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: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BillMassNBPT ILC: Using an iMac to edit photos? I would take a hard look at a Microsoft Surface Studio before you default to the Apple store on which iMac to buy. Bought an iMac 2 1/2 years ago with 27" Retina. No doubt the retina is a beautiful display but Microsoft has taken notice and then some. 28" touchscreen and pen interaction to make selections and adjustments among other things may make the iMac platform look a little tired to some.
Good news is there are more choices out there now....

I have a Surface Book. It is amazing. And it has a cumbersome SD card slot as well. It is insanely fast and reliable. I highly recommend it.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Boeing skipper: "You can build a windows PC for a much lower price". This is what I did two years ago, spent $2,000 on a custom build. I have so many issues with my PC, I've had rasomwares, viruses, Windows forcing updates on a weekly basis if not more, crashes and various bugs.
Meanwhile, I've used Macbooks at work and when I travel for the past 4 years and I never ever had a single issue with them.
The day Windows become as reliable as Apple products, I'll switch over, but for now I'm looking to replace my PC with the iMac Pro.

My desktop is 8 years old. I run Lr on it just fine. I too just upgraded the video card and added more RAM. SSD drives in it and it still screams. 8 years old.

I am running Windows 10, firewall off, no antivirus. Just have Windows Defender running. I have never gotten any malware of virus. I am an I.T. guy, but still, I do not click on any links in email, no ads clicked on, no website browsing to places questionable. If I want to do that c***, I don't use a machine that is valuable to me that has data that is valuable to me. Get a junky laptop or PC if you want to do that stuff.

It is not the Operating system that gives you viruses, it is the human being using the computer that gives you viruses. I am tired of hearing that Windows (and Mac, yes Mac's uses get viruses, I know since I am in I.T.) are unsecure. That argument is old and tired.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 12:44 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

bryPT: The Spider Holster is brilliant. This? Tough sell. You would have to take the thing off to sit down or get through a tight space. I have to remove my camera from my spider holster when in a congested area. I assume you would have to do the same with this, but you also have a camera around your neck and then this thing in your hand?

Say you have a 70-200 f2.8 on that thing, then a couple primes like an 85mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8, due to gravity, the 70-200 will be pointed down all the time, you need that one, you gotta get that think pointed up and steedy enough to get it off the thing than swap out the lens you have on the camera now.

Just seems cumbersome to me, but some may love it. To each his own. I know a lot of people won't even try a Spider Holster due to one reason or another and I truly do not understand those people whatsoever.

Good luck to them. Hope they don't turn out to be a Trigger Happy (anyone remember that train wreck on Kickstarter?).

I do see this kinda working at weddings or the likes. But then you lens cap is on or not? Fumbling around to attach and detach a lens cap seems to be a hassle.

My camera on a spider holster, then I have a small bag that I can slip 2 lens in and leave them uncapped on both ends (lens front down in soft bottom of bag). I have gotten pretty proficient swapping a lens with one hand while camera is hanging on the spider holster. I can swap out pretty darn quick having both my hands free to do so. But then again, this may work for someone else.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 13:16 UTC
On article TriLens triple lens holder coming to Kickstarter (165 comments in total)

The Spider Holster is brilliant. This? Tough sell. You would have to take the thing off to sit down or get through a tight space. I have to remove my camera from my spider holster when in a congested area. I assume you would have to do the same with this, but you also have a camera around your neck and then this thing in your hand?

Say you have a 70-200 f2.8 on that thing, then a couple primes like an 85mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.8, due to gravity, the 70-200 will be pointed down all the time, you need that one, you gotta get that think pointed up and steedy enough to get it off the thing than swap out the lens you have on the camera now.

Just seems cumbersome to me, but some may love it. To each his own. I know a lot of people won't even try a Spider Holster due to one reason or another and I truly do not understand those people whatsoever.

Good luck to them. Hope they don't turn out to be a Trigger Happy (anyone remember that train wreck on Kickstarter?).

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 13:11 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
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 20th 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 60th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 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 256th comment
On article Leica SL Review (1092 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 (1092 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 56th 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 10th 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
Total: 44, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »