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: 458, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

jeff_006: iPhone, the only cameras (and phone) in the world that needs to spend 80 euros to change the battery...What is amazing with Apple is that customers are so happy to pay more and to be stolen !
I definitely don't like Apple despite their nice designs and good products. Apple is just too closed, I don't like their policy of closed system and they see their customers as (happy) milk cows. I will never buy Apple

I will agree with (wetsleet) here, although it's somewhat off-topic. How has Nikon managed to "lock-down" the EN-EL14 (D3100-D5100-D3200) and EN-EL15 (D7000, D800, V1, D600) to where you absolutely cannot find a generic equivalent anywhere? Did they get a patent of some sort? The generic companies have managed to overcome just about every other "smart battery" lock-down attempts.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 14:39 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: McDonald's is the most popular restaurant, but I would hardly consider that a reason for sites dealing with the culinary arts to talk about them.

And talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, and tal....

Sorry (JazzMasta) if my opinion threatens or annoys you so much. I couldn't disagree more with your views about this topic, but I certainly respect you have the right to state your opinion. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, I'm hardly alone in how I feel about this whole thing.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 14:36 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

aardvark7: Looking at the opposing views about whether such reviews are merited, I wonder if DPReview could carry out some research (no idea where to start, sorry!) as to the nature of photography, not from the point of the capture device but with regard to the final display. Also, to take into account the average time of display.

In other words, has photography changed from being prints in frames and magazines etc., to 'Facebook' galleries and has the lifespan of any image gone from decades to mere hours in some cases?

Furthermore, what percentage of pictures ever get seen by anyone other than those few who view it on the LCD screen immediately after being taken?

It might make for an interesting piece...

I actually like that idea. Apart from the phone camera aspect, there is a growing sense I'm detecting that seems to go beyond simply appreciating "live at the scene" photos (which is fine) to actually considering any non-current photo to be yesterday's news. I rather like the idea of photos that still evoke emotion years later, even if they're simply "silly snaps" that could've been taken by my 5 year-old. (Believe it or not I do those.) Things change & photos capture life as it was at the time of capture & locks it in. You can at any time revisit that era by taking a journey via your shots. That's a large part of the beauty of it to me anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 09:48 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

jambalawa: I can't believe some of the comments here.

Its a fact that an iphone will be used by millions of people to create digital photographs with. I for one am not that interested in using one for the majority of my own needs. But I am interested in how they stack up against things like tradition cameras etc.

Thanks for the review - its of interest to many photographers.

(Daniel) I respectfully stand by what I said. I think the negative comments alluded to clearly illustrate that many of us have been coming here for years specifically because this was, to us, a place for hobbyists & enthusiasts of photography, vs "snapshooting," to discuss techniques and, yes, gear that's commensurate to such aspirations. It doesn't have to be top-end gear, a Nikon D3200 etc is more than enough, & yes Dpreview used to cover Coolpixes, but by & large they were about the enthusiast. We just wish for them to retain that priority. It doesn't have to mean being unimaginative or stale, I don't think any of us want that.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 09:34 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

jambalawa: I can't believe some of the comments here.

Its a fact that an iphone will be used by millions of people to create digital photographs with. I for one am not that interested in using one for the majority of my own needs. But I am interested in how they stack up against things like tradition cameras etc.

Thanks for the review - its of interest to many photographers.

I'm encouraged by the negative comments myself. It shows that people care passionately about this fine craft & don't want to see it dumbed down to being defined as soccer moms snapshooting their rug rats at Chucky Cheese. I can microwave Hot Pockets® but I don't run around calling myself a "chef" & disrespecting REAL ones by calling them "elitists" & "snobs."

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 08:40 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Carriere: Agreed, Maloy, except that you are too kind. This test just proves again that DPreview's first loyalty is to the lowest common denominator, nor to photographers.

Exactly. Look, I have no dislike of the lowest common denominator "snapshooters," soccer moms can snap their kiddos at Chucky Cheese all they want it doesn't offend me any. But I'm interested in actual PHOTOGRAPHY, striving for excellence, & that's not a smartphone's forte. Most of all, this site mostly has been about the enthusiast, not the soccer mom snapshooter.

When DPreview does articles like the one about the landscape photographer who scouts locations & returns to them numerous times at different times of the day, now THAT gets my attention. Besides such articles being in my forte (I like landscape photography & pursue it somewhat), I respect such pursuit of excellence. I take pains towards composition etc when I take landscapes, but not to the level of that guy. I have to bow down & pay my respects to such people who pursue their craft to that level. Now THOSE kind of articles from DPreview, I love. If the soccer mom crowd doesn't--the heck with them. This site isn't for them.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 02:58 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

io_bg: What innovative does this iPhone have in the camera department? Nothing. If we have news for every new Apple product, why don't we have news from other cell phone manufacturers? Be it Samsung, Sony, HTC, etc...

It puzzles me that you have to explain this to people in the photography realm when it's inherently understood everywhere else.

Would you expect LeBron James to perform world-class basketball using flip-flops--moreover, would he do so if you nagged him to or would he rightly tell you that you were crazy? Would you expect Tiger Woods to be a dominant golfer using broomsticks instead of golf clubs? How about a NASCAR driver using a foot-operated car like it's the Flintstones?

Would you expect a culinary arts chef to get good results from canned meatballs & a microwaved DiGorno pizza? Would a chef who insisted on doing everything home-made, home-grown, & simmered to perfection be called a "snob" for RIGHTLY sneering at the notion that a "dinner in a bag" could hold a candle to what he spends hours in the kitchen simmering to perfection?

As I've before, I have no shame in making meals from "dinner in a bag" & enjoy the food, but I realize I'm no chef for it. That's not snobbery.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 01:01 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: McDonald's is the most popular restaurant, but I would hardly consider that a reason for sites dealing with the culinary arts to talk about them.

And talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, and tal....

(Barney) It's okay, I don't think we expect you to be that on top of every comment, edit etc. For sure, I appreciate that you guys allow us passionate about traditional photography, at least within some boundaries, to give our 2 cents worth. I was editing my reply to be of that way--passionate, but not ugly.

I do understand how DSLRs can become albatrosses & smaller-sensor technology has improved--and micro 4/3rds itself has shown us the appeal of potency in a smaller package. But I don't think that's a new concept--it just got lost somehow long ago when the Nikon F became such a big hit & rangerfinder 35mm cameras were dominated by SLR sales.

What micro 4/3rds reminded us of--those small 35mm rangefinder cameras were capable tools, & also nice & small--they just had the disadvantage vs the SLR style because of the lack of through-the-lens viewing & the numerous headaches it created. The PENs & such, though, DO have TTL viewing, & smaller size, reminding us of those advantages.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 00:47 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: McDonald's is the most popular restaurant, but I would hardly consider that a reason for sites dealing with the culinary arts to talk about them.

And talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, and tal....

(Mssimo) I would say that "your going" (should be you're) would speak volumes about how useful the edit mode can be.

Pardon me if I am ugly, but I really have a hard time with understanding how someone who calls themselves a REAL photographer could use a smartphone, even if the quality has improved, when you could always get something like a Sony RX100. To me it would be like a pro in prior years using a Kodak Instamatic, in those days, no professional would've been caught dead with one, except maybe on vacation when they're just shooting casual snaps & wanted some sense of "separation" from their professional glamor shots vs their personal family life. They certainly would have NEVER dreamed of using one for their pro work.

Heck I'm only a hobbyist, but I make it a point to always have my Olympus E-PM1 with me, period. To use my smartphone would be a joke. Sorry, but I'm not changing my mind on this one.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 23:52 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

io_bg: What innovative does this iPhone have in the camera department? Nothing. If we have news for every new Apple product, why don't we have news from other cell phone manufacturers? Be it Samsung, Sony, HTC, etc...

I would hardly consider the popularity a basis for it being covered so much by a PHOTOGRAPHY site. I doubt that sites dealing with the culinary arts give a hoot how popular McDonald's is, or Chef-Boyardee canned spaghetti, because they aren't proper culinary arts products.

Same here. I'm no professional, just a hobbyist, but I wouldn't be caught dead using a camera phone for anything. It's an insult to real photography. This site seems to forgotten whom they're catering to. They get to make the choices, but I sure don't agree with them. It's like R.E.M. selling their songs to Chevrolet for a commercial jingle.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 23:42 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)

McDonald's is the most popular restaurant, but I would hardly consider that a reason for sites dealing with the culinary arts to talk about them.

And talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, and tal....

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 23:31 UTC as 76th comment | 12 replies

In terms of its appearance, I am glad "compact" viewing mode has been retained. I don't like the recent trend towards wider-spacing, you end up having to click "next, next, next" repeatedly, and scroll forever. I like a "spreadsheet"-like view.

As for moderation--I hope it's light. Frankly, I don't know about other people, but I LIKE being able to come in here & debate topics and opinions passionately. It's not as if we have a bunch of "here's how I made money in 3 months" spam posts. There's already too many places in real life or cyberlife where political correctness & concerns about not offending someone are taken too seriously. I do NOT want to see the forums become to where you can't state your opinion because it offends someone's sensibilities. Allow both sides to debate their points with passion, & if it becomes a little passionate and heated at times, so be it. That's half the fun.

Uncalled for nastiness, fine, curb it--but otherwise, let the debaters debate.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 03:43 UTC as 262nd comment
In reply to:

JackM: These forums are some of the meanest on the internet. You should prohibit anonymity. Make everyone register with a facebook, linked-in, myspace, twitter, or G+ account, or their own professional photography website.

But this probably makes too much sense.

Glad I'm not the only one that things the OP's idea is a bad one.

To me, anonymity is one of the beautiful things about the Internet. I absolutely LOVE being able to come in here & debate things with unbridled passion. I am not trying to be MEAN, but there are recent trends in photography I'm passionately opposed to (iPhone "photography," video & still convergence) and I like being able to share my opinion without holding back.

And yes, those who disagree with me, they should be able to oppose my opinion with all the passion they have in them without having to be "fake nice" because of this real name nonsense. I have to "play nice" enough as it is in the real world, I (and I think others too) need somewhere I can go & passionately debate my ideas without being censored. It's not like we have a whole bunch of "I found a new way to make money" or "my boyfriend & I discovered the secret to losing weight" spam posts in here. Let people debate behind the aliases.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: This site is compelled to review iphones (and when I write this, I mean smartphones in general) for the most important reason: Their portability has caused political revolutions and upheavals like no other imaging devise in history. No news gathering organization could DREAM of matching the impact of thousands of ordinary people videotaping world-changing events.

The insular, self-centered, moss-backed world of professional photography - a breed that I predict will be thoroughly extinct in five years - has let us all down in a big way by comparison. Hence the real reason for the expressed resentment of iphones. iphones have demonstrated that the emperor of professional photography has no clothes.

If this site wishes to survive, it will continue to discuss iphones, and ALL smartphones for that matter.

"Restrictive gate-keeper of images?" Well YEAH, of images they TOOK and spent time and effort creating, not snapping. Besides, people have been free to make their own images for years. "You press the button, we do the rest" was not a concept created 5 years ago, but over 100 years ago.

90% of people are happy with frozen foods, but for those who want the fresh-homemade stuff, it's not good enough. Same goes here.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: This site is compelled to review iphones (and when I write this, I mean smartphones in general) for the most important reason: Their portability has caused political revolutions and upheavals like no other imaging devise in history. No news gathering organization could DREAM of matching the impact of thousands of ordinary people videotaping world-changing events.

The insular, self-centered, moss-backed world of professional photography - a breed that I predict will be thoroughly extinct in five years - has let us all down in a big way by comparison. Hence the real reason for the expressed resentment of iphones. iphones have demonstrated that the emperor of professional photography has no clothes.

If this site wishes to survive, it will continue to discuss iphones, and ALL smartphones for that matter.

Look, I get it--you believe (not think, but believe) professional photography is made up of a bunch of snooty, snotty, arrogant, stuck-up, cold, heartless, brainless, talent-less, inspiration-less, bland, cooky-cutter, uninspired, insipid, "we sell it in 2 colors--black & black" types. I get it.

Phone cameras are the best thing since the wheel. Nikon--fold up your tents. Why did you introduce the D600? Who needs it--we've all got iPhones. Goody! Canon--pack it in. You're irrelevant now. Good luck with printers. Pentax--by by! Sony--what were you thinking buying Konica/Minolta instead of focusing solely on your Xperia smartphones? Olympus/Panasonic--why are you messing around with micro 4/3rds. DSLR quality in a compact CAMERA? Too late!

And, oh yes--professional photographers are SO yesterday.

That's funny. Professional photographers seem to be thriving around here. So are all of those companies.

I guess not everyone has drunk from your batch of Kool-Aid. Thank goodness. ESD.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: The comparison between an iphone and an instamatic is false. The iphone is a far superior snapshot camera than an instamatic. It is much better than a disposable 35 mm camera. Lets be accurate where this camera fits before we demolish either it, or DSLR's.

It is likely better than 95 percent of the last big gasp of autofocus low- to medium quality electronically-controlled 35 mm point and shoot cameras, circa 1998. It has about as good if not better imaging quality than a Samsung 35 mm point and shoot I bought for backpacking, that proclaimed itself to have a "Carl Zeiss" lens and electronic whiz bang wizardry of the time like "fuzzy logic."

In fact in the hands of an untrained photographer, an iphone or any smartphone will get much better results than could be gotten with ANY 35 mm camera. Oh, how I wish I would have had an iphone rather than the motley collection of instamatics and lightweight 35 mm cameras that were in existence 30 years ago!

You got it, in terms of "the UNTRAINED photographer." I am NOT an untrained photographer--I'm not a professional, but I'm not an untrained photographer either. I like tools that are commensurate with that. I am not interested in what the untrained use. I wish them no ill will, but I don't give a rip what they like, & to insinuate that an iPhone can run with a Nikon D3 is beyond mental insanity.

And comparing its ability to a Nikon D3 is like comparing frozen pizza to that made fresh in a highly-regarded pizzeria. Hey, I like DiGorno, it raised the bar for what frozen pizza can taste like (can we say Jeno's?), but it still is no match to fresh-made from a pizzeria, and comparing them would be an insult to the real thing. There's no difference here.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 23:28 UTC

"We never aimed to make a professional mirrorless system, that was never our goal."

BIG mistake, Nikon, BIG mistake. Already your D5100, excellent though it is, gets let use than my Olympus micro 4/3rds do, because they give excellent image quality in a smaller package. If you guys would get your head out of your rear posterior and make something more enthusiastic-centered (heck a "digital Nikon SP" would be wonderful), I would've stayed with you.

But you appear to be so concerned about cannibalizing your DSLR sales that you're losing people who don't see the mirrorless models as glorified point & shoots.

LRH

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 20:25 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sigamhsoupw: This is a very weird point we have reached to say at least... More and more "photography news" about iphone cover the first page of dpreview so often, that it started getting annoying. IF and only if, iphone was a pure camera phone (get my hint?) then I wouldn't have a problem. But this unjustified hype over apple's I-can-do-everything-but-nothing-I-do-is-really-something device becomes more than suspicious.
There are thousands of sites for smartphones, we really dont need dpreview trying to convince us that iphone is a good camera. It's not. Period. Please get back on track doing what you do best. Covering the amazing world of photography...

Saying that the iPhone being the #1 camera of use is a reason for an enthusiast site like DPreview to cover them is like saying that McDonald's being the #1 fast food chain in the world is a reason for a site/magazine devoted to Culinary art to talk about them every 2.5 milliseconds.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: It's because of these toys that photography is becoming a joke. Comparing these pieces of crap with cameras is offensive for anyone who's life income depends on (real) photography.
If you want good pictures and little space in your travel gear, get a p&s. I can't even imagine why people waste so much money in a toy.

I can't stand anymore this iCrap disease spreading even in photography sites. Time to forget dpreview and move to real photography sites.

"Be humble & learn." That's my point exactly. People using smartphones thinking they're photographers ought to learn how to work a REAL camera, read some books about lighting & composition and "golden light"--and THEN get back to me. The people I respect are ones who learned on cameras like the Pentax K1000 or even a Nikon D40--you know, something REAL, and made efforts towards learning lighting etc, as opposed to just doing the "Hipstomatic" preset on their phone & thinking it makes them some-BODY.

A D3000 & D5000 may not be the ultimate, but at least they're DSLRs. And hey, if someone can outdo me even if they're using a smartphone, by all means--but then, it would beg the question, if you're THAT good, what in the world are you doing using a smartphone instead of a DSLR in the first place? You don't see LeBron James playing basketball in flip-flops. You don't see Tiger Woods golfing with wooden sticks. You don't see Michael Phelps swimming in an above-ground pool. What gives?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

AnHund: It is possible to take very nice images with camera phones in good light and in the right hands, not doubt about it. But unlike the iPhone there is a lot of camera control options in some Nokia phones like Lumia 800 etc., but don't expect miracles except maybe from the the new Nokia 808 PureView which seems to be a lot better than the rest.

Personally I would never be satisfied with a camera phone alone, due to bad ergonomics and limited use except in good light. But then again a lot of people are satisfied with phone images - probably the same type of people that were perfectly happy with a Kodak Instamatic in the 60s.

See, that's the thing. To me, a camera phone is this decade's version of an Instamatic, & when it was Instamatic vs a 35mm SLR, actual photographers wouldn't be caught DEAD with an Instamatic. It wasn't a matter of being "snotty" about the snapshooters, it was fine for them--great, but if you were someone with aspirations for serious or even hobbyist photography, you got a tool commensurate with those aspirations--Pentax K1000, Nikon FM etc, and you used that sort of thing & ONLY that sort of thing.

It also used to be if you were a photographer but didn't bring a camera, you could be chided "you didn't bring your camera? You're a PHOTOGRAPHER for Pete's sake." I think it's a valid point myself. I understand about personal & play-time, & DSLRs are bulky, but there's always mirrorless or (say) a Sony RX100. I'm just a hobbyist, but if I forget to bring my Olympus E-PM1, that's on ME to be more of the mindset to make sure I have it with me. Sorry, but using a camera phone is beneath me.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:05 UTC
Total: 458, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »