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: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

Yes, different people draw the line at different places. That's because some people clearly have no sense of taste. You can say you like Kool-Aid better than real grape juice--you have that right, but I still say it's poor taste. Someone calling themselves a "photographer" but using a fruit phone's camera by choice--same thing, as is a newspaper firing photographers who actually know what they're doing, not that it would be the first time a business took the cheap way out & excellence suffered because of it.

Like I said, if it were up to me--it isn't, but regardless--professional photography would be a licensed endeavor, just like being a doctor or attorney is. It would be REQUIRED by the licensing committee that you NEVER use a camera phone for any shoots. Break this requirement--wham, your license to practice pro photography is revoked. Pro photography is supposed to be a totally separate world from the world of teeny-boppers taking selfies with a Polaroid-quality toy. Please.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

One may say it's "apples and oranges," but I don't see a legion of golfers practicing their craft with broomsticks, or even "laymen" grade golf clubs. They want the BEST for what they do, because in being the best you not only have to have the best skill, but it's only natural to want the best equipment as your toolkit.

The same goes with basketball players and the shoes they wear, baseball players and what sorts of bats and gloves they purchase, cyclists and the bicycles they acquire, and you sure as heck don't see someone participating on the racetrack using a "stock" Toyota Prius.

The same goes here. You want to call yourself the best, USE the best tool available for the job. OK, I can understand not toting a 4x6 view camera everywhere, or using a Nikon D3300 instead of a D4s, or heck, using an RX100 instead of an A7, but come on, you've got to draw the line somewhere.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 14:16 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

I agree with IcyPepsi. No phone can replace an SLR or mirrorless etc for people who actually CARE. Show up for my daughter's wedding using a smartphone as a camera while calling yourself a professional and I will personally throw you out on your butt.

Yes smartphones have replaced the Powershots and Cybershots of the world, yes, but we're talking about Polaroid and Instamatic types for the masses who think Spaghettios is the same thing as real spaghetti served in a bistro. That's fine if that's all you want, but enthusiasts are supposed to strive for excellence.

In fact, I think pro photography should be licensed & usage of a real camera should be one of the stipulations for being able to practice your craft professionally. Use a phone--license revoked. I'm totally serious.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 16:36 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

Real photographer s know lighting & such of course, but they ALSO use a camera commensurate with their aspirations. Just like people who aspire to be something of a golf enthusiast don't use broomsticks on the golf course, or people who have baseball aspirations try to get a quality bat and baseball glove etc even though they COULD just use a stick, the same goes here.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 01:43 UTC
On Sony a6000 Review preview (748 comments in total)

An otherwise fantastic and top-level camera ruined, for me, by the removal of the electronic level gauge. I use this a LOT on my NEX-6 and would not want to give that up.

Yes, I have spirit levels I could use, but then, it's much easier to simply call up the electronic one vs fussing with a slide-one or screw-on, as I had to on my NEX-3n (but you expect it on such an entry-level model). Also, you can't see attached ones while using the EVF--and once you start using an EVF on the better models vs having to use the LCD, you don't want to go back.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 17:02 UTC as 7th comment
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

(Jogger) Thank you. That is what REAL photographers do--they always have some sort of REAL camera with them, and by "real" camera I don't mean the 2014 equivalent of a Polaroid SX-70 or Kodak Instamatic. I mean a REAL camera, the 2014 equivalent of a Pentax K1000 and 50mm prime or the 35mm rangerfinders of yore.

It's pathetic that people whine about having to "lug" a camera around, when we have cameras like the RX100. If you fancy yourself a photographer, you DO it, no whining, period, especially with models like the RX100 available. I can see the "selfie" crowd using a smartphone for taking photos of their coffee-sipping and club-hopping exploits, but real photographers using one for their artistic exploits--give me a break.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
On Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review post (170 comments in total)

No thank you. I have an NEX-6 that would just smoke this thing (and via Wi-Fi can still share quickly), and if I needed something really small I could always get an RX100. These sorts of cameras remind me of the junky Polaroid SX-70 candy cameras of yesteryear, I didn't care for those either.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 13:23 UTC as 17th comment | 20 replies
On Readers' Showcase: Documentary and Street photography article (112 comments in total)

When they say "click through," they mean it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 16:25 UTC as 27th comment

Such is why I ultimately went with Sony E-mount.

Again, next, next, next, ne....--ugh, thank goodness for mobile view. Because (click) it's (next) nice (next) to (next).read (next) more (next) than (next) one (next) word (next) at (next) the (next) time.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 12:57 UTC as 30th comment

(1) I like cycling as well, it's greatly adventurous. My Sony E mount is perfect for that. This guy taking his Nikon FX--right on.

(2) Thank goodness it wasn't another iPhone promotion.

(3) View it on mobile, otherwise--once again (sigh), next, next, next, next, ne......

(If I were King for a day, I'd eliminate that design throughout the entire WWW everywhere.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 16:08 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Again with the "slideshow" design with numerous "next, next, next, next, n..." clicks required, except on the mobile version of the page. One page would be better--and no, I don't care that advertisers want that design. Make it one page ANYWAY--and yes, I ask for it WITHOUT offering to pay for it. Do it ANYWAY.

Yes, I sure don't like it, and tact aside, it's the truth. We do enough "sugar coating" things, I find bluntness refreshing sometimes.

In other words--look, I get that advertisers pay the bills, but I'm tired of their interests always being catered to almost exclusively, almost to the point of cow-towing, and then we readers, who are the ultimate targets I would imagine (else we'd be seeing ads for tampons and football jerseys), are told "pay or zip it." It's an awful format and the most excellent format for reading should be the priority. It's fine that we have to acknowledge who pays the bills to a reasonable extent, but when it's taken this far, it smacks of things like advertisers plastering their logos all over every place they can find such as basketball floors or the backs of people's heads or the like.

Besides, you still end up with this even when you do pay for it, like the locked-in previews on DVDs & even Netflix has advertising, and these are things you PAY for.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 02:53 UTC

Again with the "slideshow" design with numerous "next, next, next, next, n..." clicks required, except on the mobile version of the page. One page would be better--and no, I don't care that advertisers want that design. Make it one page ANYWAY--and yes, I ask for it WITHOUT offering to pay for it. Do it ANYWAY.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 23:47 UTC as 91st comment | 10 replies
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

Yes, not pros, or not acting like pros, if they use a phone. Simple as that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:44 UTC
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

We are all nobodies really, so what. I have my opinion, you have your opinion. As stupid as I think that opinion is, you have as much right to recite your stupid opinion as I do my smart opinion.

I stand by what I said, and will keep on saying it as long as is necessary. To wit: if you call yourself a photographer, you use a REAL camera, just as a real golfer uses real golf clubs and you don't see professional swimmers practicing in Intex pools, even though they could outdo us even if they did. It's ridiculous and downright mentally insane. I don't care what your results are, you use a PHONE or a Holga or whatever when you have better equipment available, especially with small tools like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony RX100, you're a pathetic excuse of a photographer and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

I'm a person with a BRAIN and taste, frankly. You don't have to, say, be a chef to know that someone who fancies themselves a chef and attends culinary arts school but serves Chef Boyardee as an example of their "work" is a total joke. Do you see Tiger Woods playing golf with broomsticks? Do I have to be Tiger Woods to know how silly that would be?

I learned how to work a 35mm SLR in the 80s when I was a teenager, without the benefit of anyone's help or Internet forums etc. I used to have a Kodak but it took no time to realize that if I wanted to be taken seriously even as a hobbyist that wasn't going to cut it. This sort of thing is a mockery of the pursuit of excellence and taste.

Now we have digital, no more constraints of film etc, and models like the Sony RX100 and Olympus E-PM2 giving you tremendous abilities in light packages, if portability is a concern. If toting something like that is too much of a burden, who should take such a person seriously? They're a stain on the art.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 16:27 UTC
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

I am glad that "stock" photo agencies have those requirements, if they still do. If they've changed that, they should be forced out of business. People who call themselves "photographers" should be MADE to use a real camera, even if just a Sony RX100 or Olympus E-PM2, or else be MADE to shut down. Period.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)

Are you kidding me? You are taking a trip to another country, with all of the photographic opportunities that presents, and you use a PHONE? What next, a Casio Swatch Watch? Be real. Okay, a Canon 1DX and L glass perhaps would've been a bit heavy to lug everywhere, but would using something like an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony A6000 have killed you?

It should be REQUIRED by a licensed photography governing body that if you call yourself a professional photographer, you MUST use a real camera for every single professional pursuit you engage in and publicize as part of your "brand," or your license to practice photography professionally will be revoked. This is a bunch of nonsense, and people like that should be MADE--yes, MADE--to do otherwise, or run out of town on a rail.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 15:00 UTC as 55th comment | 11 replies

That's like giving Kool-Aid the option to come already poured into crystal champagne glasses.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 03:47 UTC as 13th comment
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1550 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why does anybody care about the video specifications of this high-grade stills camera? If I had $3000 to drop on this I'd do so for the amazing pictures it can take, not the Vimeo or YouTube clips it can record. It's an SLR, not a camcorder.

I still say SLRs are NOT meant for video, I don't care if 10,000,000 other people say otherwise, I alone am right and they are all wrong. If they want video so bad let them buy a RED or the like. Show some respect for tradition.

In fact I place this as an item on my "if I were king for a day" list. To wit: if I were, I would FORCE the manufacturers of SLRs to no longer allow video, a la the Nikon Df, even if it meant doing so via legislative fiat. Maybe "the horse is already out of the barn," well then maybe the horse should be shot. You want a video camera, GET a video camera, quit corrupting SLRs with YouTube modes they were never meant to utilize.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1550 comments in total)

Why does anybody care about the video specifications of this high-grade stills camera? If I had $3000 to drop on this I'd do so for the amazing pictures it can take, not the Vimeo or YouTube clips it can record. It's an SLR, not a camcorder.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:42 UTC as 268th comment | 13 replies
Total: 387, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »