babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 463, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Very interesting. Thanks for the brief review.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 13:29 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

cityofdust: Can someone suggest me a wide angle lens for Sony a7 with adapter I'm looking for a old glass with vigneting.

17mm or wider but no fisheye

Thank u very much

The Tokina 17/3.5 is an iffy lens. I've had two copies and sold both almost instantly. The IQ was not up to par, although it is possible to get two bad copies I suppose. The 14mm Samyang is much better, though one needs to have a program that corrects distortion.....PTlens does a good job. You can always add your own vignetting in LR or PS.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 13:28 UTC

Will humans never stop this is incessant bickering? See below beginning with user33 something.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 13:22 UTC as 6th comment

Wow, watch movies on your camera while flying to destination. Kidding....sort of.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 12:46 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

jubilatu: buy the bloody lens. then buy cheap yongnuo TTL flash and a transceiver.

Buy two, because one is sure to fail sooner or later :). Considering the price, many feel they are throw-away items. I have three (actually four but one broke) that I use off-camera (with a radio trigger) for architectural work.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 22:05 UTC
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (347 comments in total)
In reply to:

Majauskasson: The huge teetering, wobbly units Miss Carey recommends above are typically ridiculous-looking, clumsy and unwieldy flashes nobody wants. No surprise here. These are embarrassing. If DSLRs look insanely indiscreet in today's age of smart phone cameras, try adding one of these gigantic flash units on top - you'll have about 8in or more massive vertical black hardware pointing at people. Unless we are stuck in the 1940s, flash manufacturers need to start taking miniatarisation seriously, and that's why meantime, Carey Rose, nobody uses flash.

There are many very small TTL flashes, some of which are on-camera. Both my Fuji cameras have TTLs, one part of the camera body and one an add-on that is smaller than a credit card (but thicker of course.) Both of them work very well, and each has a way to reduce the flash output. There are other third-party units that are much smaller than the typical flash. Might not do ceiling flashes in large rooms with high ceilings very well, but still very useful.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

babart: This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

Thanks. I see things have changed with carry-on policy as well. Have you ever had your Pelican case go missing? Or do you have one with a radioactive warning box on the cover :).

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 00:22 UTC

This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 15:20 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies

I haven't the slightest idea how "cheesy" would refer to a photo, since I've never tried to eat one. Interesting photos from a very interesting locale. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 21:20 UTC as 11th comment
On article Vintage lens shootout: three lenses, one model (76 comments in total)
In reply to:

just someone: Love this.

Everyone should stop pixel peeping and enjoy photography more.

When someone says that this lens or that lens isn't sharp or something like that, I just roll my eyes!

The object here was to compare three very inexpensive lenses against each other. Quite frankly they all produce very usable images considering that all but one sell for less than $100, and the Soligor for less than $300. Everyone can't afford the latest and the best at $1500 and up for each lens. I have some sharp modern glass....the Fuji 35/1.4 for instance, which has an outstanding MTF50 of 3033 in the center. (http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/746-fuji35f14?start=1 at Photozone.) Tested at home, it is only slightly better than a Zeiss C/Y 50/1.7, which in turn is only slightly sharper than Pentax M 50/1.4. There may be some loss of contrast, but little that Clarity and Contrast in ACR can't replicate. New glass is terrific, especially considering the coatings. However, I don't see too many photographers that print larger than 11x14, so judging earlier lenses to be pure crap isn't justified.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

babart: So glad I don't participate in this.

I don't need validation from the internet. I get it from my paychecks. If you wish to join the 15 second crowd, that's your choice and you're welcome to it.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 01:47 UTC

So glad I don't participate in this.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 02:09 UTC as 27th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sebastien Guyader: Um... I flew through SJU airport saturday (July 22th), and the TSA guy told us in the line to leave everything but our cell phone in their bag. I asked the guy if I should leave my camera and lenses in their bag, he said "yes"...
Removing Cameras, lenses and laptops from their bags and putting them in separate bin has been the standard procedure since at least the last couple years in European airports.

Nachos is right, except that in Euro airports the security person looks through one's luggage when its right in front of you, as they are asking you questions. Frankly, it's not only better from the standpoint of having camera gear stolen or broken, but I feel much safer when everyone boarding a plane has to have their carry on bags personally checked.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 20:57 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (479 comments in total)

A base price of less than 10K.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 21:55 UTC as 74th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

goodgeorge: I am still quite surprised how many beginners spend so much money on Photoshop while we have Affinity for a few bucks or GIMP completely for free.

It's also the power of a very versatile and complete program.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 21:52 UTC

Finally.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 02:06 UTC as 17th comment

Umm, 100mm f/2.8 (135/3.5?), 300gms, and $700. You might have gotten me with that. S o r r y.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 02:00 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

babart: I'm so glad I have a Zeiss C/Y 85/2.8 that I purchased for the insane price of $300.

I don't care. The Zeiss is a great lens and good enough for me. I'm not interested in the Leica or the Hexanon. And kindly stop arguing on my post, which simply compared the cost of a used Zeiss to the new Whatever. Thank you.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

babart: I'm so glad I have a Zeiss C/Y 85/2.8 that I purchased for the insane price of $300.

I'm sure it's a great lens, Noah, but what's your point? The Leica 80/1.4 costs $2600 minimum, used. My point was that the $300 Zeiss I have is most likely a much better lens than the $2000 replica of an early 20th century portrait lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

babart: I'm so glad I have a Zeiss C/Y 85/2.8 that I purchased for the insane price of $300.

It's a great lens. As with the 50/1.7 and 28/2.8, it has more tendency to flare than lenses with modern coatings, but the sharpness and contrast can't be beat.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
Total: 463, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »