babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 262, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

aarif: black please

No, I didn't read the whole article, but thanks for clarifying. I'm glad DPR is offering the choice. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 18:25 UTC

I much prefer the black background, as it's easier on my eyes. Thanks for giving us an option, and suggest keeping the option permanent.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 12:17 UTC as 82nd comment
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1189 comments in total)

Durn, where did I put that lottery ticket? :) Expensive, of course, but a super idea and, I suspect, one well-executed.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 14:25 UTC as 230th comment
In reply to:

Dennis Linden: I don't suppose it would be possible to suppress comments on this post...

Ordinarily, I ignore the high rate of negative comments that almost seems traditional on DPR, but these satirical gems are both hilarious and (in my humble) right on the money. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 19:02 UTC

Should be a most interesting series.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2016 at 12:08 UTC as 11th comment

Very interesting. And although Mars looks like arid landscapes everywhere, most such views don't include a multimillion-dollar space probe :).

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 12:19 UTC as 48th comment
On article Magnum signed square print sale returns for third year (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: The internet attack team is having quite the field day. Wonder if these people go home and complain about supper. You call this great food? I could cook better while texting DPR another snide remark.

I would never suggest depriving you of freedom of speech. I find most of the prints evocative in a typical, almost abstract, Magnum style......clips from life. I especially like Bischof, Harvey, and Reid, but would be pleased to own any. Note how that comment differs from so many here :).

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 01:13 UTC
On article Magnum signed square print sale returns for third year (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: The internet attack team is having quite the field day. Wonder if these people go home and complain about supper. You call this great food? I could cook better while texting DPR another snide remark.

Because the commentators aren't random, and there is so much needless negativity in this thread that I find it absurd. Take, for instance, your own comment.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 23:35 UTC
On article Magnum signed square print sale returns for third year (83 comments in total)

The internet attack team is having quite the field day. Wonder if these people go home and complain about supper. You call this great food? I could cook better while texting DPR another snide remark.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 19:53 UTC as 17th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

babart: Wow, can you say small and light for a 15mm lens? Less than half the size and weight of my Rokinon 14/2.8. Ah, but the f/2.8 does make night sky photos easier. Sigh. I could have a 14mm and a 15mm both, right?

Oh, I'm sorry, I missed your point. Yes, you're right, and it will be interesting to see the size and weight. I doubt it will be anything super small, but one never knows. The lens will still be f/2.8, and require 67mm filters. We'll see.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Wow, can you say small and light for a 15mm lens? Less than half the size and weight of my Rokinon 14/2.8. Ah, but the f/2.8 does make night sky photos easier. Sigh. I could have a 14mm and a 15mm both, right?

Of course. So what? It works just fine on the Sony.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Wow, can you say small and light for a 15mm lens? Less than half the size and weight of my Rokinon 14/2.8. Ah, but the f/2.8 does make night sky photos easier. Sigh. I could have a 14mm and a 15mm both, right?

I have a Rokinon 14/2.8 with a Sony E mount, so it's produced for both types of camera bodies :).

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 09:48 UTC

Wow, can you say small and light for a 15mm lens? Less than half the size and weight of my Rokinon 14/2.8. Ah, but the f/2.8 does make night sky photos easier. Sigh. I could have a 14mm and a 15mm both, right?

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 19:44 UTC as 8th comment | 6 replies

Wow. Even pricier than Patagonia.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 22:20 UTC as 54th comment

Wonder if this indicates more Art lenses to be available in PK mount.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 21:33 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

babart: A digital film camera. Very nice really. But only appreciated by those of us who used range-finder cameras back in the 50s. If I were wealthy I'd take a look at it, but probably pass, as I wear glasses and the LCD is quite helpful for us spectacled individuals. The rest of the minimal operations I can identify with because that's largely the way I utilize my digital cameras: raw only, only change ISO and aperture in A priority. Very often shoot in Manual though, operating both lens paramters. Am I old, or what? :)

The freedom of using a film camera (or a digital like a film camera) is highly underrated, in my humble opinion. Turning the aperture ring and shutter dial was a lot easier than fumbling for those wheels and buttons. Love my Fuji. I do have trouble remembering to wind the film though when occasionally reverting to that style camera :). Am I old, or what? Oh....I said that.

:)

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant that as a joke, as the "you" in your response made me think you were a whipper snapper. My sincere apologies.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

babart: A digital film camera. Very nice really. But only appreciated by those of us who used range-finder cameras back in the 50s. If I were wealthy I'd take a look at it, but probably pass, as I wear glasses and the LCD is quite helpful for us spectacled individuals. The rest of the minimal operations I can identify with because that's largely the way I utilize my digital cameras: raw only, only change ISO and aperture in A priority. Very often shoot in Manual though, operating both lens paramters. Am I old, or what? :)

The freedom of using a film camera (or a digital like a film camera) is highly underrated, in my humble opinion. Turning the aperture ring and shutter dial was a lot easier than fumbling for those wheels and buttons. Love my Fuji. I do have trouble remembering to wind the film though when occasionally reverting to that style camera :). Am I old, or what? Oh....I said that.

:)

Funny. You'll get old, too.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 02:46 UTC

A digital film camera. Very nice really. But only appreciated by those of us who used range-finder cameras back in the 50s. If I were wealthy I'd take a look at it, but probably pass, as I wear glasses and the LCD is quite helpful for us spectacled individuals. The rest of the minimal operations I can identify with because that's largely the way I utilize my digital cameras: raw only, only change ISO and aperture in A priority. Very often shoot in Manual though, operating both lens paramters. Am I old, or what? :)

The freedom of using a film camera (or a digital like a film camera) is highly underrated, in my humble opinion. Turning the aperture ring and shutter dial was a lot easier than fumbling for those wheels and buttons. Love my Fuji. I do have trouble remembering to wind the film though when occasionally reverting to that style camera :). Am I old, or what? Oh....I said that.

:)

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 21:20 UTC as 239th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

babart: I'm afraid I'll have to go with the nay-sayers on this device. The iPhone may be a thin and convenient way to acquire visual images, but there are many cameras that are also small and have so much more potential as image recording devices. If it weren't for the necessity of also being a phone, I suspect some manufacturer would already have a camera close to being this thin. Smart phones are very useful devices, but so are smallish cameras.

It would not, of course. It's simply the fact that most ultrathin devices are already phones....with a camera. So why make a thin device that is only a camera. Think backwards :).

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 15:25 UTC
Total: 262, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »