bryPT

bryPT

Lives in United States United States
Works as a IT Professional
Has a website at www.blue-echoes.com
Joined on Apr 10, 2006
About me:

Husband, Papa, and very rarely, a photographer.

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bryPT: A lot of expensive gear is never going to make the plane now. A few years ago, I had a friend that decided to check in his camera bag in that was holding over $20k in equipment when flying back to the states from Africa. He arrived in the states but the gear didn't.

I had a TSA agent look through my camera bag once and said "I need to check to see if this is an actual camera. Put that big lens on it and let me see it." HUH? Okay. I put my 100-400 on it and he pointed it around and fired off about 20 shots. "Wow, fast. Yep, it is a camera. You are good." I put it back in the bag and went on my way. In my hotel room that night, I was cleaning lenses and checking the bodies and pulled up the photos I had on the card. Scrolling through shots of Arizona... Mountains... Rock formations... Biltmore Hotel ... women's rear end walking through the terminal... WHAT??? The TSA Agent must have known what he was doing because there was about 20 perfectly framed photos of a woman's rear end!!! DAMN HIM!!! It was a good laugh but my wife wouldn't have laughed. :)

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:44 UTC

A lot of expensive gear is never going to make the plane now. A few years ago, I had a friend that decided to check in his camera bag in that was holding over $20k in equipment when flying back to the states from Africa. He arrived in the states but the gear didn't.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 17:44 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

Excellent article! That must have been a pretty awesome tour to take.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 18:43 UTC as 59th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (387 comments in total)

Pentax ME Super. Was 11 years old when I bought it with paper route money.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:57 UTC as 251st comment
On article Leica SL Review (1081 comments in total)
In reply to:

bryPT: Does this camera deserve an 84 score? If this thing cannot capture a clear image of a dog moving with an f1.4 lens, is uncomfortable to hold, not balanced with the lenses that fit it and "lags behind the competition" on a few focusing items, shouldn't it get a lower score? Then, you add in the absolutely ridiculous price to an camera that has the above list of deficiencies, and it comes in with an 84 score? Looking at comparable reviews of pros and cons, I am thinking this thing should have checked in at a 78 or so. I would put the value slider pegged to the left if I am paying $7000 for the body alone and cannot get a dog photo. And then the focus and metering slider is 3 clicks from the right even though it lags in that performance category?

I normally look to honesty in my Reviews at DPReview, but this one seems a bit off.

I will never touch one, so I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here, but it just seems like there is something off with this review.

All you have proven is with superior glass, this body still struggles in low light moving dog photos. The better glass cannot help it's deficiencies in focus.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1081 comments in total)

Does this camera deserve an 84 score? If this thing cannot capture a clear image of a dog moving with an f1.4 lens, is uncomfortable to hold, not balanced with the lenses that fit it and "lags behind the competition" on a few focusing items, shouldn't it get a lower score? Then, you add in the absolutely ridiculous price to an camera that has the above list of deficiencies, and it comes in with an 84 score? Looking at comparable reviews of pros and cons, I am thinking this thing should have checked in at a 78 or so. I would put the value slider pegged to the left if I am paying $7000 for the body alone and cannot get a dog photo. And then the focus and metering slider is 3 clicks from the right even though it lags in that performance category?

I normally look to honesty in my Reviews at DPReview, but this one seems a bit off.

I will never touch one, so I will give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt here, but it just seems like there is something off with this review.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 13:33 UTC as 53rd comment | 14 replies
On article Canon 16-35mm F2.8L III real-world sample gallery (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: I believe that this lens is one of the greatest optics ever created by any of manufacturers.
Since printed media are in the decline, this lens appeals less and less to the mainstream (smartphone and tablet users) and the trend will continue.
Use of such lens is shrinking by the minute because people want to share their pictures instantly on the smartphone and tablet screens. It is hard to discern the difference at these sizes.
Add $2200.00 to the mix and you'll have the picture of a struggle that typical wedding photographers have to meet to stay in business.
That is why gear like that is less and less appealing. Even for the people who make a living using such lens.

FYI Richard and William, I can connect the 70d (and other Canon wireless ready DSLRs) wirelessly to an iPhone through the Canon App. So, within seconds of taking a photo, it is on your phone to be uploaded to any social site. I do it to update my site (whenever I get around to updating my site). Pretty impressive stuff, and you will get those likes faster than those iPhone snaps!

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 18:02 UTC

WOW. That is some awesome photography right there.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 18:00 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

usernamealreadyinuse: Unfortunately for Phil, "great new product" does not describe the new MacBook Pro. Too bad that not a single engineer on Apple's design team ever tried to transfer 60MB RAW files via "wireless", or he'd understand how absolutely stupid his comment sounds.
Apple has completely lost it's mojo in every product category, and I've been a fan since my first Mac 'Classic'.

Exactly. Try transfering a 128gb worth of RAW via wireless. The batteries in my grip would run out 1/10th of the way through.

But of course, he probably thinks pro photographers only use iPhones.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

bryPT: That is a crap answer. Having to stick a card into an adapter than sticking it into a USB is less cumbersome?

I will stick with my Surface Book and continue to laugh at Apple and their absolute disregard to their customers. Take the SD slot away, take away the headphone jack, change charge cables every 3 years, etc... All they care about is having their following spend more and more money.

No thanks.

I am in I.T. and have worked with both platforms for 30 years. Not a fanboy of either. Nice try though. And seeing your responses to posts on this thread, I believe I know a fanboy when I see one.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 14:51 UTC

That is a crap answer. Having to stick a card into an adapter than sticking it into a USB is less cumbersome?

I will stick with my Surface Book and continue to laugh at Apple and their absolute disregard to their customers. Take the SD slot away, take away the headphone jack, change charge cables every 3 years, etc... All they care about is having their following spend more and more money.

No thanks.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 13:23 UTC as 186th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

fatdeeman: I like all of them although 12 seems out of place.

I always look at stuff like this and ask myself why have I not gotten this good after 10 or so years but then I remember I haven't even taken a camera out for over a month and when I do I go to the same familiar places. I really need to start living and breathing it again like I used to in the beginning. I bet there's people out there that take more photos in a month than I do in a year. So many times I've told myself I will take a decent camera with me everywhere go but I never do.

Sorry for thinking aloud, I think I might have just had an epiphany lol

I feel the exact same way fatdeeman. I even carry my camera everywhere I go and still struggle. There are a lot of variables that lend to not "feeling" it. The rushed life of living in suburbia is what is killing me. But in years past, I always found time. Now my camera sits under the front seat of my car the majority of the time and if I do see something that would be a great subject, most of the time I drive right by. I still take tons of photos of my son at his many events, but it is rarely used elsewhere.

I hope it was an epiphany for you. I hope mine comes soon.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

f64manray: Dumbest thing I've seen today. I don't need my camera pulling down my pants. Black Rapid is the best thing since sliced bread for carrying a camera.

7 years of use, never walked and had my pants fall down. It is in a natural position on your body. Your hand is right there. It is great to be able to have one camera in your hand and one at your hip at weddings or other shoots. swap them out. And shot many gigs and not once did my pants fall down.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: Such a cool way to damage a camera.

7 years, never hurt any of my gear. Not a scratch, not a drop, not a ding. Through crowds at sporting events, Disney vacations or rides on my mountain bike. Not one incident.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: So I tried the $10 Amazon knock off that works perfectly fine and is just as sturdy. After my third forey into cuteness, it's been collecting dust. Invariably you will bang the camera because it's will be dangling on your side. Say no to gear acquisition syndrome on this one.

7 years and I have never banged my camera on anything. Even when I have used 2 holsters, never a bang, knick, or scratch. Give yourself some credit. You walk all the time without running into things, you will do the same with the camera on your hip!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

BaldWhiteGuy: I've been using the BH system for a couple of years now. Just with a single dslr, but it lets me use the same quick-release bottom plate for both the holster and my tripod mount. I currently balance it by carrying an additional lens pouch on the opposite hip, but when I get a second dslr I'll just add a second holster. If I still need to carry an additional lens or flash or anything, I'll shift the pouch around to the back.

As for the belt, every holster user that I've seen (regardless of the brand) uses a dedicated belt that has nothing to do with keeping the photographer's pants, trousers, kilt, skirt, or other lower body-covering garment in place. If you can't figure that out, or if your own waist/hip ratio makes such a proposition risky in any way, for the sake of us all please use some other solution! ;-)

http://www.bgrip.com/bh-camera-holster/

I have never used a Spider Holster with it's own belt. I use it with my belt that holds my pants up. I have never had any pants falling down issues, even after I gained a few pounds. :)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: How much swaying does the camera do when you walk? Seems like a DSLR camera would be moving quite a bit unless you hold it steady with your hand. But then, it's not really hands free if you need to do that.

not much. But if it does, it ain't going anywhere. You will also find that you will be resting your hand on it alot. I ride a mountain bike with my camera and it stays pretty stationary. Probably because my camera is on the heavy side. The design of the pin into the holster allows it to swing freely, but with no chance of it slipping out when locked.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: Such a cool way to damage a camera.

Not one camera or lens damaged in 7+ years of shooting. Wearing it for just a few times will show you that having your hands free and guiding the camera on your hip is much better than having it swing freely from your neck of off your shoulder. Give it a try!

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: The photo shows the problem. Lighter cameras are still not light. This might work if it came with SpiderSuspenders.

But the pro version for the bigger camera. It will fit. Problem solved!

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Not for me but I appreciate the innovative idea. Seems like it could actually protect better than shoulder strap swinging camera/lens into walls.

It does. Your hand rests on it and you feel your surroundings better when your hands are down. When around your neck or off your shoulder, it is swinging freely.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »