tbcass

tbcass

Lives in United States Central, NY, United States
Works as a Master of the Universe
Joined on Nov 21, 2005
About me:

Sony RX100
Sony A77
Sony A77ii
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 USD
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 "C" lens
Tamron 70-300 USD
Tamron 150-600 USD
Tamron 16-300
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro
Also play Bass Guitar and Keyboards
Fender Squier Fretless 4 String
Fender Precision Lyte fretted 4 string
Yamaha TPG635 electronic Piano/Keyboard

Comments

Total: 365, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tbcass: It appears that DPR has a pretty liberal interpretation of "compact". By my definition the FZ1000 isn't compact.

Add to that you can attach a superzoom lens like the Tamron 16-300 to an APS-C SLR for slightly more reach in a package not much bigger.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

kev2033: So, what about it not having image stabilization? I have a Nex7 (yes, I am a dinosuar) with the Zeiss 16-70 F4 but I didnt want to step up to the full frame Sony cameras because:

1. they are bigger and heavier than the Nex7 - they defeat the purpose of a small compact mirrorless camera!
2. they dont have a pop up flash - yeah, I know I can use high ISO and shoot in low light, but I sometimes want fill flash on a person, especially if they are back lit, without over exposing the background. Dont make me go buy a $350 flash, just another thing to carry around
3. Price - the full frames are significantly more money

So, for these reasons, I have held off on getting out of my Nex7, but with the AF advances of this camera and low light capability, I am really thinking on this one. I dont really care about a touch screen.

My two biggest complaints with this camera are:

1. no easy way to move around your AF point (no joystick)
2. no built in image stablization

The problem I have with touch screens is the width of my fingers makes precise touching on small screens very difficult. It's hard enough on my iPhone but the tiny 3" screen on cameras would be nearly impossible for me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 01:36 UTC
In reply to:

kev2033: So, what about it not having image stabilization? I have a Nex7 (yes, I am a dinosuar) with the Zeiss 16-70 F4 but I didnt want to step up to the full frame Sony cameras because:

1. they are bigger and heavier than the Nex7 - they defeat the purpose of a small compact mirrorless camera!
2. they dont have a pop up flash - yeah, I know I can use high ISO and shoot in low light, but I sometimes want fill flash on a person, especially if they are back lit, without over exposing the background. Dont make me go buy a $350 flash, just another thing to carry around
3. Price - the full frames are significantly more money

So, for these reasons, I have held off on getting out of my Nex7, but with the AF advances of this camera and low light capability, I am really thinking on this one. I dont really care about a touch screen.

My two biggest complaints with this camera are:

1. no easy way to move around your AF point (no joystick)
2. no built in image stablization

I hate touch screens.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

NowHearThis: maybe it's me but why can't Sony incorporate the camera strap loops into the body of the camera. They put them on the A3000, why not continue with that design?

I've owned both types and I prefer this design to the ones integrated into the body. To each their own. Sony tends to use the integrated design you prefer only on their lower end cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

BJN: Carbon fiber is also better at vibration damping than aluminum, in case you need another reason to sell that arm and leg.

Which is due to the fact that CF is lighter not better. CF also bends long before it breaks so it's stronger in that respect. Aluminum simply breaks which could be an issue if you drop a rock on it. The strength of a tripod isn't nearly as important as it's ability to resist vibration. Even my light aluminum tripod can easily hold any equipment I can put on it but it's not massive enough to resist vibrations.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

BJN: Carbon fiber is also better at vibration damping than aluminum, in case you need another reason to sell that arm and leg.

@matthew saville;

No I wasn't confusing anything and I agree with what you say. I was only commenting on the belief that carbon fiber tripods are inherently more stable than aluminum ones. That's not true if you ignore the weight advantage of carbon fiber. I own 2 tripods, a light portable one and a very heavy one. I don't carry my equipment over long distances so the advantage of CF isn't worth the extra cost to me. I feel a lot of people buy carbon fiber tripods, even if the lighter weight isn't important to them, simply because of the mistaken belief they are "better".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2016 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

BJN: Carbon fiber is also better at vibration damping than aluminum, in case you need another reason to sell that arm and leg.

Carbon fiber is more flexible than aluminum so it may vibrate more from shutter shock or if you touch it. For me Carbon fiber simple isn't worth the money. I have a heavy duty Manfrotto aluminum tripod that is rock solid and vibration free. It works well with my 150-600mm lens and even my 67 power 100mm x 530mm spotting scope. It cost $230 while the CF version cost nearly twice that. Unless saving every possible ounce of weight is extremely important carbon fiber is a waste of money IMO.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 02:41 UTC

When people say all cameras are great they generally are referring to IQ and. It seems that most people posting on DPR forums haven't used enough different types of cameras in different types of photography to realize the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Richard is right. Most people do not appreciate many features that they don't use because the camera they own doesn't perform well in that area. Those same people will deny that is the case but they are only fooling themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 15:22 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: These are the only filters endorsed by John Cameron Swayze.

You're dating yourself, and me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 15:12 UTC

Waste of money. In 50 years I have never had an accident with any camera or lens that this filter could have prevented. I suspect it is a product to give peace of mind to people who are paranoid about what could happen no matter how remote the possibility.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 15:11 UTC as 19th comment

I fail to see how this relates to Steampunk.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article A classic reinvented? Domke Chronicle Review (90 comments in total)

Looks like a nice bag but it appears to be way over priced. I was interested until I saw the price. I bet it could sell for $100 and still return a good profit. It's not like it's made of real leather like an old bag I bought back in the 70's. Here's some that probably costs a lot more to manufacture, offer better protection and costs less. I would rate it only 2 stars because of the price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Hard-Watertight-Cases/ci/16460/N/4075788776

And these.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Shoulder-Gadget-Bags/ci/174/pn/2/N/4075788795

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:33 UTC as 8th comment
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Who will buy this? I grew up when 8mm and super 8 were what families used to capture memories. The video quality was horrid, worse even than VHS. This nostalgia craze is going way too far.

Michel Aristegui; I've bought many things that were "not absolutely necessary" but they were all of high quality. Why buy something, just out of curiosity, that is so bad I would never use it?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 14:03 UTC
On article Sony SLT-A77 II Review (531 comments in total)
In reply to:

awaldram: I'd suggest the reviewer buy a dictionary before saying Reflex has anything todo with reflection !!!! (I guess the sony PR handout started this twaddle)

reflex <> reflect ever !!!
however the Noun does apply to both
a thing which mimics the essential features of something else. In the case the single lens reflex mimics the image onto the ground glass pane.

reflex
ˈriːflɛks/Submit
noun
1.
an action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus.
"a newborn baby is equipped with basic reflexes"
2.
a thing which is determined by and reproduces the essential features or qualities of something else.
"politics was no more than a reflex of economics"
adjective
1.
(of an action) performed without conscious thought as an automatic response to a stimulus.

2.
(of an angle) exceeding 180°.

Well one person, You.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 17:39 UTC
On article Sony SLT-A77 II Review (531 comments in total)
In reply to:

awaldram: I'd suggest the reviewer buy a dictionary before saying Reflex has anything todo with reflection !!!! (I guess the sony PR handout started this twaddle)

reflex <> reflect ever !!!
however the Noun does apply to both
a thing which mimics the essential features of something else. In the case the single lens reflex mimics the image onto the ground glass pane.

reflex
ˈriːflɛks/Submit
noun
1.
an action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus.
"a newborn baby is equipped with basic reflexes"
2.
a thing which is determined by and reproduces the essential features or qualities of something else.
"politics was no more than a reflex of economics"
adjective
1.
(of an action) performed without conscious thought as an automatic response to a stimulus.

2.
(of an angle) exceeding 180°.

Are you an English teacher or something? Nobody really cares.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 15:10 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: The best news here is that the processing and scanning being offered by Kodak. Two things have happened since the days of grandpa's super 8 movies (which is what most people remember).
1) Film technology has advanced. The Kodak Vision3 stocks look great, which is why they were used on Star Wars, Hateful 8, and so many other great films.
2) Digital scanning technology has also advanced.
I for one have been wishing to take advantage of both of these advancements, and thanks to Kodak, that just became simpler for a busy guy like myself. I'm not sure if I will purchase the camera, but the film + processing, I will take advantage of that for sure. For the joy of shooting film, and for the thrill of shooting without a delete button ;) Lighten up people and live a little!

Huge difference between 16mm and 8mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: This is definitely a joke. Who the hell wants to mail a one-use-film to a processing company? Doesn't a Super 8 reel last only a few minutes? I'll tell my 79 year old Dad - he'll be thrilled :-)

No he won't. He'll think it's a joke. As someone old enough to remember and used all these analog products I have no interest in them. Apparently it's the young people want to relive the products their parents used. Us old timers aren't interested.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 15:41 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greynerd: This super 8 is like people buying vinyl records in this modern age. You just cannot imagine it happening.

As someone old enough to remember and used all those analog products I have no interest in them. Apparently the young people want to relive the products their parents use. Us old timers aren't interested.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 15:39 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: The best news here is that the processing and scanning being offered by Kodak. Two things have happened since the days of grandpa's super 8 movies (which is what most people remember).
1) Film technology has advanced. The Kodak Vision3 stocks look great, which is why they were used on Star Wars, Hateful 8, and so many other great films.
2) Digital scanning technology has also advanced.
I for one have been wishing to take advantage of both of these advancements, and thanks to Kodak, that just became simpler for a busy guy like myself. I'm not sure if I will purchase the camera, but the film + processing, I will take advantage of that for sure. For the joy of shooting film, and for the thrill of shooting without a delete button ;) Lighten up people and live a little!

All the technology in the world won't produce acceptable results from such minute images. Pure garbage and only a fool with more money than brains would buy one of these, or someone trying to capture that crappy home movie look without digital manipulation. This could be the last nail in Kodak's coffin.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 15:35 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

Who will buy this? I grew up when 8mm and super 8 were what families used to capture memories. The video quality was horrid, worse even than VHS. This nostalgia craze is going way too far.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 15:30 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
Total: 365, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »