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: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
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

Man, I tell you, Sony ain't playing around. Their first attempts at being a serious photographer's camera, like the Sony A100 & the "translucent mirror" models, really were nothing to get so excited about. But since they got their NEX line together after the initial botched user interface (which still could use some work, but it's better), they have been on a roll.

The NEX series has been revolutionary for me. No longer do I need a Nikon D5100 or D7000, the C3 has the same 1.5x 16mp sensor & image quality right on my hip. I can mount a $5 1980 Nikkor 50mm 1.8 for razor-sharp portraits & lovely bokeh, with full aperture-priority metering, something only the D7000/D7100 & up DSLRs can do. (And they don't do "focus peaking" either.)

And now--the possibility of Nikon D600 quality on your hip? Now see, that's innovating. Nikon & Canon are so busy trying to protect their DSLRs they give you jokes like the Nikon V1 & Canon M. No thank you (although a Nikon J1 is great as a spouse camera).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 14:25 UTC as 36th comment
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Other than the occasional sepia effect, which itself can get very old & overdone, I'm just not feeling this "vintage" trend of making shots look like they were taken with a Fisher Price camera. What's wrong with a "straight up" shot with just a tinge of color added? This trend is just a silly fad, just like other ones like the family portrait shots of the family walking away from the camera holding hands at a railroad track, & the baby shots having 80,000 "props" in the photo. They're "click a preset" gimmicks for those who just too lazy to do things like getting the white balance correct and the eyelashes in focus etc, a "quickie" for making a so-called "boring" shot suddenly look new.

But I must give DPreview credit for one thing here--at least this article didn't have the usual "next, next, next, next, next" layout which I completely despise, they have everything on 1 single page once again, as they ought to. That's MUCH better.

Well to each his or her own, but if I owned a D600, I sure as heck wouldn't be using an iPhone or any other phone camera for anything other than the most mundane of shots, like to show the plumber what my current busted up pipe looks like if I cant' describe it to him, etc. I'd at least be taking a Sony RX100 or NEX-3 series around with me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 20:23 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pentax_Prime: Posting articles like this on your main news page is destroying your credibility as an actual photography site. There is nothing 'must have' about any of this junk.

Well if resolution is irrelevant, then I guess I should ditch my Sony NEX-C3 and Nikon D3100 and go back to using the 2mp Nikon Coolpix 775 I purchased 10 years ago? I say "no," I say resolution & quality MATTER, and in fact they matter perhaps more than anything else. That's why pros who care about quality have always used tools that deliver it, because quality composition & subject matter by virtue demand it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:19 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheDman: You know what we need? An app to make your photos look retro. Why doesn't anyone come out with that?

That's easy. It's a fad, and a silly one at that, which most fads tend to be.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:17 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Purple House Photography: A whole lot of grumpiness on this thread... Filters are a fun way to jazz up casual snapshots, what's wrong with that?

Maybe because it's a silly trend many of us are sick of seeing. What's wrong with a "straight" shot, maybe with just a slight amount of color or such added to it? Instead anymore everyone is jacking saturation & such up to 70 and making everything look totally fake, taking away resolution & quality & calling it an "effect." No thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:15 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)

Other than the occasional sepia effect, which itself can get very old & overdone, I'm just not feeling this "vintage" trend of making shots look like they were taken with a Fisher Price camera. What's wrong with a "straight up" shot with just a tinge of color added? This trend is just a silly fad, just like other ones like the family portrait shots of the family walking away from the camera holding hands at a railroad track, & the baby shots having 80,000 "props" in the photo. They're "click a preset" gimmicks for those who just too lazy to do things like getting the white balance correct and the eyelashes in focus etc, a "quickie" for making a so-called "boring" shot suddenly look new.

But I must give DPreview credit for one thing here--at least this article didn't have the usual "next, next, next, next, next" layout which I completely despise, they have everything on 1 single page once again, as they ought to. That's MUCH better.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:11 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On Ten things we learned this week article (91 comments in total)

Again, not a fan of having to click "next" for every single item on the list. Hate that design, hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it. (By the way, I notice that the same ads remain, so what's the point?)

"Shutter shock" on the Olympus E-5--a lot of Olympus users have complained about that, and despite the great images the E-PL1 and E-PM1 were capable of, it, along with the fact that it took Olympus forever to improve their sensors, is why I moved to Sony NEX via C3. I've never noticed the shutter shock problem when using it, & its sensor was way ahead of the older m4/3rds models, the newer m4/3rds models cost much more since it took them so long to get the newer sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 00:48 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

The difference is that even with a Sony NEX you're talking about a camera that has the same 16mp 1.5x sensor as the Nikon D5100 and D7000, which tested out fantastic in their image quality. You're also talking about a camera that has the PSAM modes, RAW, and interchangeable lenses. All of this is in a package way smaller than any DSLR.

The point is there's a minimum you shouldn't dip below. No one is saying you have to own a Nikon D800 & the most expensive glass made for it to "rate," even a D3100 meets a certain minimum, outperforming the IQ of the Nikon D2x which in its day was a PRO camera. But I'm sorry, when you dig down to the point of using a PHONE camera, that's just nuts.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Cjar: More Apple product placement.

I take my smart phone on my shoots because it's a phone.
Sometimes I make calls and it's more useful for calling people than trying to dial on my camera.
The phone also geotags.

But if I want to use my experience and eye as a photographer, to get the best image possible, the phone stays in my pocket.

More burgers are eaten at McDonalds. That doesn't mean McBurgers are the best.

CJar is absolutely correct. The rationale we're always hearing as to why phone cameras are getting so much attention is that they're the #1 camera used on the #1 photo site (Flickr). I remember when Polaroids and Instamatics were huge sellers, but they were classified as SNAPSHOT cameras not lumped in the same group as Nikon 35mm SLRs etc. As I've said (similar to what Cjar said) McDonald's sells the most hamburgers but if I were at a culinary site, I want talk to center on that sort of thing, vs having a lot of talk about McDonald's & then it being justified based on their sales numbers, when clearly the words McDonald's & culinary don't belong in the same sentence.

If having that sort of taste is "snobbery," then maybe some snobbery is GOOD.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

It's called having TASTE. I don't see LeBron James playing NBA basketball with a $1 vinyl dollar store ball & flip-flops. I don't see a NASCAR driver using a stock-engine equipped Chevrolet Aveo for racing. I don't see swimmers competing in a kiddie pool. I don't see football players playing with a NERF football.

In other words, the tool doesn't create skill in a person who doesn't possess it, but a person with skill would use a tool commensurate with their skill-set.

You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't have to own a Nikon D800 and 17-55mm f/2.8, even a D3100 and kit lens will work, but at some point, you have to save "oh come on now." Phone cameras are that point. They're fine for the average snapshooter, sure, that I agree with.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 01:10 UTC

He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:58 UTC as 46th comment | 7 replies
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

GeorgeD200: I would add headphones and an ipod. Sometimes I don't even turn it on, but it stops people walking up and talking to me. "My uncle has a nice camera like that!" or "Getting any good pictures today?" Ugg.

If you are in the middle of a for-pay professional shoot, that's understandable. Otherwise, what's the big deal with people expressing a "chatty" type of interest in your hobby? It's called community & socializing. Heck I walk up to such people all the time, it's simply chit-chatting with others possessing the same sorts of interests. It's not a big deal, it's just being friendly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:41 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

muhammad lal: If required, the landscape pictures I like (If you do not have a built-in camera, electronic horizon level) circular polarization, besides the obvious, you can also spirit / bubble level is required. Anyway, so - I am no one, to save my life, I swear you can not get the horizon level.

You hot shoe (my Sony NEX-C3, etc.) If you own the camera without hot shoe is easy to find one, you can not cheap to get one mounted on a tripod. I'm in the part number joby.com get JB00124-CEN. Part number does not come up in the search, it "GorillaPod tripod, camera and accessories," then appeared in the call for some reason "GorillaPod Hybrid / SLR-ZOOM Ball Head for additional bubble level clip." It costs like $ 3 and $ 5 after delivery.
http://www.technologyexplores.com

Did you see my post earlier? I said the same thing, how great someone else was thinking that.

Yes, I don't know what happened to me, for a long time my horizons were PERFECTLY level without the need for any tools. Somewhere along the line I started getting to where I couldn't take a level shot to save my life. This especially happens on hilly terrain where you yourself are not level & if you go by what feels level to you, you end up being way off.

That part number you mentioned is the exact same one I mentioned. I have 2--one in the camera bag, one in the closet so if I lose the 1st one there's no delay having one on-hand again (you don't exactly find them in "everyday" stores).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:35 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

(Barney) With regards to REVIEWS, I am fine with that, I was "reaching for perfection" as it were. My MAIN point was this article & ones like it where you are barely getting started when suddenly you're nagged to click "next" already. The reviews, you actually get quite a bit of reading in before having to "next," so it's fine really.

The realities of how things are paid for notwithstanding, I don't visit sites to read the ads & don't like excellence tainted out of concessions made for advertising. I like things "pure" that way, such is why I also don't like watermarked images or when sports stadiums are named the "AT&T Comcast Center" or whatever & logos are all over everywhere on the playing floor. What next, superimposed ads on bald player's heads?

Regardless, as I said earlier I thought it would be NICE for the reviews to have single-page as an OPTION, I was just being overly ambitious, dreaming etc. It's ones like this where it's taken to an extreme that I'm talking about.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:24 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

I don't care about that. Ads may pay for the site to some extent, but I don't come to the site to read the ads, I come to read the CONTENT. Otherwise you might as well have nothing but the ads on the page period. Regardless of my not being the one to pay for it, I STILL think it should be done for what's best for the readers, not the ad companies. Otherwise, there will be no readers, and thus no one to read the stinking ads in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 05:52 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

I'm pleased that so many people agree with me. Heck call me crazy (I'm not complaining, just observing) I wouldn't even mind the option for the camera reviews being on 1 page, the whole 25-30 pages all of it, like how DcResource used to do it. (And everyone is going "what are you nuts," ha ha ha.)

Regardless, though, yes the main thing is that a LOT of articles I read do this multi-page layout, especially ones like "10 best ways to lose weight" etc, why do I have to click 10 photos? I just want to know the "top 10", just give it to me already. Quit with the "next, next, next, next" bunch of nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 03:57 UTC
Total: 375, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »