Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

una più bella dell'altra Gianni: un vero piacere per lo sguardo.

massimo "granmadue"

concordo con massimo: un viaggio nel colore e nella bellezza .. metropolitana!
una vera goduria, gianni :-)

I have just stumbled upon your work via "The Online Photographer".

The work I find "unique" (OK - nothing really is...) and very well-done.

Your comments, on the other hand, drift too often toward the inane. Photographers should choose the right tool for the job. To disparage big DSLRs and professional-grade lenses as "not so outstandingly good" or merely attempts to impress clients is at the very least ridiculous, and at the worst, well, no further comment.....

But keep up the good (photo) work.

BTW - by the above I mean no criticism of your English, which (though I'm guessing it's not native) is excellent.

Just to be clear. Whatever.

Nice work.

I also have moved gradually towards smaller and smaller cameras (MF/DSLR -> Leicas/RD1 -> micro4/3), at least for carrying around. Still need the DSLR though.

And it's perfectly fine to feel that certain lenses are "not so outstandingly good", because they often aren't. Gotta find what works for you.

As for TZ65 shots, the one accompanying the post "RAW FACTS" is one I believe.

You are right, Jonas, that one is one.

To J. Yip:

Just suggesting that those using larger/expensive gear to shoot sports/wildlife/landscapes/etc/etc are(with very few exceptions) certainly NOT trying to impress their clients with the equipment they're "wearing". To imply otherwise is, to me, pretty silly.

thank you for your comments. And no, my English is not native, and it shows.
As for the "not so outstandingly good" lenses, I didn't mean to generalize. I was referring to some DX and a couple of FX lenses I have personally been using on my DX Nikon cameras for the last five years. Their Micro Four/Thirds counterparts, in my experience, simply give best results with less weight and size. That's all.
With regard to pros "wearing" cameras, this is a sad reality I'm speaking about. Commercial photographers I know, as well as equipment retailers, tell me that this is becoming a serious issue nowadays, as anybody is under the illusion he/she can have a not-so-bad photograph out of his/her point-and-shoot camera.
Woody Allen tells that he still thanks God every morning for not having to go to school anymore. I do the same for having stopped being a commercial photographer long before the beginning of the digital era.

Nice work!

An interesting take on the giant DSLR phenomenon. I think some of it can be attributed to an attitude of a "better" camera will take better pictures. Bigger IS better, right? Yes, to a point, but It's really who is triggering the shutter that makes better images.

When I travel, or just wander around the city, I do NOT want to lug a giant camera around. In many countries I've visited, it's an invitation for potential unpleasantness (or worse) AND it's very difficult to take candid photos of people. Also, being American... we stick out like sore thumbs... doesn't help, either!

I have not purchased a DSLR for just this reason, so I'm really looking forward to getting a Panasonic GF1. Finally, a reasonably sized camera with interchangeable lenses!


I agree with you about the importance of using the right tool for the job, but I must agree with Gianni that there are some photographers who really do choose the biggest most expensive camera they can find in order to impress their clients. Just tonight, I was reading customer reviews of the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III on the B&H website:


Here is a direct quote from one of the reviewers: "It feels like a solid piece of technology and certainly earns me respect as I shoot jobs. I always get comments and more work... Sure it costs more, but you're buying quality and performance. You may even be buying respect as a professional photographer, along with more work."

My thought as I read that was, "You should be earning respect and getting more work through your skills as a photographer and the quality of the images you create, not through the equipment you carry around." There may well be situations where nothing less than a US$6000 FF camera will get the job done right. That's the only reason to use such a camera -- not for status or prestige.

Another reviewer went into debt for two years to buy the 1Ds Mark III and is working part-time at a restaurant chain to pay it off. These kinds of stories reinforce my belief that photographers at all levels routinely buy more camera than they really need (or can afford) because of a mistaken notion that "more money equals better pictures."

In reality, "more money equals higher prices," which drives away business. It makes far better economic sense to use the least expensive camera system which will meet the client's actual needs. This reduces overhead, which lowers prices. Doing good work which clients can actually afford is a much better way to bring in business than wearing some high-priced camera bling.


P.S. Besides, everybody knows the best way to impress clients is to lug around a giant telephoto lens! :-) Gotta love my Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm zoom.


Thanks for an excellent article! I appreciate your insights and agree with what you wrote.

I shoot with the Panasonic G1 and Olympus E-P1 bodies using several Four Thirds lenses (for their pro quality optics) and several Micro Four Thirds lenses (for their small size and light weight).

I've started a group on LinkedIn called Micro Four Thirds Photographers. I invite you and all your readers to join us:


Best wishes,


P.S. I just posted a link to your article in the News section of my Micro Four Thirds Photographers group on LinkedIn.

I lack the money for decent SLR technology and so use a G10 which cost me around £350 and does far more, far better, than any of the entry leval DSLRs can in my view. (I get the impression that the entry level DSLRs are pitched at getting people into the market rather than offering decent technology.) As to the main argument, most of the world's more expensive cameras turn out the same unoriginal dross as most of the world's cheap models. High-end technology is no substitute for innate talent and learned visual perception. To take a parallel example, I have long used cheap programmes and shareware to create my digital art and photogrphy and regularly get emailed by high-end photography and arts software users to ask how I create my works in 'Photoshop' etc.

For what it is worth, I think a great deal of excellent work in the future will be done with variations on the modular small-size cameras such as the three G-series Panasonic and two EP-series Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras rather than the present generation of muscular DSLRs. After all, everything else digital is downsizing so there is little reason to expect the DSLR not to and to morph into these new formats.



Right on, brother! Very well said, too.

If the day ever comes when electronic viewfinders and contrast autofocus systems can match the speed of optical viewfinders and phase detect autofocus systems, I believe it will mark the beginning of the end of the traditional DSLR. On that day, Micro Four Thirds and other Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) cameras will inherit the earth!


I am a semi-pro photgrapher and I have just dumped all my dslr kit, 2 bodies, lenses, flash, and replaced it with a gf1 and with 45-200, 20mm and kit 14-45mm, liberating, having owned both canon and nikon I have of course got some superb results, but why carry all that weight when you can get the same quality in a smaller package?, also noticed no one notices me taking street candids either which is a bonus, camera chow, picture wow! Not sure what my first client will make of my setup when the wedding season starts up next year ;-)

Thanks Fred, you are very kind!

Yes reduced size also means that one can hide the camera from one's subjects where fellow humans are concerned, and carry the camera in a pocket or small case on the hip ready for instant action. And with still and video cameras taking decent videos (the new G11 has HD video capacity I notice)and with phones packing increasingly large mega-pixel capacities these days, I can forsee a day when Star Trek-like hand held device will cater for all these needs (and many others) including I dare say Hassleblad level of lens clarity and sophistication.

BTW I have a good friend here in Bath who takes excellent landscapes and interiors with his 1950s Hassleblads and also does wonderfully evocative portraits of local people sitting on benches in the city centre using an old plastic bodied camera. See his work here: http://philbebbington.com/



If your clients express concern about the small size of your Micro Four Thirds camera and lenses, just explain that "small is the new big" in the photography world. :-)


I agree that legacy lenses for DSLRs are often not impressive. (For instance I've bought a 24mm 2.8 Nikkor twice, because I thought the first one was faulty, but the second one also had serious blur near the edges at bigger apertures.)
I think, though that the ones designed in recent years, like the new IS kit lenses for both Canon and Nikon, are impressive. Cheap, light-weight, and very sharp. Problem is we need many many more before we have a full lens line-up. Of course that goes for M4/3 too. Lets hope more makers (like Sigma etc) gets in on this.

"an almost open source system..."

The lenses are open source? Well, yes, sort of. But the firmware? No camera maker allows photographers to tinker with their firmware. When a major camera maker does open source their firmware, that will be a revolutionary event, leading to the first camera of this millenium.

Fred, cheers :-) I am hoping for better candid results with the small camera. I shot a 50th birtday party with the ol' slr and some guests were so freaked to be in its view they actually covered their faces. I did notice that people walking around with P&S cameras did not get the same response.


Great point! I'm LOL at the thought of party guests covering their faces like celebrities hiding from the paparazzi. (Privacy is not a laughing matter, of course, but it's still a funny image.)

I'm thinking the same way you are -- that small, unimposing cameras will get better candid shots. I love my E-P1 for that -- it's retro styling makes it look like a film camera, and who's afraid of those these days. :-)



Great you see you getting a heads up on this camera before the official announcement. I know you are a Ricoh fan so you must be pretty pleased with this system.

Post Courtesy of Focus Financial Inc.
Professional Blogging Team
Focus Financial Inc.
3641 Kingsway,
Vancouver, BC, V5R 5M1
Tel: (604) 439-7667 Fax: (604) 439-7664
Website: http://www.focuscashloans.com

Dear Gianni
I love M4/3 because I think like the Ricoh GX the images have a film like quality, but 400ASA colour neg not Tri-x. I use 2 Sony A900s with Zeiss lenses which give images so sharp you can cut yourself on them and are comparable to anything I have used in the last 30 years film or digital,l but there is something about the 4/3 images which is softer warmer and well the only word I can think of is cuddlier.
Your images are graphic and stunning but not of the realms that most image makers work in so hard to look at them and take your justification of you beloved format.
I do agree with you though and feel we are at the beginning of a new age, what other camera format will allow such a wide range of lenses to be accommodated on 1 body.


Hi Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, a cool site I like

Happy New Year! The author write more I liked it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Exhibition catalogue
by Gianni Galassi
Photo book
Check out my books
Norway cover 170
Praising cover
BlackBlue cover
Square cover
Extralight cover
Sushi cover
Sabaudia cover

Newsletter by VerticalResponse