Giuseppe Fallica

Lives in Italy Palermo, Italy
Joined on Mar 31, 2009

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

If Sony is able to fill 22mp inside a small 1/2.6 "sensor, this means that today it could fit 220MP inside a full frame (which is exactly ten times larger), using the same technology

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 08:29 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
On article Panasonic's Post Focus feature arrives November 25 (218 comments in total)

This function could be very interesting in order to combine an entire stack of macro pics (making super deep field macro photos). So that's the question: are the focus points of every single frame manually set, auto set, or preset? Are the 49 areas of a frame for focus points fixed?

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 22:15 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Some doubts. This camera is the state of the art and there is no discussion. But I fear it's a very fleeting temporary item (if exist not-fleeting consumer items!). I mean that RX1rII was born simply assembling the new (amazing) A7rII sensor inside an almost old RX1 body. Honestly, I was waiting for a fullframe curved sensor, 4k video hight frame rate, new lens f1.4. And something more, as focus stack mode, HDR built in, ecc. In conclusion I'm a bit disappointed, but I think also that it's an superb camera, well above even top class SLR costing twice.

Whatever one may say some readers, it seems obvious that open challenge is vs. the Leica Q: two fullframe with fixed lens top class (and price). The Lumix LX100 is a lower range, perhaps comparable with the features and price to excellent Sony RX100IV.
In a few days we will see, just in this website, the final verdict by the "Study Comparison tool." And I'm sure that the quality of this camera will result very similar to that of A7rII. I mean a extreme high quality not comparable to any competitor (Except Hasselblad and superexpensive items).
But my doubts remain, for the reasons set before

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 09:39 UTC

Some doubts. This camera is the state of the art and there is no discussion. But I fear it's a very fleeting temporary item (if exist not-fleeting consumer items!). I mean that RX1rII was born simply assembling the new (amazing) A7rII sensor inside an almost old RX1 body. Honestly, I was waiting for a fullframe curved sensor, 4k video hight frame rate, new lens f1.4. And something more, as focus stack mode, HDR built in, ecc. In conclusion I'm a bit disappointed, but I think also that it's an superb camera, well above even top class SLR costing twice.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 08:12 UTC as 37th comment | 8 replies
On article The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 (1293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Don't misunderstand me! Handling, speed, metering, size, weight, reliability, lens availability are all very, very important features in the choice of camera instead of an other one. But finally, what makes the concrete difference between a pic made with a Hasselblad and a bridge camera is a particular feature...! Five years ago I've supplemented by interchangeable lens camera equipment, with a Finepix X100. A small camera with a fixed lens and no zoom. But with a revolutionary sensor (five year ago) capable of reach performance in low light dramatically superior than my reflex camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 06:09 UTC
On article The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 (1293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Dear Adroole, what makes concrete difference between a camera and an other one, is only the sensor: softness of colors, dynamic range, contrast, noise, etc.
Sensors customize brands and series more than all other components together. Everything else becomes secondary. So, my attention goes firstly to the IMX269 EXMOR SONY. Obviously GX8 has some improvements in design, body, shutter. For example, according to rumors this new sensor is much better in dynamic range: that's what I want to know

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On article The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 (1293 comments in total)

The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 15:26 UTC as 150th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: "If they’re being honest, I suspect that most enthusiast photographers have at one time or another aspired to owning a Leica."

Not for me. I've always thought of Leica M as an expensive luxury item for wealthy photography enthusiasts.
X100 series got me interested in the idea of a digital rangefinder. But that's a Fujifilm, not Leica. Though some would say that it is perhaps more Leica than Leica nowadays.

Correct Angrymagpie! I own (among others) a X100 first series. This camera is absolutely still amazing, but it's almost six years old. Next to retire! Many doubts about my next step: Leica Q? RX2 (When?) X100nextgeneration (When?)

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 15:43 UTC

Thanks Barnaby, you have perfectly unintentionally replied to my post!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55968224

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:55 UTC as 134th comment

Leica Q. That's the camera that I'd like to use for the next five years, but it rises a reasonable doubt: should I expect that Sony will very soon introduce the new "RX1"? Is really incoming, just around the corner, a compact full frame, curved and super performing dynamic range sensor, 35mm fixed lens, >50MPixels, >100,000 ISO and interesting competitive price, compared with this amazing Leica Q (though surely high price)?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:23 UTC as 12th comment

the curvature of these new sensors must be such that its radius should have the vertex exactly on the "nodal point".
In such a way that each pixel is equidistant from the nodal point. In this way the focus works much like human eye and all the physical problems (aberration, vignetting, focus at the edges) arising from the progressive increased distance of the pixels of the sensor flat (as like the points of the film) moving from the center toward the edges, are eliminated in one fell swoop!
But there is a problem:the nodal point is not a fixed point. It moves by changing the focal length of the lens. So I wonder, what consequences it will result.
Either manufacturers build the perfect camera lens with "fixed focal length", or they invent variable curvature sensors? I really do not know

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 07:21 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries ago, had realized that the mechanics can copy from nature. And if the eye retina is curved, there is a reason...

No problem and no controversy. We are not talking about "art" (the quality of which is not measurable), but about mechanical tools. If the idea works or do not work, the result will be verified and measured with mathematical accuracy. :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 07:28 UTC

Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries ago, had realized that the mechanics can copy from nature. And if the eye retina is curved, there is a reason...

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 06:56 UTC as 112th comment | 4 replies

I regret the times of the glorious Hasselbad 500 with the Planar 80mm. This new object has a look that wants to be original, but that finally is only baroque and not sober. Inside, I'm afraid, it's a blend of third-party tecnology (Sony, first of all) which is likely not to be able to run to the fast pace that the market dictates. In other words, Sony already has better things in the drawer, directly with its own brand.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 10:05 UTC as 114th comment
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (613 comments in total)

I regret the times of the glorious Hasselbad 500 with the Planar 80mm. This new object has a look that wants to be original, but that finally is only baroque and not sober. Inside, I'm afraid, it's a blend of third-party tecnology (Sony, first of all) which is likely not to be able to run to the fast pace that the market dictates. In other words, Sony already has better things in the drawer, directly with its own brand.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 07:57 UTC as 14th comment
On article Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

P.S.
Jean, It's obvious that my comments were related to the purposes of the technique, not to the the "technique itself". Your tutorial is a masterpiece and I will be the first to use it!

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 13:55 UTC
On article Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

- continue from -
And I do not mean just photojournalism social or war reportages. Even the landscape photos are discarded without hesitation by newspapers such as National Geographic, if counterfeit beyond what is a simple calibration.
The case of the legendary Robert Doisneau photo "Kiss by the Hotel de Ville" is completely different. We discuss it if the kissing couple is casually on site, or it's a couple in a pose. But even in the latter case, technically, no question of a montage.
Infact, one thing is to create a scene or a situation. Another thing is to remove people with rubber ...

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:13 UTC
On article Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

Do not get me wrong.
I assumed that creative manipulation has a great artistic value, often even more than in documentary photography.
But it's another thing.
It's therefore necessary to understand what we are talking about: creativity or photojournalism?
In the first case it's ethically permissible to use any tool. No limit.
In the second case, It's ethically allowed the use of calibration tools, but not "manipulation".
It was discovered that some photographers, trying to emphasize the famous tsunami a few years ago, have created photomontages using pieces of Niagara Falls.
This is unethical.
The newspapers, now more than ever, in the digital age, they are very strict in this respect.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:12 UTC
On article Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images (221 comments in total)

Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 09:24 UTC as 34th comment | 7 replies
On photo getting in some practice for halloween in the Funny Pet Faces challenge (18 comments in total)

πραγματικά άξιζε την πρώτη θέση. Συγχαρητήρια!

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2012 at 09:06 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »