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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)

An essential item if you do landscape photography as I do: besides the obvious circular polarizer, you also need a spirit/bubble level (unless the camera has a built-in electronic horizon level). I do, anyway--I swear that without one, I can't get the horizons level to save my life.

Hot shoe ones are easy to find, if you own a camera without a hot shoe (like my Sony NEX-C3), you get can a tripod-mounted one for cheap. I get part number JB00124-CEN from joby.com. For some reason that part number doesn't come up under a search, but it comes up under "GorillaPod Tripod Cameras, Accessories" and then it's called "Extra Bubble Level Clip for GorillaPod Hybrid/SLR-Zoom Ballhead." It costs like $5 and then $3 shipping.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 23:24 UTC as 117th comment
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) I know, not trying to gripe at you guys personally, so much as that style is one I see a lot of places & I don't like it. I hate clicking next 8011 times like that. I would really like it if in such cases a "view all" option was available.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 22:51 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)

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....."

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 22:36 UTC as 121st comment | 16 replies
On Olympus PEN E-P5 Review preview (494 comments in total)

The shutter shock problem is one that people have been complaining about for a long time with Olympus models. The others without the 5-axis IBIS, on those IBIS sometimes can make images look WORSE if you don't turn it off. Others have complained of blurred images around the 1/100 second mark, which is a ridiculous thing to have happen, 1/100 second should be PLENTY fast enough to prevent hand-held blur unless you're shooting with longer lenses.

In fact I switched to Sony NEX largely for this very reason & in fact I never see this problem anymore since I did so.

If mirrorless is to be a viable SLR alternative, it's going to need to be able to work the same in such ways. If you can get away with 1/80 or 1/125 second hand-holding for portraits etc on an SLR, you should with mirrorless too, regardless of the differences in weight & how they're hold. Otherwise there's no point in having mirrorless at ALL.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 02:52 UTC as 164th comment | 1 reply
On Fashion photography with the 41MP Nokia Lumia 1020 article (123 comments in total)

Sigh. A-freaking-gain. Olympus got it right way long ago, "camera phones are to photography what 3 minute noodles are to cooking." And why again is this at the MAIN page? I thought the point of this site was I'd NEVER have to see such articles EVER again while at the "normal" site.

Yes, the skill of the photographer is the main thing, using a DSLR does not alone make you a real photographer, but the tool DOES matter too. If you were trying to be a pro golfer, would you buy REAL golf clubs or show up at the course with broomsticks & swear repeatedly how irrelevant the tool is? Care to become a pro basketball player using the $1 purple-colored vinyl (or whatever) balls you see at the aisle of your local Dollar General store? If you wanted to be a news reporter, would you submit articles written with a crayon?

Heck the Nikon D3100 kit I paid $250 for & gave to my snap-shooting wife would be a better tool. My Sony NEX-C3, same thing, & it's small, esp with the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 prime.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 12:15 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
On Editorial: Why I can't stop taking iPhone Panoramas article (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

SWSF14: It's great for a PHONE.

I wonder if any of the negative commentors even own an iphone.

I always have a camera with me, a Sony NEX-C3 with Sigma 30mm f/2.8. It's small enough--seriously if you need something smaller you aren't a real photographer, not even as a hobbyist, I'm sorry--and its image quality matches a Nikon D5100 or D7000.

Now THAT is something worth writing about.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2013 at 23:09 UTC
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: If you are going to list history-worthy cameras of 2000-2009, in terms of actual breakthroughs etc, my top 5 list would be (no particular order):

(1) Nikon D1. The 1st real DSLR (vs a film SLR modified into digital) that really got things rolling. (Or was this 1999?)

(2) Canon "original" Digital Rebel/Nikon D70. The DSLR is now $1000 and under, at the 6mp level, this was a HUGE deal to many of us.

(3) Olympus E-P1/Panasonic GF1. DSLR image quality, interchangeable lenses & enthusiast controls in a much smaller easier-to-tote package. I can't decide--E-P1 because it was 1st, or GF1 as it was just afterwards & its AF was far better & made it far more practical to actually use. (The Sony NEX & Olympus OM-D that followed have really helped here a lot too.)

(4) Nikon D3. A new standard for high ISO image quality.

(5) Nikon D300. The best crop-sensor DSLR for a good while even after its introduction, so much so that even after the D7000-D7100 people are still screaming for a D400.

As did I, I'm just saying I'm more into discussions of cameras which were game-changers during their day.

So far, for 2010-2013 I'd say the 2 that stand out are the Nikon D7000 & the Olympus OM-D/E-M5, the former didn't have a revolutionary new feature but was just so good for its class I think you have to consider it, the latter was by far the best micro 4/3rds camera & was where I think a lot of people who were long-time DSLR "hobbyist" users now were actually considering that maybe mirrorless was good enough to replace their DSLR along with being more portable.

For me, the Sony NEX-C3, coming on the heels of the Olympus E-PL1 I had prior to it, has been the biggest thing for me since I got my first D-SLR, a Canon Digital Rebel in Nov 2004. To have that level of image quality & changeable lenses with something that small has been a huge deal to me. The E-PL1 got it started, the C3 went one further & matched my Nikon D5100 IQ 100%.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 12:48 UTC
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

stuntmonkey: The F707 design -> eventually -> NEX. It was a great camera for it's day.

I was recently thinking the same thing, back then I somewhat coveted the DSC-F717 (its successor) & in fact for awhile had its competitor the Coolpix 5700, then it occurred to me that in the Sony NEX-C3 I basically have that camera only it's a much better one. Getting Nikon D7000/D5100 image quality & lens interchangeability in that small of a package is tremendous.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 04:47 UTC
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: If you are going to list history-worthy cameras of 2000-2009, in terms of actual breakthroughs etc, my top 5 list would be (no particular order):

(1) Nikon D1. The 1st real DSLR (vs a film SLR modified into digital) that really got things rolling. (Or was this 1999?)

(2) Canon "original" Digital Rebel/Nikon D70. The DSLR is now $1000 and under, at the 6mp level, this was a HUGE deal to many of us.

(3) Olympus E-P1/Panasonic GF1. DSLR image quality, interchangeable lenses & enthusiast controls in a much smaller easier-to-tote package. I can't decide--E-P1 because it was 1st, or GF1 as it was just afterwards & its AF was far better & made it far more practical to actually use. (The Sony NEX & Olympus OM-D that followed have really helped here a lot too.)

(4) Nikon D3. A new standard for high ISO image quality.

(5) Nikon D300. The best crop-sensor DSLR for a good while even after its introduction, so much so that even after the D7000-D7100 people are still screaming for a D400.

I know the article was about "unique" cameras per se, but to me, game-changers is what interests me personally. It's much more exciting to me to talk about what game-changers micro 4/3rds & the Nikon D3/D300 were as opposed to talking about a Coolpix with a built-in projector.

The E-P1 and GF1 I think did bring DSLR image quality to the table, other than its dynamic range was a bit lacking compared to the other DX cameras of the time, but otherwise, it was right there. The E-P1 review basically said that it delivered on the promise of DSLR image quality. The Sony NEX-C3 and 5N especially did, it matches the D7000 & D5100 DSLRs for image quality, using the same exact sensor (apparently) & yet it is much smaller. The ability to have that level of image quality in a more portable camera, yet still with interchangeable lenses & RAW mode etc, is HUGE to me.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 04:44 UTC
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)

If you are going to list history-worthy cameras of 2000-2009, in terms of actual breakthroughs etc, my top 5 list would be (no particular order):

(1) Nikon D1. The 1st real DSLR (vs a film SLR modified into digital) that really got things rolling. (Or was this 1999?)

(2) Canon "original" Digital Rebel/Nikon D70. The DSLR is now $1000 and under, at the 6mp level, this was a HUGE deal to many of us.

(3) Olympus E-P1/Panasonic GF1. DSLR image quality, interchangeable lenses & enthusiast controls in a much smaller easier-to-tote package. I can't decide--E-P1 because it was 1st, or GF1 as it was just afterwards & its AF was far better & made it far more practical to actually use. (The Sony NEX & Olympus OM-D that followed have really helped here a lot too.)

(4) Nikon D3. A new standard for high ISO image quality.

(5) Nikon D300. The best crop-sensor DSLR for a good while even after its introduction, so much so that even after the D7000-D7100 people are still screaming for a D400.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 16:34 UTC as 69th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Chris Gooden: Gotta love the pixel peepers here. They spend so much time worrying about pixels that they miss out on all of the awesome images they should be taking. And to be honest, I could take a cell phone picture against your dslr image and beat the lot of you.

(88SAL) is correct. The point is, if you're in the Grand-freaking-Canyon, why would you take ANYTHING but the best you have in your toolbox, vs using inferior equipment just to prove a point?

Obviously one can go crazy with this. What if you own a Nikon D800 & a Nikon D3200 and take the latter vs the former in because it's lighter? I can't imagine faulting someone for that, especially in a Grand Canyon scenario where you're hiking a lot. Heck I find I use my Sony NEX-C3 all the time so much I sold my D5100, but the thing is, their IQ is equal as they use the same sensor.

But yes I was in the Grand Canyon in late 2005, my best camera then was a Nikon D50 I paid $500 for at huge discount, which now is squashed by a Nikon D3100 kit I bought for $250 for my wife to use for snapshots, but at that time it was the best I had. I can't imagine consciously choosing something significantly inferior to that when I was in the scenic Grand Canyon just to prove a point.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 15:24 UTC

I understand the desire for portability in such cases, heck I just sold my D5100 after YEARS of having DSLRs (since Nov 2004), sometimes more than one, because anymore I use mirrorless anyway. Anymore you can get great photos with cameras that aren't DSLRs, thanks to m4/3rds and Sony NEX etc.

But a PHONE? Come on now.

There are options such as the Sony NEX-C3 I use or the newer Sony NEX-3N. Mount the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and you hardly even know it's there & yet it EQUALS the image quality of my prior D5100 or the well-regarded D7000. Heck there are options like the Panasonic GX7 or the Olympus OM-D/E-M5, all of which give you DSLR quality in a smaller package, & all still easily eclipse even the best smartphone cameras by a long shot. Cell phone shots are fine for teens doing "selfies" & the other snapshooting people, but serious photography--please.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 13:44 UTC as 29th comment

The reason for HAVING an Internet is to be able to comment pretty much exactly how you feel, and without there being any repercussions in the "real world." Long live forums & aliases. (But yes, ditch the spam, I detest any useless advertising & such.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2013 at 12:29 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

KariIceland: Only amateurs do the dutch angle, not professionals.

I agree with (Karilceland). What is with this trend of deliberately crooked photos, and who in their right mind decided this was an "artistic" thing? It comes across as being a case of someone being too lacking in talent & too drunk off their a-double-ss to hold the freaking camera straight.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 22:14 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: People need to STOP buying so much damn equipment.

All the "photographers" need to learn the art of photography before learning the technicals of photography.

Sell ALL of your camera gear, learn to take consistently beautiful shots on your cell phone, and THEN start to worry about your gear.

There is no excuse for anyone to care about gear, when they can't even take a beautiful shot on their cell phones.

(JaFO) nailed it dead on the head.

My take--I agree if one is arguing that you don't need a Nikon D4 that a Nikon D3200 will work. Heck I got my wife a Nikon D3100/18-55mm kit with 700 actuations, a 16G SD card and a spare battery for $270 last month. That's really all you need to start taking quality photographs. Obsessing about how it compares to a D3200 or D7100 etc if you're new at photography is pointless. To that end, I agree. Or, you can pick up a Sony NEX-C3 kit for cheap & it's smaller.

But a smartphone? Come on already. We're not teens posting selfies in the bathroom mirror for crying out loud. If you were taking up golf, would you go to the golfing range with broom poles & 25 cent balls from a bubble gum machine?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 19:56 UTC
On Camera shipments continue to fall article (136 comments in total)

I've never given a rip what the masses do as far as camera choice, because I'm smarter than they are with regards to this stuff & while I'm no professional I want photographs that look at least decent.

I would NEVER use a camera phone for anything other than, say, taking a photo of my leaky pipe so the hardware store knows what I need as a replacement. But for REAL images that matter, I'd rather not even take a photograph at all than to say I used a freaking PHONE to take it. You have got to be kidding me.

Even for snapshots, you've got to be kidding me. People act like toting a small camera is like packing a mule to haul off the camping gear for a week in the Grand Canyon or something. Good grief some people are just so lazy. If a Sony RX100 breaks your back, you might as well just move into a nursing home & start crocheting while watching "Mayberry R.F.D" while snoozing in your rocking chair.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 19:49 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

tko: So, is Road & Track going to start reviewing tricycles? Field and Stream magnetic fishing games? Better Ammo rubber band guns? High Fidelity USB sticks?

Is there is any hobby where people choose their gear based on how convenient it is, and not how it performs?

In no other enthusiast area do I see such pandering to laziest hobbyists. I don't use the word "lazy" as an insult - I'm lazy in many areas, no big deal. There's a lot of stuff in the world I just don't care about as long as it basically works. It's perfectly OK for people to feel that way about cameras. A minimum performance tool for a job.

But why have a web site that glorifies low performance? Why not write articles about the coolest and the best?

Road & Track will occasionally test a Yugo. Once they tested a blimp. Good clean fun. But they sell magazines with test of exotic supercars. They don't write articles on why a bike is all you really need. This site, seems to want to appeal to the Yugo drivers.

And there you have it. Striving for excellence, suggesting that maybe someone who wants to become good at something might have to actually learn some techniques and, heaven forbid, not just do the Kodak "you push the button, we do the rest," such is SNOBBERY.

Okay. I get it.

It's "snobbery" to say Tiger Woods is (or was) good at golf because he spent hours PRACTICING his techniques. Hey, I want to be as good as Tiger Woods, but WITHOUT doing ANY of that.

It's "snobbery" to say a good chef makes those special cuisines because of going to culinary school & spending hours in the kitchen. Hey, I want my food to be JUST AS GOOD but I want it in 3 minutes right out of the microwave.

I want to be a doctor but I shouldn't have to go to medical school. I want to be a journalist but I don't want to study journalism in college. I want to be an attorney but I can't pass the bar.

Yes, we're "snobs" for having some STANDARDS huh.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 04:27 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simonsimon: Why is it that the people who prefer to use non dslr cameras get so angry and bitter towards dslrs and there owners, but people who prefer dslrs just love using there cameras and dont care what anyone else is using. In fact they usually own and use both types?
Are the non-dslr owners just upset cause they have weak wrists? Or a bit shy in being seen to take pictures in public? Or scared someone may rob them in the street?

I agree somewhat. I am starting to see posts where the assumption is made that if you're a DSLR user you're a gearhead, or you think owning one automatically makes you a professional, or you're in the dark ages.

Hey, lately, I've used my Nikon D5100 less since getting a Sony NEX-C3, but the Sony has the same sensor & IQ, while being smaller. However, it's still way above using a stinking iPhone. I can pop on a vintage Canon FD 50mm 1.8 I picked up for $20 and render bokeh no camera phone is going to touch. Or I can use the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 & autofocus & still get pretty good bokeh. I can generate RAW files & they will smash what any iPhone can do.

And I still sometimes use my Nikon D5100, why? Because again it smashes what an iPhone can do.

If that makes me a "gearhead" or "in the dark ages," so be it. If IQ is a dark-ages concept, may we always exist in the dark.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 03:08 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)
In reply to:

tko: So, is Road & Track going to start reviewing tricycles? Field and Stream magnetic fishing games? Better Ammo rubber band guns? High Fidelity USB sticks?

Is there is any hobby where people choose their gear based on how convenient it is, and not how it performs?

In no other enthusiast area do I see such pandering to laziest hobbyists. I don't use the word "lazy" as an insult - I'm lazy in many areas, no big deal. There's a lot of stuff in the world I just don't care about as long as it basically works. It's perfectly OK for people to feel that way about cameras. A minimum performance tool for a job.

But why have a web site that glorifies low performance? Why not write articles about the coolest and the best?

Road & Track will occasionally test a Yugo. Once they tested a blimp. Good clean fun. But they sell magazines with test of exotic supercars. They don't write articles on why a bike is all you really need. This site, seems to want to appeal to the Yugo drivers.

I agree somewhat with the laziness thing, even though I've taken to using my Sony NEX-C3e more than my Nikon D5100. How many times have I heard people comment in the forums "I want better IQ but I don't want to have to learn f-stops etc." Well sorry, but yes I think that's lazy. Not everyone is an f-stop fanatic etc, but I think there's something to be said for people making at least an EFFORT towards learning the techniques, and also lighting, posing, and how to think up new ideas & such--you know, making an effort towards improvement of their skill-set vs expecting miracles with no effort made at all.

The way I figure it, if I managed to learn how to work a manual-everything Pentax K1000 35mm SLR at age 13 simply by reading books in the library (pre-Google mind you) & playing around with them in the stores, there's no excuse for people not at least TRYING to learn SOME of the techniques. Show some respect already.

LRH

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 02:53 UTC
On 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months article (591 comments in total)

I am somewhat the same way, in that I have a Nikon D5100 & Sony NEX-C3, & the latter gets used far more, heck it has the same sensor & IQ. It fits in a case that goes on my fanny-pack & thus is always on my hip. As someone else said I still hold onto the DSLR for emotional reasons, although I do still use it on occasion & appreciate its good results. That said, a side of me says it would make more sense to sell & use the money to fund more glass for the NEX-C3 (50mm or ultra-wide).

I do disagree with a couple of points, to wit:

(1) "DSLRs are intimidating for portraiture." All of a sudden people are frightened over an SLR? Then how have great images been made for all of these years? If you're talking "delicate" or intimidate situations (funerals come to mind) I can see the point, otherwise, someone being nervous over an SLR needs psychiatric help, frankly.

(2) iPhone/Smartphone photography--sorry, but with the RX100 & other options, there's no excuse to use a PHONE to take photos.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 19:43 UTC as 241st comment | 2 replies
Total: 375, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »