PIX 2015
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: 402, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Nikon Df preview (2792 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 (2792 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 (2792 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 (135 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 (135 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 70th 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 (99 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 36th 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
Total: 402, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »