larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, United States
Works as a Database Design
Has a website at http://bit.ly/1DT7VSN
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Sony NEX-6
16-50PZ
50mm 1.8 OSS

Nikon 1 J1, 10-30VR

Comments

Total: 455, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dmanthree: Could've been worse. The 'author' might have published a few examples and said "that could have been shot with an iPhone."

Amen, I could not agree with you more (dmanthree). If I had my way, in fact, pro photography such as wedding photography would be a licensed endeavor and it would be REQUIRED that you HAD to use a real camera vs a smartphone and if you used a smartphone for any professional work your license to practice photography would be revoked. I actually LIKE it that a magazine is suggesting some sort of standards of caliber of gear if you're going to be shooting something as special as a wedding.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 07:03 UTC

Well, given that well too many people think that an iPhone is perfectly suitable for such an occasion (one couple with 95% of their brain cells apparently missing even specifically ASKED for that), it's nice to see that SOMEONE has some sense of standards, even if they're off (something like a Sony A6000 and a 35mm or 50mm prime is also a high-caliber machine, and quieter).

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 20:42 UTC as 301st comment

It's a long lost battle which I'm now OK with, but in years past I often times thought the "mad rush" to SD cards vs Compact Flash wasn't really needed. My first-ever digital was a point shoot Nikon Coolpix 775, it was TINY yet used Compact Flash. The Digital Rebel XT/350D was a very small d-SLR and it used Compact Flash. I never experienced bent pins either.

That was long ago, though, once the cards became cheap and PCs had SD readers built-in I was cool with them. (But microSD in a camera? Come on, that's TOO small.)

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 16:04 UTC as 7th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Casio QV-4000 (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Wow, camera in 2001 beats smartphone image quality. I mean, the resolution is poor in this old camera but at this web image size, it packs a punch. The shadows can do some noise reduction but the 2nd and portrait photo looks great.

It could have been easier for us if the images were rotated.

Yes indeed, and to think so many people nowadays think "lugging" even something like this or a Sony RX100 or a Panasonic LX10 is just SO back-breaking. Man we sure have become lazy.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why in the WORLD would you do this? If someone gave me the funds to travel to another country, or I had the funds in whatever way, I sure wouldn't use a phone for such a special occasion, I'd use the best. If lugging a full frame DSLR was too much, I'd at least use something like a Panasonic LX10 or Sony RX100 series, if not a Sony A6000-series.

Sure the photographer is the main thing, but what sense does it make to use inferior equipment with superior (yet compact) equipment well at the ready? When you want to be the best, you use a tool commensurate with the aspiration. You never hear of LeBron James playing basketball with a cheap dollar store ball or with Payless shoes, or a world glass golfer using garage sale clubs, or a cyclist using a Roadmaster they got from Walmart instead of a GOOD bike. If I were a culinary expert and given the chance to serve my cuisine to a high society crowd like British royalty, I wouldn't show up with Hot Pockets.

Well that's good to know. I have a Sony A6000 (previously a Sony NEX6, NEX-3n and NEX-C3) after having used Nikon d-SLRs so I certainly understand the appeal of portability, which explains the Sony RX100 and models like the Panasonic LX10, but I could never use a Kodak Instamatic-type of camera after having gotten used to quality tools. For the everyday bunch who will never do more than take photos of Junior hugging Fido with the built-in flash and with horriblly-off white balance, sure a phone is enough, but even a mere enthusiast like me wants to use something commensurate with the aspiration, even if I'll never be a bona fida professional.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: Anyone serious about photography and the end result will not use a mobil phone to take decent pictures.
Need I say more.

You are correct. Anyone who calls themselves a "photographer" wouldn't use something also used by the teens snapping selfies with their BFFs. Yes so it's "always with you," yes, so? Is a Panasonic LX10 or Sony RX100 too large for you? If so, I dare suggest that you're lazy.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 00:02 UTC

Why in the WORLD would you do this? If someone gave me the funds to travel to another country, or I had the funds in whatever way, I sure wouldn't use a phone for such a special occasion, I'd use the best. If lugging a full frame DSLR was too much, I'd at least use something like a Panasonic LX10 or Sony RX100 series, if not a Sony A6000-series.

Sure the photographer is the main thing, but what sense does it make to use inferior equipment with superior (yet compact) equipment well at the ready? When you want to be the best, you use a tool commensurate with the aspiration. You never hear of LeBron James playing basketball with a cheap dollar store ball or with Payless shoes, or a world glass golfer using garage sale clubs, or a cyclist using a Roadmaster they got from Walmart instead of a GOOD bike. If I were a culinary expert and given the chance to serve my cuisine to a high society crowd like British royalty, I wouldn't show up with Hot Pockets.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 23:55 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (87 comments in total)

Maybe I'm weird, but to me Facebook (which is where a lot of people seem to post photos nowadays) is about the sorriest place to post a photo. They are so much more limited than a real photo-hosting site, and with the "tagging" feature people nowadays freak out sometimes when you take their photo at a party enjoying themselves, scared that their boss or such will see it. The 'tagging" of people with their real names, such has made photography so much more awkward in such social situations than it used to be. However, people use them because in fact many times they think it's IMPOSSIBLE to share a photo with someone unless it's in Facebook. Have they never heard of Flickr, PBase, Smugmug, and heck--email?

Again, maybe I'm weird, but I APPRECIATE how in Flickr I don't know those people I appreciate that I'm seeing something from someone far away who's not in my life in any meaningful way. I don't want to only see photos just from my "friends."

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 07:00 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
On article Flickr Marketplace image licensing program shuttered (87 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: I hope this is a hoax! If Flickr closes the joy of sharing photography is dead :(

(Lassoni) I agree completely. Why in the WORLD would Instagram not allow desktop posting? That is STUPID. If I had my druthers, they would be MADE, yes MADE, to change that else forced out of existence. There's just no excuse for such a stupid limitation, and I DON'T CARE how many people seem A-ok with it, it's still stupid.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2016 at 06:52 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Sony a99 II (441 comments in total)
In reply to:

JakeB: Can Sony NOT make an ugly camera?

Yeah, it's a tool, got it.

Will no doubt appeal to those with the souls of plumbers.

Who cares what it looks like? It's not a woman in a bikini, it's a tool for getting the job done. Let the "soul" come through in the photos you create with it.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (341 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Oh please. You have access to a major sporting event, you enjoy press credentials for covering such right from the sidelines, and have the funds for using a Nikon D5 or such complete with some decent if not downright high-end glass, and you use a PHONE? Are you out of your freaking mind? What kind of schizophrenia do you suffer from to do such a nonsensical thing?

What next, are culinary chefs going to show up at a high-end restaurant catering fine food to the Buckingham Palace crowds with cans of Spaghettios? Maybe LeBron James or Steph Curry should show up to play basketball with shoes from Payless and with $1 vinyl balls purchased from Family Dollar.

Get real, you have access to cover an event like that, you "gear up" for it or you stay the heck home and stick to your Walmart greeter occupation.

I could be mistaken, but I don't recall seeing Payless paying LeBron James or Steph Curry to wear their $10 shoes and then play ball in them because, well, "if we can play like this with these sneakers then surely they're good enough for YOU." I know that if I were a pro I would NOT dare do such a thing as this. You don't take a cap gun to a gun fight. Pros lug Nikon D5s with a 70-200mm f/2.8VR and Canon 1D-series models with "L" glass for a reason. This is just laughable.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 19:06 UTC
On article ESPN publishes iPhone 7 Plus photos from US Open (341 comments in total)

Oh please. You have access to a major sporting event, you enjoy press credentials for covering such right from the sidelines, and have the funds for using a Nikon D5 or such complete with some decent if not downright high-end glass, and you use a PHONE? Are you out of your freaking mind? What kind of schizophrenia do you suffer from to do such a nonsensical thing?

What next, are culinary chefs going to show up at a high-end restaurant catering fine food to the Buckingham Palace crowds with cans of Spaghettios? Maybe LeBron James or Steph Curry should show up to play basketball with shoes from Payless and with $1 vinyl balls purchased from Family Dollar.

Get real, you have access to cover an event like that, you "gear up" for it or you stay the heck home and stick to your Walmart greeter occupation.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 18:11 UTC as 29th comment | 8 replies

How stupid of them to remove anti-dust. Why in the WORLD would they do such a thing?

"Beginners will never change the lens." It's an SLR, its very design is for changing the lens, else it might as well be a point & shoot. Besides, beginners will probably never change the white balance, picture controls, ISO, RAW/JPEG mode, focus manually OR change AF to continuous, change which AF point is active, use spot metering or center-weighted metering, switch to full manual exposure mode, or mount a flash on the hot-shoe, activate "slow sync" flash, or dial in any flash exposure compensation, but all of those features are still present.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 04:34 UTC as 19th comment

My question, and this is NOT directed at the ones who wrote this article, but in acknowledgment of what they talk about when they say "as smartphone picture-taking has become ubiquitous, so has criticism of it."

Why is it anybody's business if someone wants to take 45 photos an hour of their food? I would say to such a person "what's it to you?" and "who died and make you the photo-taking police?"

I have noticed that anything involving a phone automatically becomes a target of people who want to poke their nose into everybody's business. When people were taking "self-portraits" with their point & shoots, no one said a thing, but let people use a phone, all of a sudden we're outraged. How about this, people--mind your own freaking business.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 16:35 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

No 3.5" or 1/8" headphone jack. I'm so sick of that sort of nonsense. Everyone wants to be all "proprietary" that way. Why can't they just stick with the universal standard? Heck I'd just about approve of companies being MADE BY LAW to stop doing that sort of nonsense.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2016 at 20:02 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2159 comments in total)

If it weren't so much more expensive than the A6000, I'd want it simply for the return of the electronic level. I shoot landscapes a lot and really miss the electronic level, which I gave up when I changed over from the NEX-6.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 06:02 UTC as 199th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mendocino Steve: Thanks from me (but not my gear budget, sigh...) for the answers RE: the level gauge.

And to all who are complaining about the lack of lenses, do check out the Sigma f2.8 E-Mount primes. They are inexpensive and stellar performers. The results I'm getting with the 30mm on an A6000 are incredible.

Agreed. The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is fantastic. I had one with my NEX-C3 in early 2013, like a dummy I sold it in late 2014 after getting the Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS. The price went UP in the meanwhile. However last week I spotted one for $110 and grabbed it. I'm using it on my A6000 now, and man oh man the detail. It's smaller and lighter than the 50mm too (I will be keeping both, sometimes the 50mm is worth the extra weight and size).

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: To each his/her own, but if I had the $ for something like this or a Nikon D5, I'd buy it for the photos. Who cares what its video modes offer? It's not a camcorder. (I know, I'm drudging up an old Nikon D90 2008 era argument, but it's still my opinion to this day.) Why should a photographer be aggravated to produce video if it's not their forte? Let them be PHOTOGRAPHERS, period.

That aside, this certainly looks impressive overall, but again they still haven't yet figured out how to get AF sensors to cover the ENTIRE screen vs being all clustered in the center. I'm used to how on my Sony A6000 I can have it focus just about anywhere on the screen I want to. This is a multi-thousand dollar camera, for Pete's sake.

If that's really the case anymore, that's messed up. I know that when I hire an electrician, I don't expect him to know plumbing, or vice versa. A photographer shouldn't have to do video as well if that's not his or her thing. I don't know why photographers are now expected to be videographers, we should let them be pictures takers exclusively (and let videographers be videographers exclusively) vs all of this "convergence" nonsense. Oh well.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:25 UTC

I'm relieved to see this. I love my A6000, but the lack of any E-mount updates while they were going nuts with the FE system had me worried their E mount system was about to go the way of Samsung.

Silent shooting is especially good to see also. Also, autofocusing to the edges of the frame? You're darned right. Why DSLRs can't be made this way is beyond me, it's ridiculous the way they're made as if all composition happens (or is meant to happen) solely in the center.

Does anyone know if this regains the level gauge? I miss that from my previous NEX-6. Update: it does. Major "yah!"

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 22:23 UTC as 175th comment | 2 replies
On article Key features explained: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (85 comments in total)

To each his/her own, but if I had the $ for something like this or a Nikon D5, I'd buy it for the photos. Who cares what its video modes offer? It's not a camcorder. (I know, I'm drudging up an old Nikon D90 2008 era argument, but it's still my opinion to this day.) Why should a photographer be aggravated to produce video if it's not their forte? Let them be PHOTOGRAPHERS, period.

That aside, this certainly looks impressive overall, but again they still haven't yet figured out how to get AF sensors to cover the ENTIRE screen vs being all clustered in the center. I'm used to how on my Sony A6000 I can have it focus just about anywhere on the screen I want to. This is a multi-thousand dollar camera, for Pete's sake.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies
Total: 455, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »