Rick DeBari

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 26, 2005

Comments

Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (479 comments in total)

I'm very surprised the Fujifilm X-T2 didn't make this list.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 15:18 UTC as 133rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

lol101: I really hate smartphones!

;-)

I'll second that!

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 14:46 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E3 Review (752 comments in total)

Just a suggestion. When you show the comparison chart of similar models as above, please include weight, dimensions and pricing. It would be helpful for decision making. Tnx.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 23:17 UTC as 23rd comment
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: As I said before in other blogs, if digicam makers simply made DNG RAW files an option in firmware we wouldn't need constant RAW updates and therefore monthly subscriptions. Say you have the new Nikon D850 and had the option to save your RAW files as DNG in-camera. You could theoretically use a purchased version of CS6 or LR6 forever. If a new Nikon D900 comes out. That could also save in DNG and CS6 and LR6 would still work fine. Wouldn't that be nice? It should be possible theoretically. You would still have NEF RAW (or CR2 for Canon) as an option if you prefer. Magic Lantern has experimented with in-camera 14-bit lossless DNG files as a "proof-of-concept" very recently in late 2016 for Canon firmware. Read this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/magic-lantern-canon-dng/

matthew saville-> Wouldn't having an in-camera DNG RAW option be a selling point for Canon and Nikon? Neither one of them is in the imaging software business. This would be a valuable feature for many photographers, freeing us from endless subscriptions for new-camera RAW updates and also future-proofing images to a standard Raw format. Of course, Adobe wouldn't like this but...

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 13:30 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: As I said before in other blogs, if digicam makers simply made DNG RAW files an option in firmware we wouldn't need constant RAW updates and therefore monthly subscriptions. Say you have the new Nikon D850 and had the option to save your RAW files as DNG in-camera. You could theoretically use a purchased version of CS6 or LR6 forever. If a new Nikon D900 comes out. That could also save in DNG and CS6 and LR6 would still work fine. Wouldn't that be nice? It should be possible theoretically. You would still have NEF RAW (or CR2 for Canon) as an option if you prefer. Magic Lantern has experimented with in-camera 14-bit lossless DNG files as a "proof-of-concept" very recently in late 2016 for Canon firmware. Read this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/magic-lantern-canon-dng/

jimjulian-> No, I mean the ability to actually save to DNG RAW format in-camera as opposed to NEF or CR2. As an analogy, JPEG and TIFF are standard file format options on most digital cameras. You simply add DNG RAW as another standard file format option in the camera. The idea is that it avoids the need for constant software updates for imaging programs like CS6 and LR6 every time a new camera is released with new RAW profiles. It also avoids the need to use DNG conversion software outside the camera on your PC if you later choose to use DNG file format at a future date. That conversion option takes a huge amount of time and also storage space on your PC.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 13:05 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)

As I said before in other blogs, if digicam makers simply made DNG RAW files an option in firmware we wouldn't need constant RAW updates and therefore monthly subscriptions. Say you have the new Nikon D850 and had the option to save your RAW files as DNG in-camera. You could theoretically use a purchased version of CS6 or LR6 forever. If a new Nikon D900 comes out. That could also save in DNG and CS6 and LR6 would still work fine. Wouldn't that be nice? It should be possible theoretically. You would still have NEF RAW (or CR2 for Canon) as an option if you prefer. Magic Lantern has experimented with in-camera 14-bit lossless DNG files as a "proof-of-concept" very recently in late 2016 for Canon firmware. Read this article: https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/magic-lantern-canon-dng/

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 03:22 UTC as 436th comment | 8 replies
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (419 comments in total)

I'd much rather have a Lumix DMC-G85 with the 12-60 OIS kit lens than this thing. Much more bang for the buck, shoots 4K and $300 less at $998 w/lens. Also huge M4/3 lens system options available. Yes, this is a compact with big sensor under 1 lb weight but the lens is a slow f-stop and zoom is too limited. For $300 less the G85 is much more versatile, even though its only 16mp. The G85 kit lens is a 24-120mm equivalent. The G1 X Mark III looks very nice but is way too expensive for what you get.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 23:26 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies

I still own and use a G12. Takes great images, especially in raw. I never, ever use the optical finder, just the LCD like any mirrorless. This is a much better way to compose and pre-expose better images because you see the final result you will get before you shoot. I absolutely love the fully-articulated screen as well! Extremely useful feature. Definitely getting long in the tooth as far as shooting speed and AF but I still love it because it is so small and easy to carry. Even takes ok 720p 24fps HD video. Will be in the market for a new small-sensor compact mirrorless to replace it soon.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 03:45 UTC as 7th comment

The D850 can even find, compose and shoot compelling images without any human intervention. Yes, it is THAT good! ;) lol

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 02:29 UTC as 103rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: And why wouldn't Adobe make huge profits after forcing photographers into the monthly subscriptions model? If digital camera makers simply made the DNG file format universally built into firmware, photographers would not need monthly subscriptions to Adobe to cover raw updates for new camera models. Then "poor" Adobe would only make profits like they did in the old days. By actually making good software updates that photographers actually wanted to purchase outright. Most Photoshop users updated at least every other revision anyway just to keep up. Personally, I find perpetually buying into a monthly subscription a very distasteful option. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, etc please make DNG an available file format option in firmware.

Yes, to clarify, it is true that only photographers who wish to continue using Adobe products have been forced into the monthly payment model. I am aware that there is a free DNG converter available from Adobe. But that requires much more disk space and an extra step which takes time. Having an available DNG raw file format in the digicams firmware to me seems like the best option for those who wish to keep using Adobe products. I am also currently exploring new photo editing software options such as Affinity and others to use in the future. I am still using a purchased version of CS6.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 13:28 UTC

And why wouldn't Adobe make huge profits after forcing photographers into the monthly subscriptions model? If digital camera makers simply made the DNG file format universally built into firmware, photographers would not need monthly subscriptions to Adobe to cover raw updates for new camera models. Then "poor" Adobe would only make profits like they did in the old days. By actually making good software updates that photographers actually wanted to purchase outright. Most Photoshop users updated at least every other revision anyway just to keep up. Personally, I find perpetually buying into a monthly subscription a very distasteful option. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, etc please make DNG an available file format option in firmware.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 01:03 UTC as 22nd comment | 9 replies

It will be interesting to see which sensor size Nikon embraces for mirrorless. Nikon may go with full frame because they feel that will yield them maximum profit margins and also to compete with Sony Alpha. My hope is that they go with APS-C size for their mirrorless. There is a fair chance Nikon may actually do this to compete directly with the new Canon EOS-M 5/6 series. It would be great if Nikon could come up with a way to make their mirrorless cams compatible with existing Nikkor lenses WITHOUT an adapter. This could be done with a groundbreaking lens-mount having a flange distance that matches DSLR size. Just make the rest of the camera smaller around the flange. Another way to do it would be to design a pop-out lens-mount that is normally retracted for native lenses. The mount could then pop-out to accommodate legacy Nikon lenses, FX or DX, thereby giving the correct flange distance. Hopefully Nikon will design a complete lightweight set of lenses for their mirrorless system.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 22:09 UTC as 34th comment

I'll stick with my good old Photoshop CS6 thank you. It works fast and there's no monthly payment fee because it's paid for outright. I tried a Lightroom free trial several years ago and didn't like the experience all that much. I prefer managing my images within Photoshop using Bridge. I'm not sure if the newest LR version can still be purchased outright but it most likely won't be for long if it is. Adobe has been greedy about forcing its end-users into Creative Cloud subscriptions. And that ticks me off! I wish digicam makers would simply build the universal DNG Raw format as an option within their firmware. Then photographers would not be forced to constantly invest in new versions of software to handle their Raw files every time a new digicam comes out. ☺

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 22:59 UTC as 72nd comment | 1 reply

I'll stick with my good old Photoshop CS6 thank you. It works fast and no monthly payment fee because it's paid for outright. ☺

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 22:41 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)

Perhaps you asked the wrong question. Do we even need a viewfinder at all anymore? A good high resolution LED or OLED screen that remains usable in sunlight is much more convenient to use than either an EVF or OVF. The availability of histograms, focus peaking, virtual horizons, rule of thirds grid and most importantly an accurate live view of the image that gives instant feedback of how your exposure choices will look in the final image make makes LED screens, for me at least, the most convenient way to shoot. I do realize that, in certain bright sun situations, a viewfinder may be necessary but I find that 95% of the time I prefer the LED screen for shooting. It frees me to see more of what is going on around me when I'm shooting. I also find that using a viewfinder, particularly on a small DSLR or mirrorless camera, can cause problems when my nose touches either the control buttons or the touchscreen and unexpectedly changes settings while I'm shooting.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 14:20 UTC as 324th comment | 5 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (162 comments in total)

The E20n was my first serious digicam. It was a great camera! I won first place in the NECCC modeling photo competition in Amherst, MA with my photo from that 5mp camera! I always dreamed of a modern version of that design, which was an early idea similar to the Sony SLT cameras. Instead the E10/20n series used a prism between the lens and sensor and a mirror in the viewfinder. This allowed both live view and the optical viewfinder to be usable at the same time. I believe there was a half-stop loss of light with that prism design. I never found any issue with image quality due to light loss because the 35-140mm f2-2.4 Olympus lens was superbly sharp and bright. The main issue with the camera was that the CPU and card reader were very slow. If only Olympus could make a modern metal-body version of that camera with a new 20mp 1" sensor, a really fast processor, large LCD, optical viewfinder and the SAME lens formula. It would be a killer fixed-lens system that would be very popular.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 16:22 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

Kodak Instamatic, the one that used the flashcubes. Also had one of those cheap plastic Polaroids. My older sister had TLR's(Twin Lens Reflex) but I never used them. My first real SLR was a used Petriflex fully manual with one normal lens. Went to a Minolta SRT101 in high school with only a normal lens for many years, then much later went Nikon F2, F3, F4, D2x. My currently most-used camera is a Canon G12 because of the portability.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 16:11 UTC as 496th comment

The robbers were later caught with his gear. Here is the updated story with security video.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/olympics-2016/rio-thief-who-robbed-news-corp-photographer-caught-using-stolen-gear/news-story/5af7e72c2e06a3839c3269a4bb678089

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2016 at 11:59 UTC as 44th comment | 4 replies

Another DX "yawn."

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 17:52 UTC as 17th comment
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: Yes, we at Nikon realize that our best-selling line is DX and that many serious photographers have been begging us for years to design and build a prosumer D400 to replace the popular D300s. It is foolish for you, our customers, to think you know what you want. What you really need are more low-end, consumer-build, plastic-bodied DX cameras. If you really do need a pro-body camera you should invest $3,000 for an FX body like the D810 or $6,000 for a D4s or the new D5. Not enough magnification with FX? Well then, you will just have to buy super-expensive FX glass like the new 500mm AF-S VR f/4 FL for only $10,200! If you are a serious wildlife or sports photographer and absolutely need a new D400 APS-C crop-sensor pro body Nikon doesn't really care about you. We suggest either the new Canon 7D Mark II or the Samsung NX1 as alternatives. :) lol Wake up Nikon!!!

Senn_b I fully am aware that the D7200 is an excellent camera. And it is good enough for maybe 85% of DX shooters. But there are many pros and serious enthusiasts who need and want a rugged, metal, prosumer body with functionality optimized for pro use. There is a big untapped demand out there for a Nikon pro DX body among pros and enthusiasts. Yes it would be more expensive than the D7200. But I think that Nikon DX shooters will buy tons of them.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 01:58 UTC
Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »