARES if a Kodak Instamatic soccer mom finds a camera like my Sony A6000 "complex?" WHO CARES if they don't know what all the buttons are for? I do. Let them have their smartphones or Kodaks, but cameras like the A6000 aren't meant for them. They're meant for people who know what they're doing.

It's like the one person said, people are getting lazy with everything. You see it in grammar too, people mixing up your vs you're and it's vs its, and them saying "who cares, it doesn't matter" when you point out the proper spelling etc. That's lazy. It DOES matter. Get it right.

"The best camera is what's with you"--more excuses. Pop a Sigma 30mm 2.8 on my A5000 and it's tiny. They also make the Sony RX series, and they can upload to a smartphone for instant sharing. Soccer moms are one thing, but REAL photographers take a REAL camera with them. To not do so is lazy.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 17:11 UTC as 179th comment | 10 replies
On article Palm-sized: Hands-on with new Fujifilm X-T10 (91 comments in total)

Why is everyone posting about what the camera looks like? WHO CARES? It's a camera, not a woman in a bikini. If it takes good photos and is ergonomically sound, who cares what it looks like?

I practice what I preach too--I recently picked up a red (yes, red) Nikon D5300, it being red isn't my thing, but I got it for cheap (only $120 more than what I got from selling my Nikon D5000 which is 3 generations older) and its sensor is great. With the good photos I've been getting from it, I forget about the ugly red body real quick.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2015 at 14:27 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On Connect post DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I picked up a Nikon D5000/18-55mm kit for only $175 around two weeks ago, it even included a portrait grip, 2 spare batteries, a Toshiba case and a 4G card. It would totally blast any of these to pieces. Yes it's large--so? When you care about quality, you only use the good stuff, not the stuff the Kodak/Polaroid crowd is using. Besides, if you can't deal with an SLR, there's always a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100, or the Sony NEX-6 which I also have and which, with Wi-Fi, can beam your images to a device for instant sharing, if that really matters so much.

No, but you can stick a RX100 or LX100 into one.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 05:46 UTC
On Connect post DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I picked up a Nikon D5000/18-55mm kit for only $175 around two weeks ago, it even included a portrait grip, 2 spare batteries, a Toshiba case and a 4G card. It would totally blast any of these to pieces. Yes it's large--so? When you care about quality, you only use the good stuff, not the stuff the Kodak/Polaroid crowd is using. Besides, if you can't deal with an SLR, there's always a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100, or the Sony NEX-6 which I also have and which, with Wi-Fi, can beam your images to a device for instant sharing, if that really matters so much.

It would seem to me that it would be a good thing for one to recognize an SLR's superior image quality and possess the dedication to almost always have it on them, or at least an RX100 type of camera.

Certainly these are plenty for the selfie crowd, absolutely, but for an aspiring hobbyist, you get the good stuff and make sure to have it with you.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 01:03 UTC
On Connect post DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I picked up a Nikon D5000/18-55mm kit for only $175 around two weeks ago, it even included a portrait grip, 2 spare batteries, a Toshiba case and a 4G card. It would totally blast any of these to pieces. Yes it's large--so? When you care about quality, you only use the good stuff, not the stuff the Kodak/Polaroid crowd is using. Besides, if you can't deal with an SLR, there's always a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100, or the Sony NEX-6 which I also have and which, with Wi-Fi, can beam your images to a device for instant sharing, if that really matters so much.

Exactly (brownie314). I'm well aware of what other things smartphones can do, I have a 6" one in fact. However I still take a camera of some sort with me practically always because its image quality is superior. Instant uploading won't matter when you're looking at them later, whereas the better quality will.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 22:15 UTC
On Connect post DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (368 comments in total)

I picked up a Nikon D5000/18-55mm kit for only $175 around two weeks ago, it even included a portrait grip, 2 spare batteries, a Toshiba case and a 4G card. It would totally blast any of these to pieces. Yes it's large--so? When you care about quality, you only use the good stuff, not the stuff the Kodak/Polaroid crowd is using. Besides, if you can't deal with an SLR, there's always a Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100, or the Sony NEX-6 which I also have and which, with Wi-Fi, can beam your images to a device for instant sharing, if that really matters so much.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 17:39 UTC as 81st comment | 14 replies

McDonald's sells more hamburgers than the local place which makes fresh hamburgers, but that hardly means that McDonald's hamburgers are better. It just means some people are either lazy, in a hurry, or have no taste.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2015 at 07:18 UTC as 68th comment | 4 replies
Total: 389, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »