Gatoraied

Lives in United States Panhandle Florida, FL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 29, 2016

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

So it's worthless @ 103 feet? That's a deal breaker.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 12:20 UTC as 85th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

Barney, my contention is that the images should never have been published, period. They serve no purpose to the viewers here, to Panasonic or to you. Either do it right or don't do it at all. Theres enough amateurs in your forums that can't resist to post every photo they take, which are usually very very poor. I can excuse them, however I think you can and should know better. Wether you were paid or not is not important , what is important that you show the best a lens or camera can do and not some willy nilly photos that you say were "not the purpose of the shoot." If not the purpose then why publish them?

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

Androole. I really cannot understand your blind defense of those photos and that you are at a loss to understand that Panasonic essentially sponsored the photoshoot. It's not that ambiguous unless you are in denial. The images do nothing to showcase that lens. If Panasonic sent me that lens and body, never mind sponsor/subsidize the trip to Yellowstone, I would take images in the best manner possible. Subsequently, I would never publish out of focus or poorly selected subjects at a one of a kind in the world venue such as Yellowstone. Finally, I would be embarrassed to publish anything but the best images possible out of respect for the efforts made by Panasonic to produce such a lens and my obligation to them for the "support".
Dreview's job was to take the best images possible, which would clearly show potential buyers how good or bad this lens can be. This was not accomplished.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

@Androole, "This gallery was shot on location, during a video shoot supported by Panasonic."- Barney Britton

I understand perfectly but you do not.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

@ Viking, If mediocrity is your thing go for it, but it's not my thing. Taking sample images of a new lens for a big company like Panasonic and producing images such as these is inexcusable. They in no way showcase this lens's capabilities. The same person and staff that rip apart every feature of the gear they review. I'm reviewing these samples and my conclusion is that they are terrible.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

@bexter, Sample yes but what kind of samples?? Of poorly shot images? Look, this is supposed to be the most popular website of its kind so the bar should be raised. Showcasing a new lens and being paid by Panny for those?? When someone pays me to produce images I give them my best. Those were poor, very poor.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

Yes, but I think the sign is the better of the two. Seriously though, that bird is supposed to highlight the strengths of that lens? Give me a break! Better to have taken photos at a bird feeder.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 14:40 UTC

Barney, you're a better editor/writer than a wildlife photographer. If I paid you to showcase a lens I made, I'd want my money back. The elk photos were not good. I'm guessing the focus point was not on the head in #1 as the middle of the body has some sharpness, however the head bordered on being blurred. The other elk shots were also not good. I understand some of the photos were taken during it snowing, but to post images such as these to showcase a new lens (which is probably a good lens) was poor judgement imo. Lastly, I've been to Yellowstone a few times and never even thought to take a photo of a sign not matter the intent when this place is a wildlife & geo-feature extravaganza. Id be happy to test your lenses next time.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 12:44 UTC as 41st comment | 21 replies
In reply to:

Aaron801: I'd have an issue with the fact that not only does it not shoot a square format (which is part of what makes those TLRs what they are!) but that the default seems to be portrait orientation... which most folks don't use nearly as much as landscape.

It's not for most folks

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 00:08 UTC

A wonderful chronicle of images and a storyline. This is what photography is about. Capturing a moment of time. Well done!
-gator

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 23:00 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

Nick on: I'd consider Ansel Adams a gear head, in that he used equipment that would give him the best possible image quality, a 10x8 view camera. He could have used a 35mm if he'd wanted to, but instead chose to use the 10x8. Just like we would choose to shoot a 5dsr or PhaseOne instead of a low resolution point and shoot (not that there's anything wrong with point and shoots).

@Nick on. Ansel Adams was a brilliant photographer who knew what equipment he needed to match his skill level. Gear heads, do not have any skill but only enough money to buy things they don't know how to use.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 13:11 UTC

"More advanced" does not mean better it means it was different. Theres no revelation here, really none. I hear this argument too often " I need 50mp" "I need 200 focus points" I need 15 fpm, I need, I need, I need. What they really need is to learn photography. Just look at the forums here to see what all the "advanced" gear produces.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 13:07 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Nikon 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR sample photos sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Ok, so an $18.5k combo that takes a decent image, Duh....

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 15:19 UTC as 1st comment
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan DeLion: I don’t follow Sony closely, so I have a couple of questions.

Is the battery life still bad? I’ve heard pro’s say one needs four or five batteries for a day’s shooting.

Does the camera still readily over heat? I’ve talked to people who say the only way to have worry free shooting is to put the battery in an attached grip. Probably due to Sony making the body too small to dissipate heat.

How does the camera balance when using heavy glass?

Does the EVF still have delays when panning as do other Sony cameras?

Sony has a reputation for overly optimistic spec claims. Is that the case with this new camera?

Is the weather sealing as bad as reported?

About weather sealing; I've shot wildlife in the Florida swamps for over 12 years and travel all over the country doing same. Florida summers bring torrential rains every day. I sell my work. When its raining I don't shoot. If it rains while Im out I place my camera in a ziplock bag I keep in my pocket and my tele lens into my backpack along with the camera. Never had a problem. 98% of people do not ever shoot in bad weather and neither do most pros. Weather sealing is OK but very much over rated especially when referred to as a deal breaker targeting amateurs. Its like people who buy Jeeps and Land Rovers for all their off road capabilities but mostly their parked in a garage and driven to work on a suburban highway.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 17:46 UTC

I like the glasses with the attached nose. Does anyone know if theres options for different size noses?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 16:54 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ozturert: Only 10-30 USD per sensor and lens couple? Quite inexpensive actually. Profit margins are huge in this phone market.

@pelasdf No it was not a used part. Ive purchased several components including digitizer displays center button assemblies all new. The parts are dirt cheap and new.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2018 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Only 10-30 USD per sensor and lens couple? Quite inexpensive actually. Profit margins are huge in this phone market.

@cosinaphile. I agree and why I never buy anything new. Finally upgraded my iPhone 5 to the 7. Like new with original receipt less than six months ago bought.! paid $300. Many people firesafe their hardly used gear for the newest model and thank goodness for me! Perhaps not surprising but other than the camera and wi-fi calling which I need, theres little change. Virtually the same OS as my 5, I see no appreciable difference in performance nor the display. I'll keep the 7 until something major breaks down as I can fix most replaceable components.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Only 10-30 USD per sensor and lens couple? Quite inexpensive actually. Profit margins are huge in this phone market.

most components of a cellphone are dirt cheap. I found out when I replaced one on my iPhone. It was the entire speaker, lightning charge/sync socket, earphone assembly, which cost less than US $3.00 and similarly with the displays, batteries etc etc., with free shipping from California to DC. If a small vendor can make money doing that imagine the actual cost to companies who buy by the millions!

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Look at these prices. Do people really buy these with that price?

@ozturet, I understand what you said, however my reply essentially addressed the cost factor you mentioned. Cost seems to be of no consequence for many people as I had stated. What do I think? i think most gear is too expensive and why I mostly buy used equipment. There's no lack of virtually unused high end gear which is quickly sold to subsidize the next new model.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Look at these prices. Do people really buy these with that price?

many people in these forums own more pro gear than pros. Pro DSLR's from $3k to $7k, lenses @ $10k+ but you should see the amazing test patterns and pet shots they can shoot! Gear collection is the key here my friend.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 12:30 UTC
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »