larrytusaz

larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Works as a Database Design
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Nikon D40 (6-2007), D200 (3-2009)
Nikon 18-55mm DX AF-S
Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF non D
Soligor pre-AI 135mm f/2.8 (11-2007)
52mm & 62mm Circular Polarizers (2004 & 2005)
72mm Polarizer (5-2008)
ML-L3 remote (11-2007)
WT(re)B: D40x

Comments

Total: 377, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

(petermod) If that person is skilled as you say, that's not the camera's doing, you are right. However, they will then acquire gear that helps them make it happen. Face it--if you want a portrait shot with a blurry background, a phone will not produce that for you the way an SLR and a quality prime shot at f/2 will.

"When was the last time you checked a photo's sharpness"--ALL the time, because it matters, to someone with a brain anyway. Even where it regards my own kids, if I capture a great face but it's a blurry mess, I trash it. The blurriness means it's junk, no matter how cute the pose is. It must have a cute pose AND be sharp, else it's worthless. If you keep blurry shots and can't bring yourself to strive for excellence in that sort of way, then this craft is not for you.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

Ansel Adams doubtless would've shunned a smartphone. Someone once pointed out how his 1st camera was a Kodak Brownie, apparently trying to prove their theorem that the tool doesn't matter. I got to reading and discovered that in fact it was his 1st camera because it what his father gave him as a youngster, and his father probably wasn't one to know what a "good" camera was.

It goes on to say that Ansel used that Brownie on a trip to Yosemite but the very next year returned with different higher-grade gear he had since acquired after having been bitten by the "photo bug."

Case closed.

"Social sharing and immediacy"--phooey. That's fast-food photography. I've talked to those in the trade, and they hear this all the time from their clients, only to reply "you're not going to get it the same day, high quality requires TIME" (editing in Lightroom etc). I'm talking quality, if I wanted fast-food, I'd zap a Hot Pocket. I'm not into Hot Pocket photography, that's for the teens.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:03 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

You have to draw the line somewhere, else you might as well use a Kodak disposable paper thingie from WalGreens and voila you're a "photographer." I would say even a budget DSLR like a Nikon D3100 or D3300 would qualify, as would a mirrorless or even this. Portability vs ultimate quality has always been a quandary, hence the 35mm SLRs we had. Still in those days no one would've DARED suggest a Kodak Instamatic was something that one who aspired to quality photography pursuits should be using. That's really my point--given how small this is, yet how capable, if you aspire to quality, why in the WORLD would you use a PHONE?

"Anal" simply means defining excellence, those hipsters using a phone & not even learning anything about f-stops, white balance etc & thinking they're the same as those who do, it's an insult & a slap in the face to those who try. It's like the guy at work who's funny and thinks he's every bit as much of a stand-up comedian as those who actually do it for a living.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

The device matters, because people who care about excellence will use tools commensurate with the aspiration. People who use a phone for "photography" are making a mockery of the art form and people who actually try, acting like some snapshooting toy is a capable "photography" machine. The existence of models like this, to say nothing of the mirrorless options and myriad DSLRs, strongly argue otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)

The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 14:33 UTC as 620th comment | 28 replies
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

I would not delete an image someone protested, because their protests are ridiculous. At the least, I would delete but then immediately use another memory card knowing I could recover the image with image recovery software.

I'm not trying to stalk anybody, but to me pretty much every protest is ridiculous and I'm simply not apt to abide by it. It's high time that people who are too touchy about silly things be told that they are, rather than always tip-toeing around their exaggerated sensitivities.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 03:03 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Suspicion of terrorism? To be sure people aren't THAT stupid. Then again....

So people carry guns--so what? So what, the rest of us are just supposed to not do things that are completely legal because of fanatics? One would think that they aren't stupid enough to sign themselves to a 30 year jail sentence shooting someone for doing a perfectly legal act. In public, I take pictures all I want to, people don't like it--TOUGH. That they would be so illogical only makes me want to take even more just on the principle of how stupid their paranoia is. If taking a photo outside of a restaurant you're eating at so that you remember those small days many years later frightens someone that much, tough on them--there are many fine mental health facilities they're free to sign themselves into. Me: their illogical stupidity isn't going to dictate my actions.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

Oh please, don't be ignorant. It has nothing to do with "exploitation," especially if the photographer isn't following you around jumping out of bushes like the paparazzi, and I'd expect readers at a hobbyist/enthusiast site like this to be the LAST people to think this, and to first to realize what it really is. It is about, at the least, chronicling the everyday events of your life as memories for recollection later, and potentially even about artistically expressing the world we live in, and doing so in a genuine "non-posed" manner that can rarely be obtained with posing. Can we say "Henri Cartier-Bresson?"

People who get upset about something as innocent as this simply have their panties up in a wad and are paranoid over nothing. Frankly, to heck with them. There is nothing to fear, and paranoia is no excuse for photographers to be told to put their cameras away except for plastic posed smartphone Instamatic-grade shots at Disneyland.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)

If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:41 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I suppose I'm getting old, but a smartphone camera holds about as much appeal to me as canned spaghetti does to a 5-star restaurant chef. If you can't be bothered to tote a real camera with you when we have such small marvels like a Sony RX100, and any of them will absolutely smoke even the best smartphone camera, then you have zero credibility as a photographer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a snapshooter, I'm a hobbyist photographer, I could give 2 turds less what the Polaroid and Kodak Instamatic crowd like. They're beneath me and any other hobbyist or professional as far as any relevance beyond just being the mass consumer that makes prints at WalMart.

I stand by what I said. Even if 30 professionals say it, they're wrong, I'm right, period.

It's simple--you are a professional, endowed not only with good photo-taking skills (unquestionably the most important thing) but also knowledge of all the more advanced camera gear out there and how to operate it and thus utilize its advantages. With the advent of mirrorless & other refinements you can now get great image quality from even something very small like a Sony NEX-3N or Panasonic GM1, and "lugging" something like that is too big of a bother for you? Even "lugging" a Sony RX100 is too much of a bother? Are you kidding me?

No one is saying you have to lug a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 everywhere, but come on--if "lugging" a Sony RX100 or Panasonic GM1 is too much of a bother for you, I can't take you seriously, REGARDLESS of the "quality" of your fruit-phone images. Phone cameras are for college kids going to Hooter's and taking rabbit-ears selfies.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 20:11 UTC

I suppose I'm getting old, but a smartphone camera holds about as much appeal to me as canned spaghetti does to a 5-star restaurant chef. If you can't be bothered to tote a real camera with you when we have such small marvels like a Sony RX100, and any of them will absolutely smoke even the best smartphone camera, then you have zero credibility as a photographer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a snapshooter, I'm a hobbyist photographer, I could give 2 turds less what the Polaroid and Kodak Instamatic crowd like. They're beneath me and any other hobbyist or professional as far as any relevance beyond just being the mass consumer that makes prints at WalMart.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 22:09 UTC as 73rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I'd always been a loyal Nikon shooter for years, but anymore I shoot Sony NEX for what matters and a Nikon J1 for "who gives a rip, a snap will do" stuff that's still above a smartphone output, because my Sony 3N and F3 give me the same image quality as my D5100 did, and a D7000 would, in a smaller package. The new models apparently match the 24mp Nikon DSLRs, and the A7 and A7r give you D610 and D800 quality in a small package. Nikon seems to be too worried about cannibalizing their DSLR sales it seems, but they sure have enough time to design firmware that locks out 3rd party batteries.

Or, if Americans really do automatically dismiss a camera just because it doesn't have a certain "look" to it, that's just stupid.

As for video--who cares. I'm a photographer, not a videographer. If I wanted video I'd buy a camera made for that purpose.

In my case, I tried out an Olympus E-PL1 in 2012 and was addicted to DSLR quality in a smaller package. Next thing I knew, my D5100, despite better image quality (same as the D7000), was staying home; after all, the E-PL1 was found to do better than the D3000 DSLR. Once I upgraded to the Sony C3 and its image quality which was the EQUAL of the D5100/D7000, that did it.

I discovered other perks too--more autofocus points. Why are they always so clustered in the middle with SLRs? I want autofocus coverage edge-to-edge. Even models like the D610 cluster it so tightly in the middle. You have to practically get a D800 to get half-decent coverage.

I myself started out figuring that the E-PL1 would be a SUPPLEMENT, not a REPLACEMENT, for my D5100, but the Sony C3 that I upgrade to flat-out replaced it. That doesn't apply to all people, but nonetheless it shows this--you CAN get DSLR quality in a smaller package. Memo to Nikon--MAKE it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 19:01 UTC

I'd always been a loyal Nikon shooter for years, but anymore I shoot Sony NEX for what matters and a Nikon J1 for "who gives a rip, a snap will do" stuff that's still above a smartphone output, because my Sony 3N and F3 give me the same image quality as my D5100 did, and a D7000 would, in a smaller package. The new models apparently match the 24mp Nikon DSLRs, and the A7 and A7r give you D610 and D800 quality in a small package. Nikon seems to be too worried about cannibalizing their DSLR sales it seems, but they sure have enough time to design firmware that locks out 3rd party batteries.

Or, if Americans really do automatically dismiss a camera just because it doesn't have a certain "look" to it, that's just stupid.

As for video--who cares. I'm a photographer, not a videographer. If I wanted video I'd buy a camera made for that purpose.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 17:19 UTC as 133rd comment | 2 replies
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)

If the autofocus can match that of the Nikon 1 series, that would be HUGE. I have the F3 (with the 3N on the way at a close-out price) but also a J1 and the J1 sometimes gets used by me instead simply because its autofocus is so fast. I would love to combine that speed with the Sony NEX APS-C sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 14:30 UTC as 207th comment
On Readers' Choice: Best Gear of 2013 Awards article (210 comments in total)

Next, next, next, ne.....

Do yourself a favor, view in mobile, you'll thank me.

Although I've never used one to know for sure, I'd be inclined to pick the Panasonic GM1 as the mirrorless camera of the year, as it's by far the most compact such camera. The whole appeal of mirrorless is DSLR image quality in a SMALL package.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2014 at 15:40 UTC as 27th comment
On From NEX to Alpha: Sony introduces 20 megapixel a5000 article (155 comments in total)

Nice to see the rangefinder style of NEX lives on. Good. That's the whole reason I dumped my Nikon D5100 and lenses--my smaller C3, and now F3, gave the same image quality anyway, in a smaller package. (Plus neither Nikon nor Canon make an optically-stabilized 50mm 1.8 as Sony does with their 50mm 1.8 E OSS, and I think the in-body image stabilization of Pentax is probably inferior to lens-based.)

And while the 16mp sensor of the F3 (same as the Nikon D7000 and D5100) suits me fine, it's also nice to see them going with the 20mp. Now if only Sony would quit going so cheap on the 460k LCD, and would allow you to use the command dial & not just the 4-way when selecting the active AF point, it would be really good.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2014 at 15:03 UTC as 18th comment

In my opinion (next, next, next)
..
..
..
the camera of the year (next, next, next, next)
..
..
..
is probably the (next, next, next, next)
..
..
..
Panasonic GM1 because (next, next, next)
..
..
..
of how it combines the (next, next, next, next)
..
..
..
portability factor with great image quality perhaps the (next, next ,next)
..
..
..
best of any m4/3 camera so far.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:47 UTC as 13th comment
On Best Gear of 2013: The results are in! article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: One page--again, ONE PAGE would be nice. Next, next, next, next--what is this? (Hint: view it on a tablet or smartphone with a browser in "mobile viewing" mode, something like Opera Mini or Dolphin Mini.)

Just because money talks doesn't mean you should listen. Besides, you forget--what good is advertising if no one is reading the site to start with? Thus, the readers should matter--in fact, maybe they should matter the most.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:44 UTC
On Best Gear of 2013: The results are in! article (159 comments in total)

The Panasonic GM1 deserves mention. Olympus E-M1 image quality (probably) in a package that small, & with decent controls? It's sort of like the ultimate realization of the promise of micro 4/3rds. I have Sony NEX stuff & like it, but if I were getting another system & could afford it, the GM1 would seriously interest me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2014 at 03:48 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
On Best Gear of 2013: The results are in! article (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: One page--again, ONE PAGE would be nice. Next, next, next, next--what is this? (Hint: view it on a tablet or smartphone with a browser in "mobile viewing" mode, something like Opera Mini or Dolphin Mini.)

Actually I think it IS, that's why many sites offer a "view all" option. It keeps you from having to keep reloading, you load once and scroll, it's called "page down." It would be nice to have the option one way or the other anyway. (The format of the reviews are fine to me though, for what my 2 cents is worth.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2014 at 02:12 UTC
Total: 377, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »