babart

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: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ebsilon: I think one needs actually two ideal cameras - a system camera and a compact travel/walkaround camera. Since I'm happy with my Nikon DX (although missing some lenses), I'll sketch out my ideal compact:

24-100mm f/2-f/4 range (alternatively 28-140mm)
1" sensor with PDAF - oversized both horisontally and vertically to provide aspect ratios fro 16:9 to 4:5
Sensor performance of current 1" is good enough, but will always wish for more
RAW format - maybe DNG?
State-of-the art EVF
Tilt or sviwel screen - with excellent visisbility in sunshine
Sized and design like Canon G12 or Nikon P7700
External controls like P7700
Weathersealed/splash proof
Hotshoe and remote CLS triggering

Actually, I think the technology is already more or less here - just hoping for someone putting this together. Maybe for next Photokina?

Panasonic missed a really good opportunity by NOT putting a updated 15mpix sensor in the GF-1. If you want the perfect compromise in usability (all the important controls are on the outside), size, and interchangeable lenses, the GF-1 takes the cake. It's a poor mans Leica M3.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

Rachotilko: I am BTW, why do FF DSLR's have to be so HUGE compared to APS-C ? I mean, internals are roughly the same, why all the bulk ?

Rachotilko is right. My Pentax MX weighs 18oz whereas the K5 is 26oz, and the MX is smaller. I appreciate the metal frame and weather-proofing of the K5, and I understand there needs to be a motor to drive the focus device and room for the circuit boards .... I guess I'm answering my own question as to why the K5 is heavier and bigger. So. See above discussions about digital inserts for film cameras :). Full-frame (prime) lenses are also heavier than their APS-C equivalents.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

rondhamalam: Do we really need FF ?
FF is coming from Film era. A bulky shape derived by the standard set of lenses that difficult to move away from. But eventually smaller camera will be the niche market.

DOF and everything else can be delivered from smaller cameras. Sony and Olly etc are leading the way toward miniaturization since Sony's Walkman time, and the concept continues.

So do we still need FF ?

For those of us that still use legacy (manual focus lenses that include -- OMG -- an aperture ring) a full-frame sensor "allows" a 28mm lens to be a wide-angle instead of a normal lens. And a 20mm a super-wide. Wide-angle lenses are harder to make well, are heavier, and cost more. Other than that, I see no overriding need to jump to "full-frame" from APS-C. I have "full-frame" film cameras I still use, and the APS-C models are smaller and lighter.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

ageha: Wow, amazingly ugly. >.<

Ugly is in the eyes of the user :).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

Miguel Osorio: The camera of my life is my Nikon FM2n which I bought in 1996. I keep using it, and it is my main camera. I need it only to take photos, that's why I bought it.
The solution would be as simple as this,

develop this idea:
http://re35.net/

or this idea:
http://seoulcolors.com/2011/05/digital-camera-back-for-35mm-film-by-hyun-jin-park/

FF, APS-C, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36 Mpixel, variable ISO, whatever. There is enough technology, just look at Sony NEX or DSC-RX1.

OMG! Bring these to market, please!! I could shoot digital with my two MXs -- a small, light SLR with a REAL viewfinder. And my old Retina II, a pocket camera made with real metal. It would also be seriously great to have an insert for my Rollei. Not that I mind developing b/w film, but wow, having digital capability in cameras that, as Miguel mentioned, were made only to take photos. No video, scene modes, GPS, Wi-Fi, or indecipherable menus. I hope there are companies actively pursuing such devices, and encourage them in their development plans.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:14 UTC
In reply to:

rowlandw: Modular design. I would buy a rugged, built-to-last body if I could easily swap in new sensors over the years.

What a superb cost-reducing idea. I'd buy one, as would many others who are tired of buying a new body just to get a new sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

Chekr: After being out shooting tonight, I would love a very subtle backlight on function keys, as it stands i have to use the flashlight on my phone to work out which keys to press. I am sure more regular shooter have memorised where everything is :)

A good idea. The buttons could be translucent, and the light could be from a small LED illuminating the edge of a piece of light-conducting film.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 13:00 UTC
On Photoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers article (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

curlyone: I was using photoshop 3 about 20 years ago,

Ditto what Art said. I'm a illustrator and photographer both and can't understand the flack that Photoshop is getting in this thread. I use it constantly in both endeavors, and it works well. Lightroom may be just fine, but I've used Photoshop beginning with version 7.0 and have few complaints.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 00:57 UTC
On LockCircle brings LockPort secure HDMI ports to Nikon D800 news story (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mwcfire: HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface)

Pretty much the standard for television connectivity.

:) Muy comico. Those are my initials, but kindly note you would have a clue to that in the Babart that appears as my sign in name (BAB was unavailable.) There is not the slightest indication of an explanation for HDMI. Point taken, however.
Bruce A Bartrug

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2012 at 19:29 UTC
On LockCircle brings LockPort secure HDMI ports to Nikon D800 news story (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Oh, great. So what the hell is an HDMI port? High-Density Mitigating Instrument? Hot Darn Miniature Input? HillsDale MIchigan? Holy Demons Maintenance Incubator? I'm sorry. But can I ask you put in the real English translation before spitting out reams of acronyms. And thank you. Though I'm not holding my breath.
BAB

I could easily have looked up HDMI on the web. But why should I have to? See reply above to a post by michsh6.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2012 at 13:02 UTC
On LockCircle brings LockPort secure HDMI ports to Nikon D800 news story (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mwcfire: HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface)

Pretty much the standard for television connectivity.

Right on, Mick. The language in which we communicate here is English. It is not txtng English, nor is it fcbk English or eltst English. If you want to be understood by everyone with whom you are communicating, kindly explain yourself. Note that I didn't write FB, which I'm certain most people realize is FaceBook. But it could also be anything from football to feed bag.

My irritation with this practice of communicating in acronyms stems from how far it has spread. And, I suspect, really IS a result of texting and Facebook. I'm a medical professional who needs to read medical papers, and it's becoming almost impossible to scan an abstract and not encounter an acronym I have never seen before. "A patients CIA is often more constricted when his EPA is modified by his USA. It is recommended practitioners add a DVD to alleviate this condition."

Come on. Get real. How much longer does it take to write out the words? You don't even have to hit the shift key.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2012 at 13:00 UTC
On LockCircle brings LockPort secure HDMI ports to Nikon D800 news story (39 comments in total)

Oh, great. So what the hell is an HDMI port? High-Density Mitigating Instrument? Hot Darn Miniature Input? HillsDale MIchigan? Holy Demons Maintenance Incubator? I'm sorry. But can I ask you put in the real English translation before spitting out reams of acronyms. And thank you. Though I'm not holding my breath.
BAB

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2012 at 02:59 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On First impressions shooting with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 news story (269 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Maybe Canon will buy Olympus' photo business and make the next model the OM-D E-M5 II mark IV. I get the retro thing but I'm a little suprised it resembles the OM-G, the "poor man's" OM camera and I wonder who would want a silver one.

This look is not "retro." It's been popular since the early 20th Century because it's simply the best way to build a camera that's both sturdy and easy to carry and use.

bab

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2012 at 23:31 UTC
On Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy news story (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mr Fartleberry: You'd think Adobe would try to encourage more licensed seats rather than drive people away, eh Grumpy?

This situation has a silver lining: Adobe will soon be facing stiff competition from other software companies. The graphic arts software field has needed this competition for some time. If they continue with this policy, Adobe's position as the Microsoft of imaging software is over.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2011 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

Z (is real): (My name is Zalman Stern. I work on Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom.)

Both Camera Raw and Lightroom have a gradient tool built-in, which is not shown in the article. (It is separate from the brushing tool.) Significantly, local corrections (gradient or brushed) within Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom work on results within the raw processing pipeline and thus are different than layer blending after raw conversion in Photoshop or via Nik's plug-ins (which also work on converted images).

As always, there are many ways to work on a photo, but the built-in gradient tool using the Exposure channel is the simplest and fastest way to simulate an ND grad filter. The same applies to most other full featured raw conversion programs.

Nik makes great products and if one prefers their approach, then one should use their software. However, the easy no extra plug-ins solution works great too and should be covered in a general audience article such as this.

There's always about 6 ways to do something in Photoshop. I second the information above about the gradient tool. Also, however, in ACR one can create "snapshots" which are two processing results under the same DNG envelope. One can adjust an image to optimize the bright sky, save that as a snapshot in ACR, then readjust the image to optimize the forground and save that as well. Combining the two images as smart objects, and with an appropriate mask, combines the sky and foreground quite nicely. The result looks quite natural if you don't overdo either processed image. Using smart objects also allows one to go back to ACR and modify either snapshot if necessary. Takes the guess work out of HDR methods, not that these aren't useful when done well.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2011 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

cordellwillis: Like most books there are the pages that tell you who the book is for and the knowledge you should have before purchasing it. It's no one's fault if you don't read that first and foremost.

That's another difference with Evening's books -- he gives the background one needs instead of starting with the assumption that everyone knows what he does. Kelby's seems more of a how-to for those who follow Kelby. A lot of photographers DO follow Kelby, but frankly Evening's material is much better presented.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2011 at 15:50 UTC

I would suggest you also review Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers." I've always found Evening's treatment much more complete and comprehensive than Kelby's. Evening's examples seem to have wider application in general and his books always come with a CD tutuorial.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2011 at 20:43 UTC as 14th comment
On Nikon J1 real-world samples gallery news story (352 comments in total)
In reply to:

hikenhi: Ok, & the Verdict is in--It sucks. I'm not sure why these camera manufactures are making these compact interchangable lens cameras? Is it because they need a new market to fix their P&S which are becoming extinct because of Smart Phones that can take near as good of pictures as them? Or is it a genius idea that they hope that thos people will fall in love with and better P&S camera and like the advantages of interchangible lens cameras and be more likely to buy a real DSLR some day?

Nikon, Pentax, and other shortly I assume, are responding to local markets in Japan, where there is a glut of miniaturized everything. Since Japan is a huge market for camera manufacturers, their response is only logical. I only wish they'd spend more time developing mirrorless cameras with a viewfinder and an APS-C or micro 4/3 sensor. That said, however, each tool in the photographic arsenal has it's place. Read the next reply to glean some useful comments along those lines.
BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2011 at 16:00 UTC
On Olympus 45mm F1.8 first impressions article (46 comments in total)

I know this a dumb question, especially since I have Pentax 50/1.4 that I mount on my GF-1 and wouldn't be interested in buying the 45, but.....when mounted on a Panasonic 4/3, this lens does NOT auto focus, right? The juxtaposition of the 45 mounted on a GF-1 and the text about quick focusing made me wonder. Or perhaps hope?

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2011 at 18:25 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On Preview:olympusep3 (155 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snapshot7: WOW.

I now know what my next camera will be!!

The only thing missing would be a tilt screen (not a big deal with the VF2 available).

You might want to wait for a 16mpix sensor, which should be coming soon? Gotta keep up with Panasonic :).

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 at 23:08 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »