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: 442, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review (206 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2014 at 01:43 UTC
On article Sony a6000 Review (891 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 17:02 UTC as 64th comment
On article Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review (206 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
On article Apple iPhone 6 Plus camera review (206 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 13:23 UTC as 30th comment | 29 replies
On article Readers' Showcase: Documentary and Street photography (108 comments in total)

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

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.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 12:57 UTC as 34th 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.)

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 16:08 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
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.

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.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 23:47 UTC as 93rd comment | 10 replies
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 11:44 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 17:16 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 16:27 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On article Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 (148 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.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 15:00 UTC as 56th comment | 11 replies

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

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 03:47 UTC as 13th comment
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1980 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.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
Total: 442, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »