PIX 2015
Roland Karlsson

Roland Karlsson

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Programmer
Joined on Feb 23, 2002
About me:

Collector of K-mount and M42 stuff. Main camera K-5. Also interested in camera technology, e.g. Foveon. Also interested in computer based image analysis and transforms.

Comments

Total: 1478, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

RadPhoto: Is there a reason why they would't give the user the choice? I am just curious?

1. More choices - more complexity.
2. They think they know better than the users.
3. Given a choice - the users my start thinking. What is wrong with one of those choices?
4. Something else

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clear Lens: Which of these tripods are made in China?

The one from Cane or the one from Clear Lens?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 09:58 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clear Lens: Which of these tripods are made in China?

I do not know. But, I am very interested in know why the asker wants to know.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

Techo: Would love a medium format digital system that is more nimble (not too heavy for street and general photography) and allows us to blend in a bit more. Thusly I believe medium format film cameras are still keeping their value. Trialed a Hasselblad, oh boy, I realized it was studio only. No doubt about it. With the 100mm macro on, it looks like a mini rocket launcher. Exaggerating for comedic effect but it's not something you whip out and expect not to get attention. Haven't tried the Pentax yet. Did see the Leica in person at the Photo Plus Expo in Oct. But it was tacked onto a tripod. I think it's a beautiful camera. The price is very reasonable for a digital medium format camera. Can't wait to rent it.

Look at the top view and get surprised which one is deeper.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Techo: Would love a medium format digital system that is more nimble (not too heavy for street and general photography) and allows us to blend in a bit more. Thusly I believe medium format film cameras are still keeping their value. Trialed a Hasselblad, oh boy, I realized it was studio only. No doubt about it. With the 100mm macro on, it looks like a mini rocket launcher. Exaggerating for comedic effect but it's not something you whip out and expect not to get attention. Haven't tried the Pentax yet. Did see the Leica in person at the Photo Plus Expo in Oct. But it was tacked onto a tripod. I think it's a beautiful camera. The price is very reasonable for a digital medium format camera. Can't wait to rent it.

I have seen one of the earlier S in real life. It is nothing you just ignore. It is quite hefty. Yes, the bigger Nikon and Canon are also hefty, but in a quite different way.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#391,543

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 09:22 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

It is like the JPEG qualities from your camera: fine, high and super

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

So, the formats (in mm) 13x9, 17x13, 22x15, 36x24 and 44x33. How do that look? Is it understandable?

BTW ... if we have numbers, there would be no competition. One example: 4 inch, 6 inch or 9 inch, who cares? Much worse then with small, medium and large. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 00:24 UTC
On Beyond the table top: 5 mini tripods reviewed article (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clear Lens: Which of these tripods are made in China?

Why do you ask?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:35 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

@SMPhoto, It is even more than resolution, DR and noise that are the advantages of larger formats. For a small format 25mm F2 has the same kind of characteristics as a 100mm F8 for a larger format. The same diffraction, the same DOF. But, it is much easier to make an F8 lens than an F2 lens.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 15:07 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

Maybe. But, it is easier to remember that you are either buying APS-C lenses or FF lenses to your camera. Pentax will soon have that delightful "problem". They call them FF and APS-C. Nikon call them FX and DX. Canon call them EF and EF-S, even though EF-S is slightly smaller than APS-C. So, names are needed in order to bring order into chaos.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

Yes, FF is nutty. The format is either called 35 mm (cine), 135, 24x36 or (in German and Swedish) small image format. But, that we want to go to the giant small image format is even more nutty.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

@arkki - if we want to have the crop and expand thinking, then you need some format as the crop 1 format. It seems right now that the 35 mm (36x24 mm) format is the one that is commonly used. Why not use it and not discuss what choice is better?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

@Mark - in practice that is so today as we are talking about a crop factor. APS-C is crop factor 1.5 and FourThird is crop factor 2. One complication is that there are different ratios, e.g. 3:2 for FF and APS-C and 4:3 for FourThirds. But, we have managed to live with it.

Then 44x33 MF could be expansion factor 1.3 or something like that.

Why not? A good proposal that probably is ignored :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 14:42 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

The original definition of medium format and "small" format was that they used roll film (6 cm, a.k.a 120) and cine film (35 mm, useful width 24 mm, a.k.a. 135). And large format used sheet film or plates that was larger than that. There also was half format, instamatic, 110 instamatic, APS, ... All based on the film sizes that were available. Hmmmm ... there also was a 4 cm roll film. Was that medium format? Probably not, probably small format.

Today we have lots of sizes for digital sensors. Most people have no idea what size they have in their camera.

But, for system cameras we need some kind of order. Canon have three sizes. Nikon have three sizes. Pentax have three sizes, soon four. The standardized sizes are OneInch, FourThirds, APS-C and FF and possible also MF 33x44. There are several medium format sizes and Canon have two non standardized sizes smaller than FF. Pentax have the Q size. It is rather messy.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

@IvanM - nope, you are simply wrong regarding your 80 mm lens example - DOF changes when you crop an image. The CoC decreases when cropping and therefore the DOF decreases.

Regarding wide angle and DOF you are right. But ... that is for pure optical/technical reasons. It is much easier to make a large format lens with large aperture (in mm) than it is for e.g. an APS-C camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 13:17 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: A very beautiful camera. I wonder who buy them? Studios tends to have the digital back kind of cameras AFAIK. This one seems more aimed at hand held work. Who carries around an S camera? The huge Nikon and Canon with long fast teles for sport I understand. But this one?

@Mark - there is probably nothing wrong with the camera. It probably is a very good tool. Just wondered for who. So, Annie Leibovitz is one. Why not?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:29 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: A very beautiful camera. I wonder who buy them? Studios tends to have the digital back kind of cameras AFAIK. This one seems more aimed at hand held work. Who carries around an S camera? The huge Nikon and Canon with long fast teles for sport I understand. But this one?

It seems like an FF camera could take care of that niche.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 11:43 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: Medium format should not be defined by sensor dimensions anymore, but pixel resolution. If it is over 30 MPix, it is MF, if over 100 MPix, Large Format.

Nonsense. Then the Nokia phone was medium format.

The sensor format is important for all cameras with interchangeable lenses. You have FourThirds, APS-C, 35mm and MF. The camera system needs to be aware of the size of the sensor.

The main problem with MF is that the sensor size is not well defined, and also that it currently is smaller than classic MF cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 11:39 UTC

A very beautiful camera. I wonder who buy them? Studios tends to have the digital back kind of cameras AFAIK. This one seems more aimed at hand held work. Who carries around an S camera? The huge Nikon and Canon with long fast teles for sport I understand. But this one?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 11:05 UTC as 21st comment | 7 replies
On MIT proposes new approach to HDR with 'Modulo' camera article (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Hey guys, lighten up. The article clearly states that the images are a simulation
and not actual photographic images produced by a "Modulo camera". So why the ignorant comments about the quality of the image? At this point it is a theoretical paper and it awaits practical application. If it works in practice, it could be a real step forward toward solving the range of light problem in digital photography. As things now stand, HDR can produce some very unpleasant results and too many photographers over process HDR to the point of unreality which for some weird reason frequently gets high praise which occasionally is undeserved.

The reset (or modulo counter) method do not help you not to make over processed HDR. It is just as easy, if not more easy. What it helps you with is

1. getting one exposure
2. avoiding blending problems

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 20:40 UTC
Total: 1478, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »