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: 391, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
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 (134 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 (134 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 69th comment | 3 replies
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

nnowak: What is with this immense hatred of video capability? That's fine if you don't want to use, just ignore that little red button on the back of the camera. The addition of video capabilities have boosted DSLR sales volume to the point that allow for D600s and D800s to be sold at such low prices. Remove video and the camera price goes up.

Furthermore video advancements and live view enhancements go hand in hand. Shooting live view with a tilt shift lens is bliss compared to trying to compose with and optical viewfinder.

From my perspective adding video has only made my still photography capabilities better with absolutely no downside.

That's just it, you don't get it. (a) that "little red button" gets in the way, when it could instead function as a stills feature (ISO etc) and (b) frankly put, when I buy an SLR I don't think (in a Gomer Pyle voice), "well GAWLEE and Shu-ZAM! I can make a YouTube clip of my dog's unit for my cuzin' Ned."I buy it because and ONLY because of the PICTURES I can get from it, NOTHING else, anything that doesn't have to do with that pollutes the interface & doesn't belong there. Maybe other people do buy SLRs for YouTube clips--to me, they're shopping for the food equivalent of fast food & SLR to me isn't a fast food business. Let them buy a Coolpix or a 1-series Nikon if they want YouTube clips with their camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 21:26 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: I applaud Nikon for the concept, but the price is too high for me. If the body is going to be simpler (no video, fewer bells, whistles, frills) it should cost less than a D610.

Yup, sad to say, but the IDIOTS who demand YouTube mode in a freaking PHOTOGRAPHY camera are so numerous anymore, you have to pay more to get a camera that's a REAL camera that doesn't moonlight as a YouTube machine.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 19:58 UTC
On Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' article (552 comments in total)

No video? I'm in on that very principle alone.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 19:56 UTC as 200th comment
On What just happened?! Looking back on last week article (98 comments in total)

I am NEVER going to stop complaining until you guys realize we don't like it.

What am I talking about? You know what I'm talking about.

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

ONE PAGE will do. All that clicking is annoying & there's no call for it.

(Hint: view in mobile)

Heck, as long as I'm here:

(2) Nikon D5300 & Fuji X-E2
(3) Fuji XQ1
(4) Fuji brings X100 back from the dead
(5) Panasonic GM1, smallest m4/3
(6) Nikon 58mm f/1.4 "pricey prime"
(7)Nikon sues Sakar over Polaroid (J1 ripoff)
(8)North Korea Looks Lovely this Time of the Year
(9) Full-frame NEXs not called NEX
(10) New lenses from Sony, Sigma & Samyang
(11) Sony RX10, a "RX100 superzoom"
(12) Hasselblad hoax we hope stays a hoax (Sony A7/A7r re-badge)
(13) Canon's pimped-out Powershots

Throw in the detailed paragraphs, and THAT is how you do it. **ONE PAGE** (maybe 2, but 13, no no no no no). I just saved the rest of you some time, no need to thank me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 13:11 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies
Total: 391, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »