Enrico Barile

Enrico Barile

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Consultant
Joined on Aug 23, 2006

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Preview preview (213 comments in total)
In reply to:

dark goob: Can we please stop referring to 135-format as "full-frame"? It's factually wrong because 135-format cameras are not always full-frame. It's actually a fact that the Nikon FX-format sensors are the only known cameras to support a crop-sensor mode. Not to mention the fact that Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds are both full-frame formats -- despite having a smaller sensor.

Quit using language wrongly!!!!

You are absolutely right! I don't use the terms "full format" or "full frame" anymore. Actually all sensors are "full frame". To me it's more correct to use the size or a specific name, so: 24x36, APS (APS-C), 4/3 etc. No more "full frame" and "middle format". And please observe, I'm rather old (57), but I'm not nostalgic...

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 08:55 UTC
On Just posted: Our Canon Pixma Pro-1 printer review article (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

Enrico Barile: The Pixma Pro-1 printer offers excellent prints on glossy paper, especially in black and white (no color casts). However, to achieve high quality you have to create your own custom paper profiles. Prints on heavy, textured matte paper are acceptable. Forget about printing on smooth matte paper. I have tested this printer for two weeks and compared it mainly with an Epson 4880 (the same technology as the Epson 3880). Despite the nice prints on glossy paper my advice is: Buy an Epson 3880. A little more money but better prints on all types of paper (up to A2) and larger ink cartridges (80 ml vs 36 ml). Dpreview says that the ink cartridges in the Canon printer are large. That's wrong. They are too small for a printer like this. Giving it a Gold Award is almost a joke. Would have been OK if the cartridges where larger, printing on smooth matte papers better and the price about 15 percent lower.

I have worked with fine art printing för about ten years, so I know the difference between 17 and 13 inch printers. Forget the 4880 (another league) and the 2880 (for home use). Stick to the 3880. The price difference between the Pro-1 and the 3880 is not big. Even if you just print on smaller papers, or papers up to 13 inch wide, cartridges containing 36 ml ink are to small if you don't just stick to "home printing". Also, and important, the Epson 3880 is much better for printing on all kind of matte papers. The Canon Pixma Pro-1 is a good printer, but the price is to high.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2012 at 15:09 UTC
On Just posted: Our Canon Pixma Pro-1 printer review article (69 comments in total)

The Pixma Pro-1 printer offers excellent prints on glossy paper, especially in black and white (no color casts). However, to achieve high quality you have to create your own custom paper profiles. Prints on heavy, textured matte paper are acceptable. Forget about printing on smooth matte paper. I have tested this printer for two weeks and compared it mainly with an Epson 4880 (the same technology as the Epson 3880). Despite the nice prints on glossy paper my advice is: Buy an Epson 3880. A little more money but better prints on all types of paper (up to A2) and larger ink cartridges (80 ml vs 36 ml). Dpreview says that the ink cartridges in the Canon printer are large. That's wrong. They are too small for a printer like this. Giving it a Gold Award is almost a joke. Would have been OK if the cartridges where larger, printing on smooth matte papers better and the price about 15 percent lower.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2012 at 11:45 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies

This should be a discussion forum about the camera mentioned in the article above. Please try to discuss the camera, Fujifilm etc seriously. Don't use the space to just tell others what equipment you are using. Who cares? Also, what's the point in telling us you preferr your "whatever" DSLR. First, the X-Pro 1 can't be compared to a DSLR. Or a simple compact camera. I many ways in't can't be compared to a Leica M9 either. Second, you haven't evend touched the X-Pro 1 yet! I haven't seen this camera in real life, but I appreciate Fujifilm's efforts to broaden the market by introducing cameras that differs a bit from the main street producs. I will get my hands on this camera as soon as possible. No, the price is not at all to high for a camera like this one. OK, if it turns out to be a sloppy product with bad image quality, then yes, the price is to high. But Fujifilm got it all right with the X100, so why not with this camera?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 09:18 UTC as 114th comment | 1 reply
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4