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: 1376, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Zapirian: Quick, lets put together a Photoshop action to imitate the bubble bokeh and sell it. Or even better an iPhone App to apply it to phone pics and sell it at 0.99 pence/cents.

@Zapirian. No need for name calling. You failed with your joke. Your error, not ours. We were discussing the lens and its cost. You changed the subject and assumed everyone understood that. Maybe be a bit more clear next time? And - at least - be less rude when you fail?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

AlexisH: "Following a successful Kickstar campaign"

Kickstar?

A new reality show. Celebrities that play football matches. (Soccer for you US)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Joesiv: Doesn't the moon rotate around the earth? seems like a strange heading for the story. Perhaps, "p900 shows the moon moving across the sky..." Would be more accurate, and probably less exciting (to match the video)

@Marcello, I hope you have a good story for the very far away stars and galaxies being able to move around us at speed that by far exceeds the speed of light.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 18:35 UTC

For around $300 you can get a 100 mm F2.8 trioplan on eBay. It has Exakta mount though, or maybe (but I am not sure) an M42 mount. The latter is rare, if it really exists. For much less than $1400 I assume you can fix an adapter for Exakta somehow.

In light of this - it seems like $500 might be a reasonable price.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 18:06 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nandbytes: Why should anyone buy this instead of picking up the original for a lot cheaper on eBay?

Did not know that. I only saw the trioplan in the article. That one cannot be used directly.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Pasco: I have an original trioplan in Exakta mount that I can adapt to my V1. I think I paid $25 for it on eBay 15 years ago. Even with modern glass, coatings and mount it's still an old triplet design and $1700 is insane.

What focal length and what F-stop? The one they make is 100 mm and F2.8.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

artnaz: Wow, why that expensive?!

Because they want to make money. Chosing a price is an art form. If you make it too expensive, no one will buy. If you make it too cheap, you have to sell a lot to make any profit.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:08 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Meyer-Optik-Goerlitz went out of business in 1991. IMHO this is an attempt to use "soap bubble bokeh" to bring back the brand. You can still get an original Trioplan for less, the overcorrected SA that causes this (ugly) bokeh is found in other lenses, and saying it's available in "mounts for all modern DSRL- [sic] & mirrorless cameras" needlessly insults users of Pentax, Samsung NX, .... ;-)

Their WWW site lists a bunch of "made in Germany" lenses that sound more appealing and look oddly familiar. For example, their 9-bladed NOCTURNUS 50mm f/0.95 sure looks like the Mitakon Zhongyi product with identical specs. They carefully define "made in Germany" to mean "assembled in Germany using the best, globally available components and are precisely adjusted with great care." Is the Trioplan special for them because it's their first lens where the design came from Germany? I'd be happier if they just said that -- I welcome new lensmakers, but I hate marketing BS.

Someone is making new Helios 85 F1.5. You can buy them from Russia. Who? I have not the slightest idea. It is true though.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Zapirian: Quick, lets put together a Photoshop action to imitate the bubble bokeh and sell it. Or even better an iPhone App to apply it to phone pics and sell it at 0.99 pence/cents.

Yes, please do. I would really see if you can succeed. It is far from trivial. So, please try.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

nandbytes: Why should anyone buy this instead of picking up the original for a lot cheaper on eBay?

How do you mount the original on your camera? How do you convert the much longer focal length F6.3 to a 100 mm F2.8 lens?

The new lens is NOT a copy of the old lens. The only things it has in common is that it is a triplet and that it has bubble bokeh.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

BigShooter: Now pleeease, let's NEVER, EVER, EVER....talk about this again.

he he he he .... you are dangerous man. I could have hurt myself there.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:31 UTC

I do not really get this. What Appla and Swift demands are so totally different that the photographers comment is just a red herring. Still, someone takes him seriously. Apple says - we are going to play your music and we are not going to pay you. That is outrageous. Swift says - if you take pictures of me I want control. Swift is a control freak and Apple are just plain bullies that try to take advantage of their dominance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:29 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Papi61: Sad truth: Apple is greedy, Taylor Swift is greedy, the photographer is greedy. This society has made greed into its main value. Despite what they claim, no one gives a crap if someone else is exploited in the process, as long as there's some financial gain. The hypocrisy is virtually infinite.

Will we ever reach a money-less society, where poverty, crime and ignorance no longer exist, as envisioned in Star Trek? Nah, more likely we will self-destruct in just a few decades...

@NetMage - not entirely true. If I am a pop star photographer and there is a famous (even if no on know who she is) pop star that performs I might have to accept the strange demands that the pop star makes. Moreover, if I am a pop star and want to make money from my pop star music, then I might be folish not to to sell my pop star stuff via Apple.

It is not so simple that it is perfectly OK to set up whatever rules you want for a service. You could sell very cheap tickets for looking at Rolling Stones in a small theatre with the demands that the audience is only female, naked and younger than 30. I mean, it is just to not buy those $30 tickets. Its your own choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

Papi61: Sad truth: Apple is greedy, Taylor Swift is greedy, the photographer is greedy. This society has made greed into its main value. Despite what they claim, no one gives a crap if someone else is exploited in the process, as long as there's some financial gain. The hypocrisy is virtually infinite.

Will we ever reach a money-less society, where poverty, crime and ignorance no longer exist, as envisioned in Star Trek? Nah, more likely we will self-destruct in just a few decades...

I have been around some years. And yes the modern society is greedy. Almost anything made today is based upon financial motivations. Even in those cases where someone else have to pay. Even in those cases where someone else is a department of my own company. Even if someone else is another department in the same state. Even in those cases where cheapest today is the most expensive tomorrow.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

drawer77: she's so famous that most people don't know her

Who? Swift? Swift? Was that not a writer?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

Yes, a 24 mm F2 has a deeper DOF than a 35 mm F2. No doubt about that. But, what happens when you crop the 24 mm to the same FOV as the 35 mm?

Of course, if the CoC (circle of confusion) is based upon the pixel size, then the cropped image will have the same DOF as the uncropped.

But, if the CoC is based upon 1/1200 of the diagonal? What happens then? Then the CoC will be smaller when cropping, and therefore the DOF narrower. It might then cancel out?

But, it does not!

The aperture (in mm) is smaller for the 24 mm setting than for the 35 mm setting at F2. Therefore, the DOF has to be larger for a 24 mm cropped to a 35 mm FOV than for the 35 mm. Just as you said :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

@RPJG - As is quite evident from the above, we understand that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 13:24 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

OK. Lets see, a 35 mm F2 ought to have larger DOF than a 24 mm F2 that is cropped. Or ... is iot the other way around?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 09:36 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

@Archiver - a cropped 24 mm lens has exactly the same perspective as a 35 mm lens. So, walking around with a 24 mm lens will give you the same benefits as this lens, except the extra resolution you get by zooming. So, if you need the 35 mm lens and also need all the 36 MP in resolution, then this lens is useful.

And also, of course, what I said above regarding limiting post processing, which might be important for pro photographers taking lots of images. Or myself, due to poor memory.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.

Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...

But you can use a 24 mm and crop. That will simulate having a camera with half as many pixels. So, if you have a 36 MP camera, this crop will give you an 18 MP image. More than enough.

So, the main advantage is convenience. That you can do the cropping when taking the image and do not have to think/remember when doing post processing.

To me it feels that a 2x zoom is the minimum that is really useful.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 08:29 UTC
Total: 1376, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »