marcio_napoli

marcio_napoli

Lives in Brazil São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
Works as a Fashion Photographer
Joined on Mar 12, 2010
About me:

check it out my You Tube channel:
https://youtu.be/SIO0J3aqLVg

Aliens (acclaimed short film_near 700K views on YT):
https://youtu.be/aliscTnlsvg

Instagram:
@marcio_user

Comments

Total: 529, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Nothing really changes at the end of the day.

Yes, these are awesome at screen size, but what camera from the last 20 years isn't?

At screen size, you have to be an amazing photographer to get terrible IQ.

What does that rant mean? It means that despite some people arguments, pixel peeping is what really differentiates one camera/format to another.

No matter how you like it, or debates if people actually pixel peep in real life, the thing is: the difference between a cellphone to M4/3 , APS to FF, FF to MF is mostly at 1:1 level.

Just pixel peep one iphone picture at 1:1, and it's wow, it still looks like cell phone pictures, yay.

Steve and b0k3h, you guys got it.

Yup, that's all there is. If you look at screen size, no matter how old or modern your gear is, it will mostly be good.

Screen size offers no challenge at all, so a cell phone or 1999 Nikon will look good.

It's when you print big, or look really close for details on screen (1:1) or on print, that's where your higher end gear will show its worth. Like it or not, pixel peeping is what sets apart your gear between each other.

To celebrate that cell phones are good at screen size is celebrating nothing. Nothing there to celebrate.

B0k3h, now here's the twist.

You're right, all cameras are good enough if we're looking at screen size.

But that's assuming all images in the world will only be seen that way, which they won't.

Art directors will want to crop full body shots into headshots.

Commercial images may be printed in gigantic sizes.

Etc.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2019 at 01:34 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Nothing really changes at the end of the day.

Yes, these are awesome at screen size, but what camera from the last 20 years isn't?

At screen size, you have to be an amazing photographer to get terrible IQ.

What does that rant mean? It means that despite some people arguments, pixel peeping is what really differentiates one camera/format to another.

No matter how you like it, or debates if people actually pixel peep in real life, the thing is: the difference between a cellphone to M4/3 , APS to FF, FF to MF is mostly at 1:1 level.

Just pixel peep one iphone picture at 1:1, and it's wow, it still looks like cell phone pictures, yay.

Lol ^_^

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2019 at 20:23 UTC

Nothing really changes at the end of the day.

Yes, these are awesome at screen size, but what camera from the last 20 years isn't?

At screen size, you have to be an amazing photographer to get terrible IQ.

What does that rant mean? It means that despite some people arguments, pixel peeping is what really differentiates one camera/format to another.

No matter how you like it, or debates if people actually pixel peep in real life, the thing is: the difference between a cellphone to M4/3 , APS to FF, FF to MF is mostly at 1:1 level.

Just pixel peep one iphone picture at 1:1, and it's wow, it still looks like cell phone pictures, yay.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2019 at 19:39 UTC as 41st comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: You may interpret my post the way you want, go ahead, but I personally feel it s#cks that Sony is THAT dominant in the sensor bis.

Call me naive or whatever, but I want my camera to carry its own signature right from the start of the image pipeline (sensor obviously) and not be another me too with identical IQ to 100s of other cameras.

Obviously I know how advanced Sony sensors are. But I like different signatures, even if with inferior technical specs.

You know what I care about? Kodak sensors in CCD Leica Ms, ask any M8 / M9 shooters what they think of those.

Kodak / Dalsa sensors in MF backs. Used 4 of those, and you can see a mile away Kodak's DNA (and Dalsa's) on these backs.

What about Fuji's Super CCD? Ask anyone who shot those.

Sigma's Foveon. Just. Lovely. At. Base. ISO.

Old school Canon, when they cared about being leader in IQ (5d, 1Ds II, 1Ds III).

Nikon's designs, I mean, their own designs

Now all we hear is Sony this, Sony that. So boring a world of none choice.

What is it with DPR that people here always have to assume they're talking to complete noob?

To all here, OF COURSE I'm fully aware what Sony brings to the table. No need to educate me what an advanced sensor does.

Here's my 2011 beginner portfolio (considerably more experienced now) to put things into perspective:

https://youtu.be/OxmCdsqMdXA

My OP refers to special nuances some sensors have, most of these nuances are clearly intentionally designed by their developers.

It's not my job to explain here why the M9 sensor is so special, or Fuji S5's sensor, or most of the CCD digital backs, etc etc. Really not my job.

I hoped my OP would go past the first usual obstacle "but if you have 14 stops DR you can build any signature you want". Not always simple as that.

You can.
But then again you can't.

We're talking about nuances, the same way nuances is all there is between a Velvia and a Provia, and nuances can make a world of difference when you need them to be.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2019 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: You may interpret my post the way you want, go ahead, but I personally feel it s#cks that Sony is THAT dominant in the sensor bis.

Call me naive or whatever, but I want my camera to carry its own signature right from the start of the image pipeline (sensor obviously) and not be another me too with identical IQ to 100s of other cameras.

Obviously I know how advanced Sony sensors are. But I like different signatures, even if with inferior technical specs.

You know what I care about? Kodak sensors in CCD Leica Ms, ask any M8 / M9 shooters what they think of those.

Kodak / Dalsa sensors in MF backs. Used 4 of those, and you can see a mile away Kodak's DNA (and Dalsa's) on these backs.

What about Fuji's Super CCD? Ask anyone who shot those.

Sigma's Foveon. Just. Lovely. At. Base. ISO.

Old school Canon, when they cared about being leader in IQ (5d, 1Ds II, 1Ds III).

Nikon's designs, I mean, their own designs

Now all we hear is Sony this, Sony that. So boring a world of none choice.

Thanks for letting me know.

So you'll be glad to know I have mine too, and I'm proud of my work.

Does having my own signature disqualifies what I said before?

It doesn't change a bit the fact I like a starting point that isn't the same sensor everyone and theirs moms are using.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2019 at 05:36 UTC

You may interpret my post the way you want, go ahead, but I personally feel it s#cks that Sony is THAT dominant in the sensor bis.

Call me naive or whatever, but I want my camera to carry its own signature right from the start of the image pipeline (sensor obviously) and not be another me too with identical IQ to 100s of other cameras.

Obviously I know how advanced Sony sensors are. But I like different signatures, even if with inferior technical specs.

You know what I care about? Kodak sensors in CCD Leica Ms, ask any M8 / M9 shooters what they think of those.

Kodak / Dalsa sensors in MF backs. Used 4 of those, and you can see a mile away Kodak's DNA (and Dalsa's) on these backs.

What about Fuji's Super CCD? Ask anyone who shot those.

Sigma's Foveon. Just. Lovely. At. Base. ISO.

Old school Canon, when they cared about being leader in IQ (5d, 1Ds II, 1Ds III).

Nikon's designs, I mean, their own designs

Now all we hear is Sony this, Sony that. So boring a world of none choice.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2019 at 04:27 UTC as 31st comment | 7 replies

I can't believe I clicked on this dumb@ss article. And then wasted time posting.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2019 at 21:36 UTC as 73rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Otherworldly feat of technology, this must offer IQ levels we couldn't even dream just a few years ago.

The thing I get sad about is it's all essentially wasted. It falls in the who cares domain at this point in time.

99% of amateurs who can afford it will waste all this horse power in mundane shots that could very well be served with 10 mp APS-C cameras.

Before you get absurdly offended, let's be honest: 100mp is not for me or you. It's for extremely careful landscape or fine art, and high production value fashion and commercial photography.

Everything else will hardly ever need or *DESERVE* 100mp.

And pros are starving. I know that side of the fence very well.

Long gone are the days when the notion of 100mp would give you any commercial advantage over the next guy.

Clients don't give a flying F what you shoot, how many MPs, etc.

To be honest, you can create an advantage saying you shoot MF (I do BTW), but any MF will do

Any 40mp DB is already enough for a selling argument.

We all have different rules we live our lives. Personally I only feel comfortable spending money on high end gear IF my photography is worthy of the upgrade.

That rule applies even if I do have the budget.

I've been retired from pro activities since 2014 (shot fashion professionally for almost a decade).

Back in the pro days, I shot with a 22mp Mamiya (paid $ 26 grand in my Country's currency when new).

If I ever go back to pro activities, I'll buy a new DB on day 1, but only IF I become a pro again.

No reason to buy amazing gear just for mundane photography.

There must be a clear reason for the added horse power.

At least that's my POV.

Here's a sample of my work:

https://youtu.be/OxmCdsqMdXA

Obviously less than 1% of the people on this forum will agree, I'm aware of that.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 18:30 UTC

Otherworldly feat of technology, this must offer IQ levels we couldn't even dream just a few years ago.

The thing I get sad about is it's all essentially wasted. It falls in the who cares domain at this point in time.

99% of amateurs who can afford it will waste all this horse power in mundane shots that could very well be served with 10 mp APS-C cameras.

Before you get absurdly offended, let's be honest: 100mp is not for me or you. It's for extremely careful landscape or fine art, and high production value fashion and commercial photography.

Everything else will hardly ever need or *DESERVE* 100mp.

And pros are starving. I know that side of the fence very well.

Long gone are the days when the notion of 100mp would give you any commercial advantage over the next guy.

Clients don't give a flying F what you shoot, how many MPs, etc.

To be honest, you can create an advantage saying you shoot MF (I do BTW), but any MF will do

Any 40mp DB is already enough for a selling argument.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2019 at 17:27 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies

As a DMF fan (if you know my posting history you know I am), who hardly considers FF anything special, I'm in love with this camera.

Looks awesome, looks like a proper camera (not a toy), must feel, handle and operate just as the very best pro gear from Canikon, with no IFs whatsoever.

Again, as a fan of much, much, much larger MF sensors, I understand what Olympus did here and appreciate a lot their efforts.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 17:50 UTC as 98th comment
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I'm an idiot for a lot of things, and why should you take my opinion seriously? But here it goes anyway.

Camera companies killed themselves. No, not really, they'll find ways to make money, I'm being overly dramatic but you know what I mean.

First they killed sales to the professional market, doing as follows:

Too tight competition between themselves has made them push cameras not primarily to the professional market, but to the hobbyist instead. Hint: when you don't sell cameras anymore for 8 thousand dollars, but for 2 or 3 grand, it's because you care more about sales to amateurs than to professionals.

Pushing too many cameras, lead to over saturation of "photographers". Yeah, I put that in "quota unquote". I think you know what I mean.

Too much (cheap) offer for too little demand of pro photography means zero money for everyone.

Pro market has died, thanks a lot Canon, Nikon and everyone else, great job at making this profession miserable. Huge thumbs up.

A bit of noise from an older sensor means little compared to the really important stuff.

But hey photomedium, you going as far as saying this is a sh#tload of nonsense and canon guys are morons, that makes it clear where you're coming from.

Obviously you want to keep chasing tech and finding excuses to upgrade, and keep feeling good while doing so. More power to you,

We simply disagree.

I know I'm covered with any gear from 2008 to now.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 20:12 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I'm an idiot for a lot of things, and why should you take my opinion seriously? But here it goes anyway.

Camera companies killed themselves. No, not really, they'll find ways to make money, I'm being overly dramatic but you know what I mean.

First they killed sales to the professional market, doing as follows:

Too tight competition between themselves has made them push cameras not primarily to the professional market, but to the hobbyist instead. Hint: when you don't sell cameras anymore for 8 thousand dollars, but for 2 or 3 grand, it's because you care more about sales to amateurs than to professionals.

Pushing too many cameras, lead to over saturation of "photographers". Yeah, I put that in "quota unquote". I think you know what I mean.

Too much (cheap) offer for too little demand of pro photography means zero money for everyone.

Pro market has died, thanks a lot Canon, Nikon and everyone else, great job at making this profession miserable. Huge thumbs up.

Well, let's see this. You have all you need. You may not admit it, or even want to admit, but you do.

You may like to hear I've used all kinds of cameras, from the GH4 to D3x and D800. to Leica M8, to 4 different digital backs from Phase One and Hasselblad.

It's not like my point is based on not knowing the good stuff.

In a few weeks, I'm gonna shoot a fashion shoot and it will be at night. I've already measured the light in the location: 1/30th f2.8 ISO 6400.

Obviously it's dark, and my D3x is far from a low light monster.

The camera nerd in me toyed for a split second with the idea of renting a D5, or even selling my D3x to get a better low light camera.

Then this idea vanished away.

I just remembered it's the photographer, not the gear.

Who cares if there'll be some minor noise? I can set up lights and make the whole thing very appealing, find interesting compositions, poses, attitude, mood, and overall great styling.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I'm an idiot for a lot of things, and why should you take my opinion seriously? But here it goes anyway.

Camera companies killed themselves. No, not really, they'll find ways to make money, I'm being overly dramatic but you know what I mean.

First they killed sales to the professional market, doing as follows:

Too tight competition between themselves has made them push cameras not primarily to the professional market, but to the hobbyist instead. Hint: when you don't sell cameras anymore for 8 thousand dollars, but for 2 or 3 grand, it's because you care more about sales to amateurs than to professionals.

Pushing too many cameras, lead to over saturation of "photographers". Yeah, I put that in "quota unquote". I think you know what I mean.

Too much (cheap) offer for too little demand of pro photography means zero money for everyone.

Pro market has died, thanks a lot Canon, Nikon and everyone else, great job at making this profession miserable. Huge thumbs up.

Now, C, N, S etc, this is a monster you've created yourselves, deal with it.

Shouldn't have been so greedy to push millions of cameras per year.

After you give people all they need, there's nothing you can say to keep people buying.

Before you say you still want X, Y, Z feature, hang on, this is a nerd / gear forum.

If there's one place people still want camera, it's here.

This is a stronghold for all things related to cameras.

Most other people outside this place have been satisfied with their gear for years already.

There you go, how CNS have created their own mess.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I'm an idiot for a lot of things, and why should you take my opinion seriously? But here it goes anyway.

Camera companies killed themselves. No, not really, they'll find ways to make money, I'm being overly dramatic but you know what I mean.

First they killed sales to the professional market, doing as follows:

Too tight competition between themselves has made them push cameras not primarily to the professional market, but to the hobbyist instead. Hint: when you don't sell cameras anymore for 8 thousand dollars, but for 2 or 3 grand, it's because you care more about sales to amateurs than to professionals.

Pushing too many cameras, lead to over saturation of "photographers". Yeah, I put that in "quota unquote". I think you know what I mean.

Too much (cheap) offer for too little demand of pro photography means zero money for everyone.

Pro market has died, thanks a lot Canon, Nikon and everyone else, great job at making this profession miserable. Huge thumbs up.

After F#### with the professional market, they're killing the enthusiast one.

In less than 15 years (which really is nothing), they competed to give us too much, too fast, and for too little money.

You know what is shrinking the ILC market?

Iphones? No. Mirrorless? No.

You don't buy anymore because your camera is already too awesome, simple as that.

I don't even know what your camera is, if it's less than 10 years old, you can shoot everything you want and you know that.

Sure, you want more megapixels, cleaner images, sure you do.

But let's be honest: you know you're covered already, and new releases will not change things dramatically.

I'm doing fashion work with a D3x and honestly unless I suffer from GAS, my D3x will keep going for another 10 years easily.

Most people have realized that: their gear is good enough, no need to buy new stuff. Such a simple explanation to ILC's diminishing sales.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 02:41 UTC

I'm an idiot for a lot of things, and why should you take my opinion seriously? But here it goes anyway.

Camera companies killed themselves. No, not really, they'll find ways to make money, I'm being overly dramatic but you know what I mean.

First they killed sales to the professional market, doing as follows:

Too tight competition between themselves has made them push cameras not primarily to the professional market, but to the hobbyist instead. Hint: when you don't sell cameras anymore for 8 thousand dollars, but for 2 or 3 grand, it's because you care more about sales to amateurs than to professionals.

Pushing too many cameras, lead to over saturation of "photographers". Yeah, I put that in "quota unquote". I think you know what I mean.

Too much (cheap) offer for too little demand of pro photography means zero money for everyone.

Pro market has died, thanks a lot Canon, Nikon and everyone else, great job at making this profession miserable. Huge thumbs up.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 02:39 UTC as 194th comment | 9 replies
On article Olympus introduces durable, sports-oriented OM-D E-M1X (343 comments in total)

Oddly enough, I'm gonna comment in the opposite direction of everyone here.

To me, M4/3 has always been a format associated with video (GH2, GH4, there would be a GH5s in the future, if the X-T3 wasn't so amazing).

I have taken less than 20 still images with my GH4, because for stills it feels like a toy camera.

Too small, too light, with a bunch of buttons too close together, I simply can't take it seriously as a still camera. So many better options in my, and everyone's, bag.

Amazing video camera? Yes. Toy-ish still camera? Also yes.

Needless to say, my comments could be applied to many M4/3s being used for stills.

The price here is though to swallow, but if there's one M4/3 camera that looks (and probably feels, and balances, etc) like a real still camera, it's this one.

Point is, among all small sensor cameras, this looks like it would be a joy to use and feel like a proper shooting experience.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2019 at 14:12 UTC as 53rd comment | 3 replies
On article Sony a6400 sample gallery (207 comments in total)

Maybe I'm just being an @ss, I don't know, but in case I'm writing all kinds of B$, I'm willing to apologize.

But man, as a fashion photographer myself, I loved the lighting and production value on all those model shots.

Superb lighting, styling (not native English speaker, not sure how you refer to the clothes models are wearing), makeup, props, art direction, and overall production value.

There're always professionals doing amazing jobs on those camera conferences, setting up those stages with models, and these guys never get credited.

Carey, no personal offense, but on the staged shots, these are not your photos. You just pointed the camera and pressed a button.

I'm being an @ss because the ones who actually did the hard work never get credited.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2019 at 04:45 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: This a 10 out of 10 in the missed opportunity scale. A massive achievement, well done.

But you know what? What amazes me is how insanely AWESOME this could've been if done right.

Sometimes you need a break from the 300 fps, 5 gazillion pixels, 39 stops DR, etc.

To go back to the roots, having dials, retro looks, an advance lever, that's fun man.

But the icing on the cake is the concept of "digital film". That would have been AMAZING if done right. I'm 100% serious.

Imagine a memory "card" that looks exactly like 35mm film cartridges, and your shots go through in-camera processing before being saved, that's exactly like the film simulation you get from desktop high-end plugins.

There's RAW of course, but jpegs and tiffs look exactly like scanned film images right OOC.

So if you insert a Velvia cartridge (again, it looks like a 35mm cartdrige), you get Velvia look that accurately matches actual Velvia film.

This camera disappoints but if done right, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

@Roland, haha that was actually quite funny! ;) I have the M8, cheapest of all Leica things, and only 1 lens (28mm f2 Voigtlander) and will probably remain that way for a decade at least :) This setup is ok enough, just wanted to taste the Leica/rangefinder experience, and it surely delivers :D

But a single roll of 35mm Provia here is 80 bucks (in local currency). Probably another 40, 50 bucks to develop... plus a decent scanner from ebay ($$$), import taxes, film camera... wow, the $$$$ escalates quickly! :(

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2019 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: This a 10 out of 10 in the missed opportunity scale. A massive achievement, well done.

But you know what? What amazes me is how insanely AWESOME this could've been if done right.

Sometimes you need a break from the 300 fps, 5 gazillion pixels, 39 stops DR, etc.

To go back to the roots, having dials, retro looks, an advance lever, that's fun man.

But the icing on the cake is the concept of "digital film". That would have been AMAZING if done right. I'm 100% serious.

Imagine a memory "card" that looks exactly like 35mm film cartridges, and your shots go through in-camera processing before being saved, that's exactly like the film simulation you get from desktop high-end plugins.

There's RAW of course, but jpegs and tiffs look exactly like scanned film images right OOC.

So if you insert a Velvia cartridge (again, it looks like a 35mm cartdrige), you get Velvia look that accurately matches actual Velvia film.

This camera disappoints but if done right, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

@cosinaphile, loved your sugestions for retro digital cameras, but I already have one, my Leica M8. It's as close as it gets to a film camera with a digital sensor inside.

But despite being super super close to the experience I've described in my OP, it still lacks the limitations imposed by being locked with 1 ISO per roll/batch, 1 look per roll/batch.

In that regard, what Yashica has made is indeed the next level in such digital - retro experience.

They've just done it really half baked.

Regarding shooting with real film cameras, I've toyed with such idea for countless times.

But not all places are equal. Where I live (Brazil), film is officially prohibitive.

You can spend more than 100 BR$ (Brazillian Real) per roll of 35mm film, between film cost, developing, scanning, etc. It's a massive no.

I love the idea of actual film, but we've reached a point where costs are no longer doable.

There's just one way now for many of us: digital, even if that's quite sad.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2019 at 20:32 UTC

This a 10 out of 10 in the missed opportunity scale. A massive achievement, well done.

But you know what? What amazes me is how insanely AWESOME this could've been if done right.

Sometimes you need a break from the 300 fps, 5 gazillion pixels, 39 stops DR, etc.

To go back to the roots, having dials, retro looks, an advance lever, that's fun man.

But the icing on the cake is the concept of "digital film". That would have been AMAZING if done right. I'm 100% serious.

Imagine a memory "card" that looks exactly like 35mm film cartridges, and your shots go through in-camera processing before being saved, that's exactly like the film simulation you get from desktop high-end plugins.

There's RAW of course, but jpegs and tiffs look exactly like scanned film images right OOC.

So if you insert a Velvia cartridge (again, it looks like a 35mm cartdrige), you get Velvia look that accurately matches actual Velvia film.

This camera disappoints but if done right, I'd buy it in a heart beat.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2019 at 18:11 UTC as 12th comment | 8 replies
Total: 529, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »