Klarno

Klarno

Lives in Neutral Zone Neutral Zone
Has a website at http://www.photoklarno.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2009
About me:

Lenses paired with Sony Alpha A3000 and Metabones Speedbooster:
Olympus OM 28mm f/3.5
OM 50mm f/1.8
OM 135mm f/2.8
OM 50mm f/3.5 macro
OM 35-70 f/3.6
Soligor 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5

Comments

Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Wonderful, yet another camera backpack aimed at people who shoot outdoors and designed by people who still don't understand what outdoor photographers need. Where's the water bottle holder? Where's the capacity to store a jacket? Where's the waist support? Where's anything that makes this bag useful for more than half an hour of hiking?

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 17:35 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

acidic: All of the haters of this product:

- don't live in Japan where this product will be offered,

and/or

- are too old to realize many people communicate just fine on a day to day basis without using their voice minutes on their cell phone plan.

Who is even restricted to minutes anymore? Most plans have unlimited voice and messaging because data is where the profit is at now.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 18:35 UTC
In reply to:

AV Janus: There is a typo in the article.
The flash is built-ON not built-in

Well, if we're going to keep being picky about prepositions in an effort to keep using this phrase in a way contradictory to general usage, it looks like the flash built above the lens or beside the lens. If it were built on the lens, that would be a problem.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 17:09 UTC
In reply to:

utphoto: An aluminum top plate with some normal wear and tear abrasions, won't do well in salt water. Salt corrodes aluminum and a protective coating or a hard anodize won't be 100% secure forever.

Aluminum is actually quite corrosion resistant on its own. Like stainless steel, it forms a stable oxide coat. Corrosion of aluminum in marine applications comes into play only when you have more than just aluminum--when you have two metals with dissimilar electrode potentials in electrical contact with each other via an electrolyte, one functions as an anode and the other as a cathode and the system basically turns into a battery. That's galvanic corrosion.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

AV Janus: There is a typo in the article.
The flash is built-ON not built-in

What does that even mean? Nobody says "built-on". Built-in makes sense, built-on makes none.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

samfan: Impressive again. How does one of the smallest photo companies trump all those big dogs?

That said, I'd argue that a fixed 35mm lens underwater is not all that useful.

The luxury market is quite a bit different from the consumer electronics market, their clientele is inherently more willing to buy on the basis of brand name alone and are willing to spend larger amounts of money, which means Leica can charge more for a lower volume product and still turn a profit.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2016 at 19:10 UTC
On article Ricoh GR II: What's new and what does it mean? (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shoot Raw: The camera made in CHINA and they want $795.00???????
What a joke.

Everything has been changing relentlessly since the first GATT rounds in the 1940s, and solidified by the WTO's codification of our new globalized economy. That's as of the mid '90s.

Chinese is fine, Japanese is fine, Korean is fine, Taiwanese is fine, Thai is fine. In our globalized economy where almost everything is designed by one country's engineers and produced by another country's engineers, the biggest differentiator is who designed the product and how much the company that designed the product cares about quality control.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 18:02 UTC
On challenge Tilt Shift (1 comment in total)

It's tilt, not tilt shift. And it's far from the only thing you can do with tilt, turning everything into dioramas is just a photographic fad...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:23 UTC as 1st comment
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: There have been a lot of shifts in the world of photography since the transition from film to digital, and many photographers and the industry at large haven't really taken this into consideration. With film, 35mm was primarily an amateur format that ended up getting developed enough that it was very practical for certain professional photography genres. It was the most popular format for consumers, and have always been where the money is. But now, it's possible get exquisite technical image quality, in many cases better than what we could ever get out of 35mm film, out of a sensor smaller than your pinky nail.

FF still has a major price differential compared to smaller formats. It's just tied up in lenses. A $1500 D610 is really a carrot to get you buying expensive FF lenses, whose prices haven't budged in the last 10 years of digital photography. There are a few inexpensive primes out there, and a few outdated pre-digital lenses that can be had for a song (and people like Brian Caldwell and Roger Cicala can tell you all about how legacy lenses resolve comparatively poorly on digital cameras because of the filter stack) but for the most part, modern lenses for FF digital systems all cost significantly more than their smaller format counterparts.

And the people who used medium format film in the past are EXACTLY the people who are using full frame digital now. Sure, FF also does things faster and there is a little bit of overlap, but that comes directly out of FF's pre-digital heritage as the consumer format, and the format that could be drawn quickly through a camera with a bulk film back.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 07:24 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Two facts:

1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.

2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)

10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....

@Yuvalm
So you choose a job to do the lens rather than choosing a lens to do the job. Whatever works, I guess.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Two facts:

1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.

2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)

10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....

@Teila Day
1. Square format on 120 film, colloquially called 6x6 has an image measurement of 56x56mm, which gives a diagonal of 76.16mm. the 35mm format has a diagonal of 43.27mm. So square format has a crop factor of 43.27/76.16 = 0.57. So a 28mm lens for 6x6 will yield the same diagonal angle of view as 16mm on FF.

And for the record, as wide as 12mm equivalent is available for both FF and APS-C DSLRs, and 6x6 doesn't exist digitally, nor does a 28mm that covers 6x6.

2. Of course not. But your previous comment was only about angle of view. In your words, "angle of view can make a HUGE difference in what you can fit into a single frame." Depth of field is a different discussion.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 03:55 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Two facts:

1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.

2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)

10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....

@Teila Day
That argument seems bunk. Lenses with angles of view that yield angles of view as wide as 114° on a given format (FF's 14mm) are available on almost every format.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Two facts:

1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.

2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)

10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....

@nerd2:
FF cameras may have come down in price, but that's not even the majority of the cost of the system. The price of FF lenses hasn't budged at all. With the way many FF lenses are priced, whether you buy the D810 for $3000, or the D610 for $1500 (realistic US price from reputable vendor with US warranty), it's pretty much a drop in the bucket. The D610 for $1500 was just a clever way for Nikon to trick consumers into buying themselves into an extremely high margin system.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: There have been a lot of shifts in the world of photography since the transition from film to digital, and many photographers and the industry at large haven't really taken this into consideration. With film, 35mm was primarily an amateur format that ended up getting developed enough that it was very practical for certain professional photography genres. It was the most popular format for consumers, and have always been where the money is. But now, it's possible get exquisite technical image quality, in many cases better than what we could ever get out of 35mm film, out of a sensor smaller than your pinky nail.

Because it was the consumer format, 35mm has always gotten more R&D love than other formats. But now it's a professional format, still getting all of the R&D love from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Unfortunately, these companies have steadfastly refused to develop their APS-C systems specifically in order to push people toward their FF systems--even though FF now no longer really fills the same use case scenarios that it did in the days of film. Now, FF does what medium formats and large formats used to, only it does it fast. What each format is used for has, in the transition to digital, been kicked down a rung or two or three. We consumers should start realizing that.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
On article Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path (1586 comments in total)

There have been a lot of shifts in the world of photography since the transition from film to digital, and many photographers and the industry at large haven't really taken this into consideration. With film, 35mm was primarily an amateur format that ended up getting developed enough that it was very practical for certain professional photography genres. It was the most popular format for consumers, and have always been where the money is. But now, it's possible get exquisite technical image quality, in many cases better than what we could ever get out of 35mm film, out of a sensor smaller than your pinky nail.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 19:57 UTC as 105th comment | 7 replies
On article Panasonic unveils Lumix DMC-GM5 with EVF (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: Guessing this is going to have the same problem as the GM1 where you only get 10 bit RAWs with 1024 instead of 4096 levels per channel at all shutter speeds faster than 1/500. I'll have to pass...

Every display medium--print, screen, what have you-- is more restricted than what the camera can capture in the first place. Greater bit depth lets us choose what part of the camera's capture we want to display in the more restricted medium. Narrower bit depth means you're stuck with the original tone mapping decision.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 15:43 UTC
On article Panasonic unveils Lumix DMC-GM5 with EVF (45 comments in total)

Guessing this is going to have the same problem as the GM1 where you only get 10 bit RAWs with 1024 instead of 4096 levels per channel at all shutter speeds faster than 1/500. I'll have to pass...

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 13:29 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies

I'm kinda viscerally amused by the idea of hanging my Speedbooster off this thing.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 19:31 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Klarno: How about a thought experiment:

Let's say you have an art installation in a museum or gallery. In the installation, you have set up a camera, and direct people visiting the installation to take a selfie with that camera. The camera is connected to a computer running a script which automatically uploads and posts each photo to a thread on Reddit. The Reddit thread is displayed on a nearby computer screen. For the record, I've seen stranger art installations.

Who, then, does the copyright of the photograph then belong to? The person who thought up and set up the installation, the gallery's curator, or the person taking the selfie?

I think intent has to be considered in copyright.

The intent for the creator of the installation is to create a body of selfies, including the stream into a reddit thread, and for the subject of other viewers be of people taking selfies (again, I've seen weirder installations). It's uncertain what the intent of the participant would be, but the intended intent here is for the participant to simply participate in the art installation, and to not expect copyright or financial compensation over individual selfies.

Reddit, as a bastion of free speech and free information and libertarianism on the internet, like the Wikimedia foundation, is inherently biased against copyright, with a reddit thread recently being the center of an IP struggle by a photographer, with redditors claiming that you can't copyright a photograph incorporating a skyline and that anything on the internet is automatically public domain (both are wrong according to copyright precedents).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »