Lives in United States Nor Cal, CA, United States
Works as a Hit man & prophet (retired)
Joined on Jun 12, 2010
About me:

Long-time amateur photographer constantly seeking that perfect kit. Love shooting flora, fauna and the occasional human.


Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13

I'm an amateur and accepted an offer to shoot my girlfriend's daughter's wedding. I spent around two grand swapping out gear and buying better suited great for the wedding. Drove twice to the venue over five hours away. Once to test lighting and scope out good outdoor sports and once for the event. She didn't even thank me. I gave them all the processed shots but not the raw images. Her mother told her this and she interpreted that as I had held something back. She talked crap about me for years, to people I'd never met and didn't know me. Five years later I met a couple that knew her and introduced myself. They acted shocked. The man laughed and said "after all we've heard about you and the wedding pictures, we expected a monster!" Five years later. Fortunately, I had no business to be ruined.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 17:53 UTC as 68th comment | 7 replies
On article Nikon D5300 Review (323 comments in total)

For a review that rates the camera so highly, the wording is such that virtually every statement is "it does this well BUT" and then a demerit of some type. Reading it, I get the distinct impression the reviewer didn't like the camera. I've owned a number of Nikons and just added this to my group. I find it to be an excellent choice!

Perhaps the reviewer is like so many people on the Internet - even the slightest difference is rated as something barely tolerable. His comment about not being able to use the command dial in menus is a perfect example. Is it really that much more trouble to use the cursor?

Every single feature is treated this way. It works BUT it could have been better. It makes the review seem very negative and had I read it before purchasing, it might have influenced me to look at another body. I have a good amount of money in Nikon mount lenses, so that helps me make decisions. I don't want fanboy reviews but this sort of thing is the worst.

Were you happy with anything? Anything?

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 01:10 UTC as 63rd comment
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

pumeco: To all of you who thinks this is ok, it isn't, and in the simplest way possible, here's why:

It is NOT ok to continually pay for a product you will never own. Other than blatant greed, I cannot, no matter how hard I try, see any reason you should not be allowed to keep the product once your subscriptions have covered the cost of the retail product.

If you can think of even ONE reason you should not be allowed to keep the product you had covered the cost of, then I'm all ears!

People need to get a grip and stop talking crap. I could pay, say, £600 for a Photoshop licence before, and therefore there is no reason I should not be able to keep my licence once I covered that £600 in subscription fees.

What they are doing ought to be illegal, it is NOT a phone service, it is NOT a product that can ONLY work through a subscription model. They should offer a choice, or, allow you to keep your licence once covered but stop the updates if you stop paying your subscription.


They DO offer a choice! Don't buy it if you don't like it!

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2013 at 04:45 UTC
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: I have to laugh at all the criticism of Adobe. If you don't like it, don't sign up. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

I have to laugh at those people who say it's "wrong," especially those who tell me what is good for me. It's neither right nor wrong. It's a business decision. If it generates more income for Adobe it's "right" for the company and it's shareholders. Adobe isn't in business to make you happy; it's in business to make money. And what's "right or wrong" for you doesn't matter to me; I'll make up my own mind, thank you.

The only real problem I have with this deal is that it's bait and switch. After 1 year Adobe jacks the price back up to their normal rate, anf you're screwed.

Agree 100%,Bob. So tired of people thinking what they think is right, is right! What happened to 'if ya don't like it, don't look'!

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2013 at 04:43 UTC

I loved my Toke 12-24 on Canon, but the non-bim model (mark I, if you will) so put me off to the Nikon mount that I ended up with a Siggy 10-20. Love that lens. I like the fact that Tokina has gone and added a motor and now a little more range, but that extra 4mm won't cause me to change. I'd rather have seen them go a bit wider, but I understand the constraints in that direction.

Not a big announcement IMHO.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2013 at 15:47 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

DrWhom: Am I crazy, or is this variable aperture lens solving a problem that doesn't really exist (in the 70-300 VR)? Is 100mm on the long end plus (maybe) faster focusing warrant an extra $2200 and 730g?

Depends on whether this gives us more usable mm's. The 70-300 isn't really great at 300. So if the 80-400 gives us great 300 and beyond, then heck yeah. The other point I might make is not every one of us (and I'm not saying I'm not included) is going to worry about the $2200 part. Some would want the option of better glass for more money. I'm not rushing out to spend the cash - I don't have it either. But I do appreciate the option to do that.

I do wish they'd kept it part of the trend of providing a f4 constant aperture lens line tho. I know, I know - then it would be $4000 and 1kg more. I'm just saying...

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 15:26 UTC

Hey arpikusz - buy Sigma's 150-500 OS then. Decent quality glass with a great body for - $1200! And most "hobby" photographers are better served by zooms than primes as most don't want to (as you allude to) spend huge amounts on their hobby. I agree there! That said, I'd rather have this new 80-400 (provided it turns out nice) as an option than another prime. After all, this IS a 400/5.6! If you were saying a 400/4, I could understand a bit more, even tho in this day of terrific AF units and sensors, the difference is small - especially given the subjects of most 400mm lenses.

MOST hobbyists are, like I said, better served by zooms and it's nice to have another entry into the long-lens category, even at this price point. That is called choices! (I gotta admit - two of my favorite lenses when I shot Canon were the 24-105/4, which Nikon has finally given us in the 24-120/4 and the 100-400. Looks like Nikon has given me that, too! So my opinion might have some bias!)

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 15:19 UTC as 10th comment
On article Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 (69 comments in total)

Nice. Just bought 10 about 40 days ago. Sigh.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 03:25 UTC as 8th comment

I bought Viveza 2 a week ago. Should have known it was the end...

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 00:08 UTC as 23rd comment

I always considered Tamron below the other 3rd party suppliers. Sigma, then Tokina (though dependent on the lens, Tokina might be first), then Tamron. I've never really had a Tamron I considered quality. I had the fantastic plastic, 19-35 for Canon mount and it was decent. But nothing else.

It's true they are cheaper, but with cameras sporting ever increasing megapixels, cheaper looks worse all the time.

Maybe that test proposed would prove me wrong.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 23:33 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon significantly improves EOS 7D with firmware v2 (296 comments in total)

I used to believe only Nikon improved existing cameras with firmware - it was one of my arguments to move from Canon to Nikon (HUGE MISTAKE BTW). Now Canon adds real functionality to the 7D. Sigh. Wish I could afford to move back. I miss my L lenses!!!

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 14:56 UTC as 65th comment | 1 reply
On article Just Posted: Nikon D800 hands-on preview (265 comments in total)

And you're on drugs. Nikon whoops Canon in body tech - tho they need to do a bit of adding/revamping of the lens lineup. Exactly what matches (on the Canon side) the D300/300s or D7000? The 60D? Hardly. The 7D? Not on your life? And what about the Nikon CLS? Sorry, I shot Canon from the 20D through the 50D (owned all between, too) and Nikon has the lead in bodies. Period. Of course, if you're just being a troll or fanboy, carry on!

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 23:34 UTC as 11th comment
On photo DSC_1509 in SERGE333's photo gallery (1 comment in total)


Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2011 at 18:00 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13