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: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Tilt Shift challenge (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...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:23 UTC as 1st comment
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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 There are a few inexpensive primes out there, and a few outdated pre-digital lenses that can be had for a song (and people like Brian Caldwell and Roger Cicala can tell you all about how legacy lenses resolve comparatively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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 07:24 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 03:59 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2015 at 03:55 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1454 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.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2015 at 19:57 UTC as 54th comment | 7 replies
On Panasonic unveils Lumix DMC-GM5 with EVF article (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.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 15:43 UTC
On Panasonic unveils Lumix DMC-GM5 with EVF article (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...

Direct 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.

Direct 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).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 01:49 UTC

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.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:31 UTC as 269th comment | 3 replies

The photographer is the one that made the macaque selfie possible. The monkey didn't go to walmart and buy the camera, and the monkey didn't really compose any images, not knowing that any images would be captured, only seeing her reflection in the lens and hearing the sound of the shutter.

The copyright can't belong to the macaque, as the law does not provide for animals to have copyright. Nor does the macaque have power to determine whether or not any copies can be made of the photograph.

Copyright is an economic right, and if there's a profit to be made from this photograph, that right should belong to the photographer who made the photograph possible. He put himself, and the camera, in the situation where the macaque selfie ended up happening.

The only way public domain can apply in a private photographer's situation is if the copyright expires (in the UK, 70 years after the photographer's death), or the photographer chooses to place the photograph in the public domain.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 18:20 UTC as 274th comment | 4 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

Right you are. Also, in practice smaller sensors are more efficient than larger sensors of the same generation, which ends up meaning that FF doesn't have a 2 stop light gathering advantage over MFT, but more like 1 1/2 or 1 2/3rd stop. And larger aperture lenses are less efficient on digital sensors than smaller apertures. But trying to compare every single parameter, beyond the testing ability or comprehension of the layman, just makes equivalence even more confusing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 18:29 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cybercore: What I get from this show is something like this:

1. Nikon 1 is the worst system in terms of image quality, sensor is too limiting, but the smallest, more portable, though, in my opinion, pricey for what it is. Is closer to compacts in all aspects, than to system cameras.
2. FF is the best on image quality but pricey and big to be called portable.
3. APS-C is in between, but bulky systems for what it does these days.
4. MFT makes most sense, very good image quality, small size.

To me, in the first comparison, FF looks the best, while in second, MFT seems to be the better. So, probably these two systems will lead the future.

Now, with all FF, MFT and APS-C, you can do professional imagery and less with the Nikon 1, which seems to be targeted at casual photographers who probably will want small super zooms for their vacations and stuff. The kind of people who buy 20X compact zooms with many megapixels and a "good" brand.

Good idea you people had to make this comparison.

The most compelling thing about Nikon 1 for nature and sports photographers is that when you throw in the FT-1 adapter, you get decent tracking AF with Nikon's F-mount lenses. And because it's just a smaller, higher pixel density sensor instead of an optical teleconverter, you get the effect of a 2.7x teleconverter without the horrible downsides (such as reduced resolution or viewfinder clarity) that come with teleconverters.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

The f-number is nothing but the relationship of the focal length to the entrance pupil diameter. To achieve the same entrance pupil for the same FoV between a 35mm-format and Micro Four Thirds format, well, the entrance pupil remains the same because that's a physical quantity that we defined. However, the focal length on MFT is half that of the 35mm format, which means the f-number--which is the focal length divided by the entrance pupil-- is twice as large.

ISO is mostly irrelevant, having more to do with the brightness of JPEGs than it has to do with with how digital systems capture and interpret data. Just think of ISO as changing the display brightness. How bright the displayed image is doesn't affect the signal-to-noise ratio.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2100 comments in total)

When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 19:52 UTC as 99th comment | 4 replies
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kipplemaster: Small cameras like this should have USB charging. I believe this is the only m43 camera which does, which would be a very big selling point for me. I like DNG RAW too.

Sony E-mount cameras, all the way up to the A7 line, have USB charging. I think it's potentially very useful-- I carry USB battery backups with me when backpacking, and I use them I use to keep devices like my phone (that I use as a GPS) charged. Plus, USB charging means I can top up the charge while driving from location to location.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:46 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1600 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roy LaFaver: Nice camera. But the D800E is pretty hard to improve on, and I think it is not worth the price for owners of the E model. I doubt it means anything that the new model is built in Thailand, but you know that little nagging thought is there for many people. Do I really want to give up my "Made in Japan" camera for such a small upgrade? It is quite possible that in two years a used D800E might be worth more than a used D810.

This isn't for D800 users- it's for D700/D3X and earlier users, and event shooting pros whose cameras are genuinely consumable. If you upgrade your cameras every single time there's an incremental update, you're insane but the camera manufacturers love you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 17:45 UTC
Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »