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: 375, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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
On French newspaper publishes issue with no photos article (208 comments in total)

Maybe the market forces dictate this, but you can definitely tell that quality of the photos have suffered. What makes me laugh & roll my eyes, although maybe it's not the same thing, is when news outlets go all crazy "Britney posts a sizzlin bathing suit pic on her Instagram," and when you see the photo, it has awful quality, I mean it STINKS, and you're thinking "wow, a star posts an Instagram shot and with their high public profile & image they post that lame of a photo? Couldn't they afford a pro photographer to post a high quality image? Doesn't anyone in their crowd own a DSLR or a mirrorless at least?"

Anymore, the more your photos suck, the more people like them. If you try to get a high quality image, you're a "snob." Thank goodness McFurry didn't think that way & photograph the "Afghan girl" with a Kodak Instamatic or Polaroid. No one called him a "snob" for using a Nikon FM2 & prime lens & capturing that incredible eye detail.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 02:55 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
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.

You don't buy it because you don't understand it. In the same way people buy McDonald's because they don't know what a real hamburger is, but I would hardly call that "moving on." I call that having no taste.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 02:46 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorcar: I just dont understand why Nikon the brillant idea to not put video feature here. The camera get more retro spirit this way?
The marketing and technoogic development creates needs in audience and today we always expect video mode. For this price i would consider it if it had video. I mean, photography would be usefull for my work, and video for my entertainment.
I dont think this camera has a nich, some rich buyers yes, maybe.

Because it's an SLR and SLRs have as much business sporting a YouTube mode as they do an MP3 player and alarm clock.

What else should it have, a coffee maker? A sausage fryer? This is an SLR, not an iPhone.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2013 at 13:45 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

photobeans: Unfortunately, no thanks Nikon. This camera is cluttered. Absence of video? Does the video feature make the camera heavier, slower, more clunky? No point in taking the video feature out. You've got gazillions of buttons and dials, what's one more for a video button.

Because it's an SLR & that alone means it has no business having one, especially on a "purist" camera like this; even 1 button devoted to video is too much. If I want to record YouTube clips I'll get a YouTube camera, thank you very much.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 18:52 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

I love its "pure photography" focus, especially the absence of video, but it has one major fault--AF points are too center-clustered.

That may seen contradictory--"real photographers manually focus" would be the reply, my reply would be that many of us don't want to go QUITE that retro (especially since autofocus can be turned off) & that AF functionality is even present suggests that its presence isn't a violation of its "pure photography" ethos, even here.

I don't like the "focus at center, then recompose" approach, especially with portraits, I like to establish the composition I want and then select an AF point that is squarely on the eyeball, WITHOUT RECOMPOSING. Even entry-level mirrorless cameras can do this, why can't SLRs? Especially at this level, I'd say it should have 75 AF points spread edge-to-edge and ALL of them should be cross-sensitive, ALL of them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 16:06 UTC as 624th comment
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: "What, no video?"

Yup, no video, and thank God for that. Get with it DPreview, they left off YouTube mode for people who, like me, find its very presence tacky based simply on the principle of it. If that's being a luddite, then I am PROUD to call myself one, but when I pick up an SLR, I don't want ANYTHING that has nothing to do with photography corrupting the experience, and that most certainly includes a YouTube mode. This isn't a soccer mom camera for pete's sake.

Too bad I don't have $2800, this design aspect ALONE makes me want it.

If I could, I would do far more than that. I'd buy the company & immediately delete video from ALL of their SLRs, AND immediately fire the 1st person who protested it.

You want to record stupid YouTube clips, buy a video camera. SLRs aren't YouTube machines, and only someone with a perverted disrespect of boundaries thinks otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 13:23 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: "What, no video?"

Yup, no video, and thank God for that. Get with it DPreview, they left off YouTube mode for people who, like me, find its very presence tacky based simply on the principle of it. If that's being a luddite, then I am PROUD to call myself one, but when I pick up an SLR, I don't want ANYTHING that has nothing to do with photography corrupting the experience, and that most certainly includes a YouTube mode. This isn't a soccer mom camera for pete's sake.

Too bad I don't have $2800, this design aspect ALONE makes me want it.

That's your problem, not mine, I could give a turd less. You're a videographer, this is an SLR,so frankly no one gives a rip about you.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 05:59 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathanleebush: No video? Exqueeze me? Is this 2007? I mean even companies like Fujifilm who couldn't care less about video tack it on. It's a software solution, for chrissake. You've got a D4 processor and won't enable basic video functionality? But, phew, they've got a fisheye and miniature effects in the firmware lol.

A7 it is..

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It's an SLR for REAL photographers, not for soccer moms wanting to take YouTube clips of their rug rats taking their first dump. My condolences are extended on behalf of you, I'm sorry that you can't appreciate a real camera because you're looking for a camcorder instead.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 05:56 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: "What, no video?"

Yup, no video, and thank God for that. Get with it DPreview, they left off YouTube mode for people who, like me, find its very presence tacky based simply on the principle of it. If that's being a luddite, then I am PROUD to call myself one, but when I pick up an SLR, I don't want ANYTHING that has nothing to do with photography corrupting the experience, and that most certainly includes a YouTube mode. This isn't a soccer mom camera for pete's sake.

Too bad I don't have $2800, this design aspect ALONE makes me want it.

No, we should not. I am not saying video can't be art, but keep your hands off of MY camera which I have bought for photography and ONLY photography, absolutely nothing else. You don't see me going at "video-review.com" or wherever griping about their video cameras not taking photos, show us the same courtesy.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 05:45 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)

"What, no video?"

Yup, no video, and thank God for that. Get with it DPreview, they left off YouTube mode for people who, like me, find its very presence tacky based simply on the principle of it. If that's being a luddite, then I am PROUD to call myself one, but when I pick up an SLR, I don't want ANYTHING that has nothing to do with photography corrupting the experience, and that most certainly includes a YouTube mode. This isn't a soccer mom camera for pete's sake.

Too bad I don't have $2800, this design aspect ALONE makes me want it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 05:35 UTC as 938th comment | 10 replies
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg Henry: The theory being that Nikon designed this for "serious photographers" who only take photographs... hence the reason they left video off of it?

I'm sorry - I know a good many "serious" professional photographers - and today, they've had to adapt to include video in some of their work as that is what the client is asking for. Nikon just excluded a whole swath of potential buyers with an assumption.

As my Grandfather always said, "NEVER assume".

Those serious photographers shouldn't have had to adapt, the clients were jackasses frankly. You don't see me asking my plumber to become an electrician, or my car mechanic to become an interior decorator. They had NO business demanding such nonsense as clients.

Nikon assumed RIGHT for a lot of us, I can tell you. I got into SLRs years ago & never once thought of them as camcorders. YouTube is no interest to me when I'm engaging in serious photography with an SLR. Nikon was right to leave it off, heck they never should've let the cat out the bag with it on the D90 in the first place. They finally have sort of righted that wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 05:32 UTC
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The deliberate omission of the senseless YouTube mode alone makes me want to buy it, based solely on that principle alone. Putting YouTube on an SLR totally splatters any purity it would otherwise have.

I'm in my early 40s actually. I was working 35mm SLRs as a 14 year old, without anyone to show me how & with no Internet sites to tell me how, I LEARNED by reading & studying books in the library.

Thus, I appreciate the tradition of SLRs being tools that were single-minded focused towards PHOTOS, and being meant for people who wanted to do more than just take snapshots & were willing to learn a few things in order to do so. I NEVER NEVER once thought my SLR should be able to record a video clip, I aspired to take quality PHOTOGRAPHS, period, nothing else. Heck even just prior to the Nikon D90 being introduced, people who groaned about how SLRs couldn't record video were laughed out of the room & flicked away like an annoying piece of snot.

So I'm not particularly sympathetic with people groaning about an SLR not having a YouTube mode it has no business having in the first darn place. As such, based on what I'm reading, I REALLY welcome this.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 00:05 UTC
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)

The deliberate omission of the senseless YouTube mode alone makes me want to buy it, based solely on that principle alone. Putting YouTube on an SLR totally splatters any purity it would otherwise have.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 1, 2013 at 23:14 UTC as 297th comment | 6 replies
On Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' post (132 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: For the average consumer, the days of lugging around a fat DSLR, only to take a bunch of photos that no one ever sees, are dwindling. Sharing images is, rightly, more important now than pixel peeping.

And for those people who still think that you can't take great photos with a smart phone, go check out National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson's photos shot with the iPhone:

http://instagram.com/jimrichardsonng

Most, but not all, of the images were shot with the iPhone. But you'd be hard pressed to tell which ones were shot with his DSLR and which with his iPhone just by sight.

Those images look great, which goes to show that you don't need to be weighed down by a lot of fancy equipment to take great photos. And for the average consumer, these images are certainly good enough! But just as important as capturing great images is the ability to share them with people. Images are meant to be seen and enjoyed, not anally pixel peeped at 100% in Photoshop.

The reason people "pixel peep at 100%" is because quality matters, at least to people with actual taste it does. Only a peon would dare travel to beautiful areas on a generous budget & then dumb down his/her excursion by using a stinking PHONE to photograph it, especially with better tools at their disposal (heck a Sony RX100 if nothing else). "Windshield tourists," that's all well & fine, someone who fancies themselves a pro or enthusiast--you're a laughingstock to do such a thing.

No, it comes down to what the article says--people not only don't care about quality, they think it's a BAD thing. That sentence about how you come off as "aloof" for sharing a high-resolution image of yourself--well excuse me, I guess I better borrow my kid's Fisher Price 0.3 kilopixel and do a "selfie" so that people with no taste will like it better. No, thank you. I'll aim for the best quality I can muster & if people find that offensive, that's on them for being morons, frankly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 17:11 UTC
On Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' post (132 comments in total)

If this is true, it's because people don't have taste in good photographs. I can't tell you how many "likes" a God-awful iPhone photo gets on Facebook, even when it's horribly out of focus and with a HUGE orange color cast or red eye, while a photo of actual quality merits a mere shrug from the crowd. People will call the iPhone photo an "awesome picture," even as it's hugely blurry, has tree trunks growing out of their head and there's all manner of clutter in the background. I see it ALL the time.

It's frustrating sometimes, it's as if you're a chef competing in a market full of people who prefer McDonald's hamburgers, not just in terms of affordability or quickness, but they actually PREFER them. You can only shake your head.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 02:47 UTC as 66th comment | 3 replies
Total: 375, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »