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: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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.

@JerryZZ: That's true, of course. But this device almost qualifies as carrying two objects, if you see my point. (Your personal comment was entirely unnecessary.)

@Serenity Now: That's true about smart phones, as well as the fact that they keep getting better. But my point was that current cameras have more options built in to CAPTURE images. That will probably also change. Too, many newer cameras have WiFi to communicate with phones, giving them the connectivity. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2016 at 11:09 UTC

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.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 11:39 UTC as 12th comment | 5 replies

Never will I purchase another messenger bag for cameras. I once walked around Paris all day with just a DSLR and two lenses in a messenger bag and wound up with the worst back ache I ever had. Maybe just me.....I have a tendency to keep the bag on my shoulder, not over both shoulder and neck. From now on its two straps over both shoulders, and thanks for no back ache. I know....what a pain to have to take the pack off one's back just to change a card or lens. Good for you if you tolerate the one-shoulder carry better than I.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2016 at 14:02 UTC as 29th comment | 1 reply
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

Thanks to villagranvicent. Nice to meet you.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 23:20 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

OK, here's the message I sent you privately: "Sorry for the suck an egg statement. This argument is silly. My initial comment concerned several (yours included) sarcastic and derogatory statements concerning a contest in which none of the commentators was a contest originator or judge, therefor not knowing the structure of the contest nor of the criteria for choosing the winner. Sorry, but I would never do that. I'd just let it pass. Frankly, I've been in India and the winning photo evoked in me a lot of what it is like to travel by rail in that country. That initial comment concerned the practice of jumping all over someone you didn't know, and wasn't directed personally at any one person, including you. You may have taken my several comments as a personal insult, and if so, I apologize. Wasn't originally meant that way. If we could just agree to disagree here, it would put an end to a mildly ridiculous argument. An argument both you and I started, if you get my drift."

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 11:01 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

What's the matter with you? Go suck an egg.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 01:03 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

And NO one should have to share your opinion. I don't want the book, and I think the photo is fine.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 23:21 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

And so I guess this qualifies as a simple boo (your quote): "Take a picture of a woman in an upscale NY setting, it's called fashion and will be published in Vogue. Take a picture of the same woman in third world setting, suddenly it´s called photojournalism and will be published in National Geographic." That's not a critique. That is an arrogant, self-indulgent, cynical attempt to denigrate the photographer who won the contest.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 20:57 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

Exactly, Kairil. I have no idea about the rules for the contest or what the judges were using as criteria or what they were looking for in a winner. So why should I insult the photographer that won?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 12:07 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I was referring to the slew of cynical posts decrying the winning image. I've never seen so much pure slander over a photo that isn't that bad....depending on the criteria the judges were using. And if you offered some constructive criticism, good for you. But if you just moaned and screamed like too many in this thread, don't respond to this message.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 23:21 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

Some seem to feel that, to win, a photo must be of a completely different place, angle, color, or whatever to be considered "creative." I have news for those who think this way: EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. Period. More that once. Creative is how or when the photo is captured. And the mood that photo invokes. The same photo can be shot by hundreds of people and they'll all look a bit different.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (230 comments in total)

Many of those commenting on the contest winner are so pathetic. Go get a life somewhere. Somewhere else.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 15:44 UTC as 21st comment | 20 replies
In reply to:

a-flying-wuss: Are the current a7 bodies weather-sealed? I remember reading about the original a7 how it was first marketed as "weather-sealed" (before it was available in stores), but then, after it hit the stores and people started using it in bad weather, there were multiple reports of a7 units failing miserably even under moderate rain.. a few dead bodies and then Sony stopped advertising it as weather-sealed, even removed it from some of their materials if I recall correctly.

I haven't payed any attention to the a7 series after that and so I'm curious now, seeing how this 70-300 is marketed as "dust and moisture resistant": are those newer, a7 II bodies really weather-sealed (similar to Olympus E-3/E5 or Pentax K-3/K-5)? Or is it still the same kind of "gimmick" as it was with the 1st generation and you can't actually use them in rainy/dusty/snowy environments without worrying about ruining them?

I wash my sealed and nitrogen-purged Leica binoculars under fresh water after being on the ocean, but I'd never do that with a camera. Even a Leica camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

a-flying-wuss: Are the current a7 bodies weather-sealed? I remember reading about the original a7 how it was first marketed as "weather-sealed" (before it was available in stores), but then, after it hit the stores and people started using it in bad weather, there were multiple reports of a7 units failing miserably even under moderate rain.. a few dead bodies and then Sony stopped advertising it as weather-sealed, even removed it from some of their materials if I recall correctly.

I haven't payed any attention to the a7 series after that and so I'm curious now, seeing how this 70-300 is marketed as "dust and moisture resistant": are those newer, a7 II bodies really weather-sealed (similar to Olympus E-3/E5 or Pentax K-3/K-5)? Or is it still the same kind of "gimmick" as it was with the 1st generation and you can't actually use them in rainy/dusty/snowy environments without worrying about ruining them?

@Androole. Thanks for the info. I suspected as much, and have kept the a7 out of even a drizzle, except for quick dashes from under my raincoat.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

a-flying-wuss: Are the current a7 bodies weather-sealed? I remember reading about the original a7 how it was first marketed as "weather-sealed" (before it was available in stores), but then, after it hit the stores and people started using it in bad weather, there were multiple reports of a7 units failing miserably even under moderate rain.. a few dead bodies and then Sony stopped advertising it as weather-sealed, even removed it from some of their materials if I recall correctly.

I haven't payed any attention to the a7 series after that and so I'm curious now, seeing how this 70-300 is marketed as "dust and moisture resistant": are those newer, a7 II bodies really weather-sealed (similar to Olympus E-3/E5 or Pentax K-3/K-5)? Or is it still the same kind of "gimmick" as it was with the 1st generation and you can't actually use them in rainy/dusty/snowy environments without worrying about ruining them?

I do the same, even with "sealed" Pentax cameras. I keep the Sony a7 out of even drizzle. I'm quite certain there are no waterproof cameras. Unless these are in waterproof holdings and inside two rolled-top waterproof bags :). Thanks.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

a-flying-wuss: Are the current a7 bodies weather-sealed? I remember reading about the original a7 how it was first marketed as "weather-sealed" (before it was available in stores), but then, after it hit the stores and people started using it in bad weather, there were multiple reports of a7 units failing miserably even under moderate rain.. a few dead bodies and then Sony stopped advertising it as weather-sealed, even removed it from some of their materials if I recall correctly.

I haven't payed any attention to the a7 series after that and so I'm curious now, seeing how this 70-300 is marketed as "dust and moisture resistant": are those newer, a7 II bodies really weather-sealed (similar to Olympus E-3/E5 or Pentax K-3/K-5)? Or is it still the same kind of "gimmick" as it was with the 1st generation and you can't actually use them in rainy/dusty/snowy environments without worrying about ruining them?

Interesting post for more than one reason. If you check with Roger at Lens Rentals you'll discover that "moisture and dust sealed" can be a piece of tape across a potential opening. Which is "sealing" against fog and the occasional puff of pollen. "Weather resistant" uses rubber o-rings and sealing gaskets by comparison, and would be the only description I would trust in a light rain. In heavy rain I'd put the gear in a back pack.

Second, the Sony alphas are all claimed to be weather sealed. How weather sealed I'm not certain but perhaps someone else will explain what that means in Sony talk. I have the a7 but have never played with it in the rain, as I've not read that that is a great idea. I could be wrong.

This new 50/1.8 is a step in the right direction. If Sony could add a 28/2.8 and 85/2.0-2.8 I might consider the three. Even though I have Contax manual focus lenses 28, 50 , 85. The IQ on the newbies would have to be superb, however.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

D135ima: Good price, excellent performance on paper. waiting for tests

Oh, not bad at all. Wish they made it in Sony E, but I have converters.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

D135ima: Good price, excellent performance on paper. waiting for tests

Where do you see a price?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 23:47 UTC
Total: 262, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »