Fabio Amodeo

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

Fuji X-Pro1, Fuji X.A1, 14mm Fujinon18mm Fujinon, 35mm Fujinon, 45mm Contax G Planar and 90mm ContaxG Sonnar with adapter, Nikon 55 micro, Nikon 200 AI, 300mm Tamron.


Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2496 comments in total)

I appreciate Fuji effort with this camera, and don't think it's overpriced, if you look at the build quality and not simply at the specs. Still I regret Fuji did not address the worst X cameras limit, which is the lack of a competitive TTL flash system, important for event photographers. From this point of view the Nikon/Canon duopoly has still a strong advantage. The APS vs FF question will be resolved only when we shall be able to see real world samples at ISO 6400-12k. My X-pro1 is very good to iso 3200: a 1 stop gain would be adequate, a 2 stop would be great.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 11:29 UTC as 520th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

BobYIL: Typical Leica: 30 x 45mm sensor with 1 (one) AF point for $16.900? Hi Seal and Medvedev! How are you guys?

If you're a well going commercial photographer, a machine like this is also useful to shoot big groups. The extra DR may save you the need to bring big flashes with you to open shadows,

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 08:13 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (511 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: I need to repeat, video quality is disappointing. Why repeat? I keep hearing the same "if you want good video quality, buy I video camera" - getting a second camera is not the answer.

The reasonable thing to do is for Fuji to get the video quality at the comparable level with everything else on the market. Not exceed, like the still image quality, just match the other offerings. Whatever the technical limitation with sensor and such, well, most simple users don't get and don't care, they simply want something comparable. Cheers!

There is a link between X-trans and video limits. At the moment, X-Trans requires high processing power, so the discharge speed of the sensor is limited. That's where video is involved. By the way Fuji internals have stated more than once that the limit of X system is sensor reading speed. They consider this the next problem that has to be solved.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 00:11 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (511 comments in total)

I find suprising that in the review RAW quality is judged only by the Adobe support of it. If so many people are too lazy to test some other RAW developers, mainly Capture One or Iridient, is not a position DPR should support. Lightroom is not the standard of industry. Photoshop was, but now is endangered by the crazy subscription policy. In the past Adobe has been an essential building force for the whole digital photography movement. But now I find it erratic in decisions, just as if they had lost vision.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 23:59 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies

I remember that many years ago I had a talk with a Leica lens gentleman, and he explained me that while in Leica lenses were tested one by one, in Japan the sticker they used to put on every lens (JOCC, or something) meant that one in ten was tested. And it is well known that when Zeiss made the Contax deal with Yashica, the japanese were licensed to build most lenses, but there had to be a Zeiss man at the end for QC.
The real information we don't have is: which is the minimum quality each firm consider accettable? There is a second question. Who will provide lenses for the 50MP next generation of cameras?

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 10:43 UTC as 10th comment

I have always been grateful to Leica because, in a period in which everybody was trying to convince us that plastic 18-55 lenses could give us what we needed, they always refused to compromise their production in terms of quality. Of course this required a different business model, and the present ownership found a solution in the so called collectors market, providing gold plated, platin plated series with surface texture from Indian holy cows and details signed by Hermes or Prada. I don't mind if they provide stuff to the rich and stupid: Bentley and Maybach and many swiss watchmakers do just the same, and nobody seems to care. Hasselblad tried the same game and failed. I think the Q has a few nice touches, like the in lens leaf shutter and the 1/500 sync speed. And the fixed lens, that is the only way to guarantee the final quality. Now. Do you know a nice duty free port somewhere?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 16:01 UTC as 116th comment
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (726 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fabio Amodeo: First point: mirrorless (or whatever they call them) are up. True, more in Asia, quite in Europe, not so much in the USA. But still true.
Second point: mirrorless are earning money. True, maybe. The industry has gone from “with these numbers next year we'll go bankrupt” to “with these nunbers we might survive”.
Third point: all mirrorless are unfinished work. What they still need is a huge advance in processing power/reading speed of the sensor. Let's talk when the work is finished (if the cameras will be able to disperse the heat involved).

Let me clear my point. The difference between DSLRs and mirrorless is not simply in the presence (or not) of a mirror. In a DSLR viewing and focussing have their own circuits. In a mirrorless all functions burden the same circuit that forms the image file, which is simply overloaded. To function properly in all situations, reading speed from the sensor and processing of information must be multiplied. It's not an easy job. As far as I can tell, Samsung is getting nearer to the solutions, the others are still behind, and for understandable reasons.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 17:30 UTC
On article Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge (726 comments in total)

First point: mirrorless (or whatever they call them) are up. True, more in Asia, quite in Europe, not so much in the USA. But still true.
Second point: mirrorless are earning money. True, maybe. The industry has gone from “with these numbers next year we'll go bankrupt” to “with these nunbers we might survive”.
Third point: all mirrorless are unfinished work. What they still need is a huge advance in processing power/reading speed of the sensor. Let's talk when the work is finished (if the cameras will be able to disperse the heat involved).

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 16:50 UTC as 91st comment | 6 replies
On article Interview: Canon's Chuck Westfall on the new XC10 (349 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.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 08:35 UTC as 68th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers (227 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.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:41 UTC
On article Red introduces 'Weapon' camera with 8K sensor option (102 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.

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.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 17:38 UTC
On article Photokina 2014: Quiet but significant (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.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 08:41 UTC as 29th comment | 7 replies
On article Hasselblad unveils pixel-shifting 200MP H5D-200c MS (231 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

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).

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 07:11 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2469 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.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 20:42 UTC as 407th comment | 3 replies
On article Apple to cease development of Aperture (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)

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).

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.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2013 at 19:25 UTC as 15th comment
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 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.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 23:19 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »