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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Best Gear of 2013: The results are in! (159 comments in total)

One page--again, ONE PAGE would be nice. Next, next, next, next--what is this? (Hint: view it on a tablet or smartphone with a browser in "mobile viewing" mode, something like Opera Mini or Dolphin Mini.)

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2014 at 01:15 UTC as 35th comment | 11 replies

I've been a Nikon fan for years, but this is ridiculous. This smacks of something Apple would do. I avoid Apple like the plague for this very reason.

I now use Sony NEX vs Nikon DSLRs due to the size/quality combination, it equals my old D5100 (and the D7000) in image quality, but is way smaller. Nonsense like this only makes me more glad I've changed. I have 2 separate generic batteries for my NEX-F3 and they do just as well as the Sony one.

The only Nikon I still have is the J1, & that's only because my older Sony C3 was getting too banged up taking it everywhere on my hip, so I got a J1 brand-new for only $155 as my "don't give a crap" camera. Imagine that, what a slogan--"Nikon, for when you don't really give a crap."

And for the record, I have 2 generic EN-EL20s for the J1, and they do just fine, even with the J1 having up-to-date firmware. But if they ever change the firmware, I'll remember to look out for this (I still have the current J1 firmware on my PC).

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 15:30 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On article Book review: The Art of iPhone Photography (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.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2013 at 18:42 UTC
On article Book review: The Art of iPhone Photography (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."

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?"

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 14:31 UTC
On article French newspaper publishes issue with no photos (203 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 04:43 UTC
On article French newspaper publishes issue with no photos (203 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 04:26 UTC
On article French newspaper publishes issue with no photos (203 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 02:55 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
On article French newspaper publishes issue with no photos (203 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2013 at 02:46 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 00:05 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2013 at 23:14 UTC as 298th comment | 6 replies
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 17:11 UTC
On article Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?' (140 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 02:47 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 21:26 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 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.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 19:58 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)

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

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2013 at 19:56 UTC as 200th comment
Total: 442, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »