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: 78, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1658 comments in total)

A full frame mirrorless camera with a tilt/shift lens, both Canon quality, for $1000. I don't even care if the lens is interchangeable. Wow, what a dreamer, huh? :)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 12:29 UTC as 764th comment
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Ditto. I can see the need for a 2.8 lens for a pro who shoots action of any sort. For me, one kilobuck is about the most I want to spend on a lens. I have good shots of flying birds shot at f/8. Now grandchildren are a completely different story :).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 22:22 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Thanks. I agree. What is it with 2.8 anyway?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 19:17 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Sorry if I'm misreading who, precisely, you don't understand. Is it my original post complaining about the size and weight of the Fuji 50-140 (and the price), or is it the comment immediately below from jtan163? If the latter, I agree with you about the weight and the price. I have the 55-200, but would really enjoy something even smaller and lighter that than lens for travel. That's why I wondered about Fuji producing a 60-135 at a slower aperture to keep things small and light, which are two of the reason a lot of us bought into Fuji.

The tendency toward fast lenses seems a bit like follow the leader to me rather than a thoughtful offering of lenses that most Fuji users would like to own. The improvement in noise levels of sensors in the last few years -- and Fuji has one of the best -- has to a large extent argued against the faster lenses. So I'm wondering where this is going to end, or where and when it might be supplemented with lenses most of us can afford.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

If Pentax can make a 50-200mm f/4-5.6 that is 2.7 x 3.0 inches, weighing 10ounces, I'm certain a 60-135 at f3.5-4.5 could be produced that would be the same size, and maybe a few ounces more for OIS. The barrel doesn't have to be 135mm long.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

Perhaps. Note, however, that while the Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 costs $1400 and weighs 686gm, the Pentax WR 50-200mm f/4-5.6 costs $250 and weighs 286gm. Agreed, the 50-200 is not a super lens, and that OIS might add $$ and weight (Pentax' IS is in-camera.) But just how much?

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 18:41 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

GPW: The Nikon and Canon 70-200 weigh that much for a reason. I have had so many people tell me that their Sigma or Tamron had to go back several times for repairs. My Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 has been through some harsh elements(weather) in the past 5 years with ZERO failures, because they are built like a rock.

They might be if the aperture were f/4, or 3.5-4.5, or 4-5.6, or something along those lines. The manufacturers are into f/2.8 recently, but not everyone wants, or needs, that size and weight. The higher cost of f/2.8 is an added issue. This isn't a masculine/feminine issue, just a preference. Buy a light camera system and one prefers lighter lenses. Also, ever try carrying your equipment onto an airplane?

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 13:03 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: A lens starting at 50mm is much more usable than a lens starting at 70mm on aps-c. I have tried both. I shot the Sigma 50-150 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/2.8 is useless indoors on an aps-c body. 70mm is way to long for general use. The 50-150 was very usable. That extra 20mm of width is VERY useful.
Also - where are the pro grade 50-150 f/4 lenses? Why has no one made this lens? Could be made much smaller than the f/2.8 lenses - and would still be pretty useful under almost all conditions.

Amen to that last statement. I guess "everyone" is making f/2.8 zooms so we've got to make one, too, is the thinking. An f/4 model is more manageable and with today's less noisy sensors would be still be "pretty useful under almost all conditions."

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 12:54 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

GPW: The Nikon and Canon 70-200 weigh that much for a reason. I have had so many people tell me that their Sigma or Tamron had to go back several times for repairs. My Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 has been through some harsh elements(weather) in the past 5 years with ZERO failures, because they are built like a rock.

Very true, and I don't suspect most would dispute that. It's the 70-200 vs 50-135 (APS-C equivalent to 75-210) that's being compared here. The APS-C zooms can also be well-built, but they'd still be lighter, if you see what I mean. :) BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (340 comments in total)

Interesting topic, and one that was just tossed around on DPR's Fuji forum. It seems there is a strong contingent of Fuji owners that bought the small and light angle of Fuji's mirrorless offerings. That, and the great lenses.

But Fuji's latest offerings are rather large and heavy. OK, not as heavy as f/2.8 full-frame zooms, but heavy enough that Fuji users are starting to complain.

Why can't Fuji make a 60-135 that's, say, f/3.5 to 4.5. Such a lens would certainly weigh less than a pound and be much more compatible to the excellent 18-55 zoom. Pentax currently makes a WR 50-200/4-5.6 zoom that weighs 10 ounces. With Fuji quality and focus motors, a 60-135/3.5-4.5 shouldn't be more that 14 ounces? At any rate, producing two pound zooms at $1600 and up might cause Fuji to lose favor with it's strongest followers.

Mirrorless started out light and small, and everyone loved it. Now it's becoming like small cars that grow bigger every year.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 22:33 UTC as 71st comment | 8 replies
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pixel Pooper: It looks like they tried to make it as ugly as possible, and succeeded.

Ugly is in the eyes of the beholder. If you'd grown up in the mid-20th Century you'd know how common this "look" was. Truthfully, take a look at today's Leica rangefinders and tell me there's much difference.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 11:17 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkusDaaniel: I can fully understand Adobe's rationale behind this but I can not endorse it any way. Subscription only might seem good idea only if you are thinking in terms of next month. But the problem with it all becomes quite obvious when the economic downturn comes round again. With perpetual licensing one could easily skip a upgrade cycle or two and still get all the work done but with subscription it comes down to cutting something else off. Mostly likely some of the staff. Subscription model makes budgeting hugely inflexible.

As Windows 7 is supported until 2020 at least Photoshop CS6 will do just fine. Fortunately there's plenty of good RAW converters around (DXO Optics, Capture One, AfterShot) Lightroom won't be missed much.

I have to agree. I bought LR 5 as a front end for CS6 and as digital asset management system (LR has catalog-based search function for photos), but frankly haven't used it much. I detect a very strong opposition among photographers to the subscription plan, and frankly I'm one of them. I think Adobe misread their customers. It's not the same in the graphic arts crowd, as there aren't many other Creative Suites out there. For photographers there are several other options that still don't have a subscription plan.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

ch13: I find most of these comments sad...in fact what is the point of this story? Somebody made a mistake and didn't put the battery in the box, big deal. The story is snarky and the comments, filled with banal sarcasm are simply sad and depressing.

The T, while too expensive for most of us, is certainly a work of art, and the photos it takes are probably very fine. The comments, however, are aimed at the ridiculous drooling over every facet of the box and the machined hotshoe and battery covers. Comments that are more than appropriate for drooling that borders on sexual fetishism. Would the comments be the same if this were just another Canon Elph?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

SeeRoy: "Unboxing..."
The most pitiful symptom of a bankrupt consumer culture - "bankrupt" in both a literal and metaphorical sense.

I agree. While I've envied Leica cameras since the M3, this bit of camera fetishism is nauseating. I have a pair of Leica binoculars and just put a piece of duct tape over the red circle.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2014 at 13:34 UTC
In reply to:

babart: At last! I'm getting in line. I really want a 10 or 12mm lens, but I've put off buying another two-pound zoom that takes up half your camera bag. I was, however, considering the Fuji X 10-24, but at $1000 vs $400 for the Samyang, the latter is a no-brainer. Samyang lenses are excellent optically, and who needs autofocus at 12mm?

BAB

You're right, of course, but what I meant is (and didn't include) is that most subjects shot with a 12mm lens aren't usually moving very much. Hence one has time to manually focus. And yes, even at f/8 a focus tweak before pushing the button would be most advantageous :).

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: It trolls the web? Really? I thought there was enough trolling just in the DPReview forums for starters. Why would we want anyone else to start trolling for us as well? =P

Some people would complain about anything.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 01:27 UTC
On Behind the Shot: Shredded article (79 comments in total)

Very nice. The foreground adds greatly to the interest.

I recognized this mountain instantly, although I shot it in late May from the broad angle, with a horse in the foreground. See here: http://www.brucebartrug.com/iceland/917ns36whvr47aheq4vsesla6sm7jy.

Very interesting place, the Snaefellsnes Peninsula. I'd love to return soon.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 21:48 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply

This is the reason I rarely enter photo contests. What were the judges smoking?

Those complaining about negative comments must be art reviewers. Many of these photos are very ordinary, if not surprisingly bad. So what if they're part of a "series?" They're still not good. There are some quality images, but the architecture and landscape shots make me wonder what was going on at the judging.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2014 at 20:08 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies
On Ricoh announces medium-format Pentax 645Z article (161 comments in total)

Wow. Out of my dollar reach, but not a bad price either. I still shoot 6x4.5 cm film and the results are quite amazing. This little jobie would make them even more so. The Pentax 645 was always the easiest MF film camera to use. The viewfinder was very good.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 01:32 UTC as 52nd comment
On Manfrotto 190 Series Carbon Fiber Tripod Review article (72 comments in total)

God, I love my aluminum Giottos (two of them.) I saved over $200 compared to this carbon model by Manfrotto. The weight difference is 6 ounces and they hold the same payload.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 12:50 UTC as 10th comment
Total: 78, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »