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: 371, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (325 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 (325 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 64th 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 72nd 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
On Best Gear of 2013: The results are in! article (159 comments in total)

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.)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2014 at 01:15 UTC as 35th comment | 11 replies

I've been a Nikon fan for years, but this is ridiculous. This smacks of something Apple would do. I avoid Apple like the plague for this very reason.

I now use Sony NEX vs Nikon DSLRs due to the size/quality combination, it equals my old D5100 (and the D7000) in image quality, but is way smaller. Nonsense like this only makes me more glad I've changed. I have 2 separate generic batteries for my NEX-F3 and they do just as well as the Sony one.

The only Nikon I still have is the J1, & that's only because my older Sony C3 was getting too banged up taking it everywhere on my hip, so I got a J1 brand-new for only $155 as my "don't give a crap" camera. Imagine that, what a slogan--"Nikon, for when you don't really give a crap."

And for the record, I have 2 generic EN-EL20s for the J1, and they do just fine, even with the J1 having up-to-date firmware. But if they ever change the firmware, I'll remember to look out for this (I still have the current J1 firmware on my PC).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 15:30 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On Book review: The Art of iPhone Photography post (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

rdscibilia: One uses a smartphone because there are certain photos you can only get with a smartphone. Anyone who thinks you cannot make a good photograph with an iPhone not only has been asleep the last few years but is likely to remain asleep. The Revolution is here whether you like it or not. It is not whether the iPhone offers the best absolute quality, it is that you choose the right tool for the circumstances. The reality is that the iPhone can do the job more times than you may think. Do not dismiss this tool to quickly.

How many years have we had cameras? Since at least the early 1900s in fact. You mean to tell me that all of this time a camera was obtrusive? And it's only been since the invention of a fruit phone barely better than a Hello Kitty toy camera that we've now broken some previously impenetrable barrier? We couldn't have done it years ago with live-view digital models? Oh please. Photographers have been using 35mm SLRs or twin-lens-reflex or Leicas etc for decades, apparently the "obtrusiveness" didn't stop them. No reason it should stop anyone now either.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 18:42 UTC
On Book review: The Art of iPhone Photography post (41 comments in total)

"Art" and "iPhone" should NEVER be in the same sentence. I just saw someone selling a Nikon D3100 kit for $199 shipped. You could get a Sony NEX-F3 kit for like $240 or so. There are far better options, & many are well compact enough to be "always with you."

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 15:27 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

beavertown: Nikon is really dirty.

They use new firmware update to trap people to update to a version that blocks after market batteries, lenses and so on.

The P7800, FT1 mount, the D5200 victims...

Don't invest in Nikon, it is a dirt cheap company.

What do you mean by "D5200 victims?"

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 14:31 UTC
On French newspaper publishes issue with no photos article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicoboston: The purpose was also to send a big "ENOUGH" following recurrent racism issues in France lately (as the country is more or less falling appart, it's very tempting to blame others).
Good photographers and photojournalists are not in danger. Talented people will always exist. They have to adapt. It won't be easy, but they have to! Everybody loves nice images. Now everyone can capture decent images with good cameras and phones... If everyone had access to good violins and pianos, it would be more difficult to become a recognized musician. It's competition... Don't give up, photographers ! Newspapers will disappear, you won't ;-)

Yes, and a burger flipper at Burger King is a culinary artist.

"Anyone with a mobile phone is a photographer." Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 04:43 UTC
On French newspaper publishes issue with no photos article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

mgatov: The reality is that with the proliferation of cell phone cameras, there is always someone on the scene to take a picture... whether it is a natural disaster or an accident, or even a war. As long as there are people present, there will be pictures available.

Oh I'm quite "clued." Yes McDonald's is faster & more convenient, and that's why people buy from them, but that doesn't mean they are more advanced or that better quality food is irrelevant. It simply means people can't be bothered. It reminds me of that "Jimmy situation" line in "Pulp Fiction" where Jules is complimenting Jimmy for his coffee being gourmet not Taster's Choice, and Jimmy says "I buy the good stuff, when Bonnie [my wife] goes shopping, she buys [crap]."

In other words, there are a lot of Bonnies in the world, but that doesn't mean "tech has moved on" as it were. It just means people accept inferior quality for a quicker turn-around time. Even if that's understandable, those who take better photos or make better burgers or coffee are right to be somewhat offended.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 04:26 UTC
Total: 371, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »