Fabio Amodeo

Fabio Amodeo

Lives in Udine
Works as a writer, journalist, photographer
Joined on Oct 30, 2001
About me:

Fuji X-Pro1, 18mm Fujinon, 35mm Fujinon, 50mm Summicron with adapter, Nikon 24, 28, 55 micro, 105, 180, 200 all AI, 90mm macro Tamron, 300mm Tamron, all used via adapter.


Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 article (347 comments in total)

This machine addresses a problem that does not exist. I mean, nobody other than casual users needs a convergence camera. And casual users don't spend $2500 on an instrument. The rest of the market is made of photographers who know they could make video with their cameras, but don't care much about it, and videographers who could use photo cameras for their video, but have to add so many instruments to their 5D that the beast becomes hardly recognizable. They are different jobs with different needs (just think sound for video or lenses with shift and tilt or flash sync for photography) and the fact that they share some elements (lens, sensor, processor) is not a strong reason to invent a category that does not exist. The argument by DPR staff (if you are not interested, don't read it) is very unreal. When you do information, you're not only providing information bits, you're also building an agenda. And the DPR agenda says: convergence is coming, and it's important. Readers don't agree.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 08:35 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: While I applaud the quality of Fuji's lenses, I can't see the benefit of 1.4 in a wideangle. Perhaps someone can explain how a ultra fast wideangle that is heavier, larger and more expensive makes any sense as a photographic tool.

A 2.2 lens would have cost half, been substantially smaller and been easier for Fuji to achieve optical results from...

I see this lens mostly fit for social events, say portait+environment. The wide aperture means less ISO, which means better prints in the wedding album. If the lens is optically corrected for distortion, as they say, this lens can be of great help in places where tripods and monopods are not permitted, like churches or museums.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41 UTC
On Red introduces 'Weapon' camera with 8K sensor option article (104 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Even if it does have 8k what tv or screen can render it?

Any cinema theater can render it. That's what the Red has been made for since the beginning.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

quatpat: Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.

Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.

Because they were designed in film days, when the borders of film could accept light from any angle. Sensors require telecentric lenses, and such lenses for full frame can be neither compact nor short.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 17:38 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2976 comments in total)

The real winners of this job will be Zeiss and Gitzo.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 00:47 UTC as 465th comment | 3 replies
On Photokina 2014: Quiet but significant article (164 comments in total)

The real question to me is: can the NX1 really shoot 15fps with focus tracking? If it can, the demise of DSLR is getting nearer. Both the mirrorless and the DSLR have structural limits: for mirrorless it's processing power, needed by the many functions concentrated on the same circuit; for DSLR it's the mechanical limit of mirror ups and downs. If Samsung has really broken the first limit, the others will have to follow, and soon. So I think the whole industry is asking itself the same question: where will the declining money be in the near future? In my opinion, the vision of Fuji and Samsung (and Leica, but that's another story) is clearer that that of the other players, which seem hesitant on the road to take.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 08:41 UTC as 29th comment | 7 replies
On Hasselblad unveils pixel-shifting 200MP H5D-200c MS article (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

D1N0: Any IBIS camera should have this ;)

I think Imacon (who later bought Hasselblad) was doing this trick in the early times of digital photography, when 6MP digital backs seemed yhe future, about 1999-2000. It was the only way to get bigger formats without too much interpolatiom

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.

I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.

Only latest generation Leica lenses work well on digital. Older lenses have an optical path that needs heavy corrections. A Sigma Art lens gives better results (is more telecentric).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 07:11 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2129 comments in total)

Interesting article, but… If I think to real life situations, the equivalence matter seems to me much less important. Let me explain.
Situation A. I'm at a concert, with very little light. I'll take out the fastest lens I have, and bump up ISO. In theory FF is better, because it should give me better high ISO. But the faster lens I use wide open might have too thin a focus. My problem is not how much out of focus is the background; my problem is to have something in focus at all. So I'll stop down, and lose the ISO advantage.
Situation B. I have to shoot food, and I want all the food creverly prepared by the occasional masterchef to be in focus. Here a smaller format should have an advantage, due to bigger dof given the same perspective. But I know I'll be in full diffraction-danger zone by f/11, where many FF lenses are still good. And I know tilt lenses were made for this, but I'm too lazy or too poor to own one, Conclusion? It's always a compromise we live in.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 20:42 UTC as 302nd comment | 3 replies
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (425 comments in total)

I hve the sensation that the idea is: give me your photos, and you'll be able to see them on any device, as long as you buy it from me. But if you dare buy anything with Samsung or Android or HTC written on it, you'll never be able to see them again and the Lord of Apples will punish you forever. Against this heroin pusher mindform my only defense is: keep my own library, my own gerarchy of files, my own cloud in the form of a dataserver accessible from the net.
That means using no program that tries to build its own library, no cloud based anything, and its ok as long as my Photoshop CS5 keeps on running, as I think no RAW editor will ever be able to do everything, and sooner or later you have to tweak pixels in a photo editing program. Now if only Corel could write their photo editor for Mac again, I could get rid of Adobe forever (and maybe buy a new computer, sooner or later)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 08:17 UTC as 62nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

biggles266: I don't understand the love for the Sigma lens. The range is boring, so the only good thing is the f1.8. What do I need f1.8 for in that zoom range? Astrophotography I guess, but what else? It's too wide for indoor sports. Not wide enough for serious indoor architecture. For anything outdoors the f1.8 is irrelevant. f1.8 can't provide shallow DOF because it's a wide angle lens plus on a crop body. So what is the lens actually good for? What do you need f1.8 for at that focal range? (Sure, it's nice to have, but what is compelling about it?)

First, it is a zoom in the normal range with relevant quality. The world is full of kit zooms of vomitable or just decent quality, and the Sigma stands out, Second, the “Art” series is very interesting, promising good to high quality at reasonable cost (at least as long as the mechanical tolerances can hold use and abuse). Enough to compell Nikon to provide a better quality 1.4 normal (and mising the target).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2014 at 14:09 UTC

The usual lens paradox. Looking at some numbers, one asks himself why he or she should pay so much money for a glass. Yet those who have put their hands on the lens are ready to swear about the unique quality of the lens. As Yabokkie rightly said, there is much still to understand about lens design. And much about lens evaluation, too. One of my favourite lenses of the past, the M Summicron 35, had weak borders, that became decent, nothing more, by 5.6. Still it made wonderful photos. My old Nikon 105/2.5 AI is beaten in the numbers by any 90-105mm macro. Then shoot a portait, and you'll see the difference. I have the impression that pixel peeping does not help in judging the real virtues and possibility of any glass. We should seek other values.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2013 at 19:25 UTC as 15th comment
On Nikon Df preview (2792 comments in total)

I've shot with all the film era Nikons, up to the F4. No SLR had so many commands, dials, buttons, gears. The top is simply confusing. Nikon should have left only the basic commands outside, leaving the rest in the menus. And it will not appeal to oldies like me. I will have to put sight glasses on to change ISO. Ergonomically it's a Titanic. The biggest let down is the viewfinder. What we have lost in digital times is the beautiful viewing experience of, say, F3 (which had a variety of viewfinders and vewing aids, by the way). This camera does not bring it back.
Don't be afraid about the price: at the moment the D800 is about € 2K here in Europe, and it's a more capable camera than this from any point of view. I expect the Df to sink below that price in a year's time.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 10:57 UTC as 774th comment | 2 replies
On Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows article (1396 comments in total)
In reply to:

liquid stereo: Deck chairs on the titanic...

Oly/Pana/Fuji/Sony: Here are different/better offerings — ergo, sensor size, solution size, high ISO performance, etc. — at a lower price.

Nikon: Here's one of our cams — same features, in an angled body — for the same (high) price.

Canon: What's all this then?

The only world class lens I know is a 35mm. And it's made by Sigma.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 23:19 UTC
On Leonardo is a new, powerful image-editing app post (25 comments in total)

I think this Leonardo job poses an interesting question. It is able to do to 8 bit files most of the useful things Photoshop can do. Now, how comes it costs less than two bucks, while PS requires a monthly contract more expensive than a seat at La Scala? If Adobe ever cared about photographers, I would think PS Elements should be the thing that does the same in the real world. But Elements has always been kept behind, being unable to do some jobs (no LAB colour space, few 16 bits filters, and most of all no actions, grrr) . I'm a photographer, not a graphic designer or an illustrator, and I would need a simple and powerful instrument made for photographers. I think Adobe simply forgot its public (and will keep PS5 as long as I can).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2013 at 14:55 UTC as 12th comment
On 2012 Holiday Gift Guide article (59 comments in total)

Dear Gentlemen,
the Interfit SXT3200 3 Head Tungsten kit is not a “strobe kit”, as you state, but a continuous light kit. As such the heads do not “fire” as you state, but are always on: the modelling light you invented are therefore non existing.
The inability to separate flash light from continuous light makes me think the author does not know much about lighting, and makes me doubt also of the knowledge about photography in general.
The Interfit site clearly distinguishes flash light and continuous light of various kinds. I think it's the biggest flaw I ever read on a photographic site.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2012 at 09:52 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Rob P: 82mm filter thread on a 55mm f/1.4 lens? Ouch. How big is that beast?

I think Zeiss decided for a retrofocus design because it's the only way to feed the sensor with information coming trough a perpendicular path, without making strange effects in the corners. That's something Zeiss has done before. I remember the Contax wides of film times: Zeiss lenses were monumental, while we Canon and Nikon users used to carry our wides in our pockets. Well, 30 years after that my friend viedographers are happy to use adapted Contax RTS lenses for their jobs, while my old 20 and 24 Nikons are very good to keep the paper from flying away (the 28 AIs is another story). The idea of a “definitive high quality lens) for high MP SLRs, present or future, is not bad: it's the same idea behind Apo-digital lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock, and studio photographers bought them for critical colour work. They were not cheap, either.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2012 at 16:34 UTC

Few users will buy it. Most cinemakers hire the lenses suitable for a specific job. The budget dictates the available range. Small studios own some everyday lenses (many Contax, Nikon AI, Leica R primes available) and hire the more expensive lenses for better paid jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 14:31 UTC as 21st comment

The two bigs, Canon and Nikon, are frightened by the idea of losing the DSLR/lenses holy grail. So they both introduced crap mirrorless for compact users upgrading. Boh. Compact users don't upgrade: they buy phones, that can post their images instantly. Serious photographers upgrade. I see very good times for Nex series, Fuji X and m43. The giants are giving them a strong hand.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 16:01 UTC as 198th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Vadimka: Sony got pretty unlucky acquiring Minolta just few years before whole SLR business was about to turn south in favor of Mirrorless. They did not get their money worth, before they were forced to get back to R&D for mirror removal and create totally new lenses. Old Minolta expertise is not super helpful for them now, and they need more.

Hopefully rumors about Sony's interest of investment/partnership with Olympus is true. They could use some help in lens department, while Olympus could gain in sensor and OLED EVF technology. (especially since Panasonic is no longer interested in Olympus)

I believe 5N is the best camera today for MF legacy lenses, and their Cine cameras are some of the best period. Sony and Oly would be a perfect couple capable, if not killing, at least hurting Canikon business by huge margin. (especially considering how slow they have been to react to changes)

I would not be so sure that Nex mount is compatible with full frame, in mount size and flange distance respects. I think it would require lenses design so telecentric that even a supposed pancake would be huge. I think there would be no size advantage over DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 08:30 UTC
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »