|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Sodium www.juzaphoto.com/p/Sodium  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RX D Pros: Sharpness, contrast, AF, colors, VC, focal ranges, etc... Cons: Makes the camera pop-up flash unusable (creates shadows); marked distortion at the wide focal length. Opinion: What can I say: it's an almost perfect goal. For me it is a perfect match for the sony APSC, especially for models without stabilization (almost all). It is a remarkable lens for the sharpness (at all focal lengths, to the detriment of the reviews I found on youtube), for the colors it returns and contrast. The stabilization is very effective and allows you to shoot well below the safety times by adopting the classic precautions. Valid AF is accurate. There is the "small" problem of interference with the flash that I wrote about in the cons and distortion at the slightest focal length. I would recommend the purchase to the undecided. I preferred it to the SIGMA 18-50 for the greater focal range and for stabilization. I think I made the right choice. sent on August 18, 2022 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E ED VR Pros: Versatile, crisp, beautiful yield on all focal points, light and compact, bright although not constant aperture, stabilized, AF fast and responsive. Cons: 16mm distortion corrected in pp, bulky lampshed Opinion: It's an excellent point of view for me. It is practically always mounted on my D7200 with which it manages to bring out excellent, sharp images, with beautiful colors and contrasts. In my opinion, it is a lens that DX camera owners should take into account for the versatility of optics and quality. The only "sore" note is the light screen... an obscene thing..... large, square.... makes the camera s stocky and really visible. I don't know if there are any technical reasons, but they should have made it a "normal" one. It was one of the best purchases made in the photographic field. I highly recommend it. sent on May 27, 2021 |
 | Sony E PZ 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Pros: Small size, weight, sharpness in the center with some iris closing stops Cons: Those that everyone already knows: sharpness and optical performance especially at TA, not very bright. I add the PZ that I find unbearable (especially because it does not store the last assigned value). Opinion: What to say, it's a lens I took with the A6400, already conscious when buying all its limits, which I actually found. But it is a "must have" for the Sony APSC system as it makes your camera almost the size of a compact one. To be honest, in good light conditions and with priority iris snap fixed at f8, it's not bad even as sharpness (even at 16mm with which I managed to take nice selfies with my daughter). At more open diaphragms, it behaves in an acceptable/good way in the center with close subjects, a little worse with focus on distant elements. The edges, in that case become kneaded, but in my opinion it is not a problem as the beauty of a photo does not matter how sharp the frame is "in the lower right corner". However, I confirm that it has an undertonous yield at the low focal points. In absolute terms, however, it remains an underperforming lens. Instead, I find the PZ unbearable through the ring on the barrel. It is inaccurate and has too short a run. I would have found it more convenient to zoom in with coaxial command with the shutter button (type RX100 to be clear). Another unbearable thing, is the fact that when you "wake up" from the Standby you don't remember the last focal length value set. In my opinion, Sony should update this objective with a project that guarantees a better optical yield, in the same way as the 15-45 Canon or Fuji. It is a re-release that is offered with machine bodies such as the A6600 and the A6400....... and we will probably see it also on the new APSC coming out ... ahahhhahahahah For those who kit it with the camera, I immediately recommend combining it with a good fixed lens (sigma type) to appreciate the quality of the sensor. sent on May 11, 2021 |
 | Sony A6400 Pros: Autofocus, tipper screen, lightweight and ergonomic for camera type. Cons: Discrete image quality, APSC lens availability, rings, full light display readability, expensive Sony ecosystem. Opinion: I recently joined my D7200 this A6400. I have chosen it on the issue of encumbering and af. And on these two points we are (almost). The machine, although the AF is very fast and precise, sometimes misses the right focus distance (like the nose rather than the eye to understand each other). However, I am talking about subjects that are moving quickly and not posing. There are few shots with a "near focus", but given the advertising and reviews I expected a few fewer mistakes. The image quality is good, but not at the level of the D7200 both in terms of ISO sealing and detail that the sensor manages to capture. I did some home tests with the same lens and Nikon's results seem sharper and more detailed to me. Even at iso base (i.e. on 100-200), I already see the grain (ugly), especially if the distance of the subject is not in the foreground. For high sensitivities, if with nikon I believe that the upper limit of ISO usable is 6400, on Sony we are at 3200 (for my taste). On this point, I had better expectations, I'm honest. By the way, I think my GR2 is also better, perhaps also thanks to its amazing optics. The availability of lenses for APSC is low in terms of both quantity and quality. As fixed, the best are the Sigma (and viltrox if the AF can make it usable). Of these I took the 30 and the 56mm. Especially the latter has a very nice yield. For zooms, there's very little choice here. The 16-50 kit is best for having it for something small that makes the machine almost a compact one (its main flaw in my opinion is a poor microcontrast). There's 18-135, which they say is great, but it's still a dark lens. And then the very expensive 16-55 f2.8 to which I would prefer the tamron 17-70 f2.8 stabilized for the greater versatility of focal lengths and because it makes up for the lack of IBIS (I will buy it in the summer). Today at rush hour, I realized that the display is unreadable and you have to use the viewfinder. I took off my vent. But if I were to advise someone to switch from Reflex to ML, I would recommend kicking out the monkey. sent on April 19, 2021 |
 | Sony RX100 III Pros: Beautiful, sharp and bright optics, AF (precise), pocket, EVF, workable RAW (in good light), stabilization (tested up to 0.4" freehand), integrated ND filter Cons: Ergonomics, General Slowness, AF-C not for extreme situations, slow burst, ISO 3200 usability limit Opinion: A beautiful machine aesthetically, the best in my opinion as Q/P among many of the RX100 series. Ergonomically it's not the best, but it's forgiven when you put it in your jacket pocket. However, with a few euro hand grip, the situation definitely improves. In good light conditions, the results are like an APS-C (the difference is there but it is not so abysmal). In the evening with the rise of the ISO things change but the stabilization is exceptional (I managed to shoot at 0.4" freehand with breath and all the precautions of the case). The AF is accurate even if in AF-C suffers if there are errant subjects from one side of the frame to the other. However I was surprised because it is still usable. At this point I connect to the gust question that is decidedly slow. The EVF will not be very large.... But there's... and I find it useful when I want to concentrate or in unfavorable sun. Another thing, it's a "slow" machine. I don't know how to explain.... you don't have to go in a hurry and it's definitely not very suitable for "action" photos (doing the proportion with my GR2 you can say GR2:Ferrari-RX100mk3:Panda). What to say, if you get the chance take it because it has its :). Ps. I find myself great with the menu in spite of so many negative opinions on the sony menu. sent on December 06, 2019 |
 | Nikon AF-S 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Pros: Focus range, sharpness, AF speed, stabilization. Cons: Dark, because in kit you tend to underestimate it. Opinion: Taken in kit in 2017 with the D7200, it remained in the drawer a few years because I thought it did not have enough quality in terms of rendering of the images. So much so that you replaced it with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Over time, however, I "discovered" that the photos I take mainly in the day time to more closed diaphragms and so here this lens sadly returns to my bayonet where it should always be. The speed and precision of the AF are always excellent and also the sharpness more than satisfactory. In addition, the range of focals allows you to switch from landscape to canvases in half a second. The night suffers the most because the maximum opening is what it is. In this case, just rely on a 35mm f/1. 8 and it's right. I finally sold the Tamron. To be honest, I put a sale also this 18-140 but only because I would like to try the 16-80 that given the premises of this optical kit should be a super lens. :) sent on December 06, 2019 |
 | Ricoh GR II Pros: Apsc, sharpness also at TA, handling, responsiveness, snapfocus, burst, B/N filters, quick access buttons to essential functions. Cons: 16 mpixel, max iso to have a great image is 3200, no zoom, AF slow in low light/contrast conditions. Opinion: What about...... I'm in love with him. You put it in your pocket and you're affixed. Many relegate her to street shots, and in fact that's her kingdom. However, I also use it with pleasure in making simple family photos or for some landscape. Raw files are workable the right (they do not allow impossible recoveries). The Jpg filters, customizable, allow you to also have "ready" images without playing too much with the pp. The B/N looks like its natural kingdom: Its B/N files, both obtained in the car and in the pp phase, have a fascinating one. If it had zoomed it would have been from "11", but the focal length of 27 mm I find it natural (like shooting with a smartphone). As a tool it goes totally unnoticed. A colleague, not passionate, who saw her on my wrist teased me because she thought it was an old compact from the 90s. When I explained to him what he was capable of and showing him a few shots, it was all the more true. I highly recommend it. sent on July 24, 2019 |
 | Nikon D7200 Pros: Ergonomics - dynamic range - quality/price Cons: Noise starts from 1600 ISO - AWB - AF that sometimes tempses (perhaps due more to optics) - size - live view Opinion: A great machine with which I have a relationship of love and hate. Sometimes I wonder how I can do without it, others I would give it away because I feel more inspired and creative with smaller machines (like GR or Rx100 M3 that I own). Objectively speaking has so many pros: one of all the files that are easily workable and allow recoveries of shadows and high lights that make the difference between an acceptable photo and one that you have to trash. On the other, the noise begins to be visible already at 800 iso. Up to 1600-3200 you can still push as long as you intervene on the noise in pp. Besides it is advisable to go only in extreme cases (I set max iso 6400....more on is useless just that shots). Another thing, often sets an AWB that is incorrect. The burst mode with AF-C, struggles to focus the subject during movement (tried with all Nikon optics). The live view is.... Embarrassing.... I challenge anyone to use it except for some landscape on the tripod. sent on June 30, 2019 |
 | Huawei Mate 20 Pro Pros: Design, main camera, fluidity and software. Cons: Audio, wide and tele rooms, jpg. Opinion: sent on April 30, 2019 |
 | Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D Pros: Sharpness (over f2.8) - Compact size Cons: Sharpness (between f1.8 and f.2.2) - Chromatic aberrations Opinion: I will go against the current, but personally I have not found that quality of image decanted (at least up to f2.8). In the range f1.8 - f2.2 it produces unclear images almost as if it seems that the MAF is wrong. The blur effect is to be excluded because I also tried with shots at 1/1000 - 1/1250 s with the same results.rnOther the f2.8 becomes very clear and resolute. But it remains that buying it you imagine you can use it with satisfaction even at T / A (which for me is not so) .rnIf you compare it to 35mm AF-S f1.8G, I can say that the latter behaves much better to diaphragms more open.rnWhether I had the opportunity to make it, for the low cost with which you can get it, I decided to keep it even if I'm not fully satisfied (for me it is a 50 mm f2.8). If it cost more I would certainly have returned it. sent on March 28, 2018 |
 | Canon EOS M3 Pros: Constructive quality - photo quality in good light conditions - responsive touch screen. Cons: Slow AF - Servo AF unusable - ISO 3200 limit - Difficult shadow recovery. Opinion: I bought it, even on the advice of some users of the forum and I resold it (reluctantly) after two months of use because of the performance of the AF that does not allow it to have that reactivity that is used for street photography. Precise that for a "home" use can be more than good but personally I was hoping for something faster. Even in the evening it has difficulty (with 18-55) to hook the AF, making lose "the moment" .rnI tried also to make some videos and the quality I have to say that I like it. But even here, .... AF is slow !!! Needless to set the AF servo, the AF-C and so on: before it understands what to focus on, it enchants on the blurred and the engine back and forth multiple times before stabilizing (if you hook the subject) .rn positives, I must say that I really liked the feeling with the handle and the quality perceived by touch. It gives the feelingof a solid car built to last. The menu is intuitive (much more than Nikon) and allows you to easily reach all settings. The touch screen is precise and usable like that of a smartphone.rnThe quality of the photos is notable especially in good light, with detailed and clean files. The limit of use of ISO, in my opinion, is 3200: over the grain is too intrusive making recovery difficult in PP. For scenes with high contrast, I noticed that the recovery of areas in the shade is quite limited (unlike what I can do with my D7200). In summary, I recommend this machine only to those who intend to make a use limited to still / posing subjects, landscapes and more generally to situations where the speed of focusing is not a priority. Had not had this gap, it would still be to my fiannrnFor who reads and wondered if I was going to take a M6 / M5 with fast AF, I answer that the temptation c% 26 # 39; is but after this experience, I prefer to orient myself on other systems whose AF speed is widely proven (read Panasonic / Olympus) .-- sent on March 27, 2018 |
 | Canon PowerShot SX30 IS Pros: Zoom (?)-swivel screen Cons: Sharp, noise-free images only with ISO 100 and with use of focal lengths not too pushed. Dimensions related to image quality (are better ones on my smartphone). Very limited diaphragms as soon as you operate the zoom but no later than f8. Screen and EVF just determined. At the price which was proposed, agreed to buy an entry level SLR. Opinion: What about a car ... embarrassing for the surrender of the outputted files. Best canon A540 which had gone to replace. Files always contain noise even at low iso. The performance disappointed me even considering the price certainly not content. The screen has a very low resolution, however, is adjustable and sometimes I helped in any recovery. sent on January 06, 2018 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G Pros: Sharpness, brightness, lightness, precise AF and fast. Cons: Fixed focal, noisy AF, "plastic" aesthetics, chromatic aberrations, light f / b focus. Opinion: I have this lens for a few months: my opinion is 18-140mm and 17-50mm (Tamron) I have. The quality of the images produced with this lens is excellent. Well above the top two. It's light and this helps to make my d7200 more manageable. My is affected by a slight F / b focus (we are talking about a few millimeters) that I corrected in the car (made for grooming, because in real use it did not create any problems anyway). The blurry effect it produces is pleasant but not of the best (we always talk about a lens of 250 €). I use it mainly for portraits, indoor photos (like family parties) and in general when they are around town.rnOnly it is a fixed focal point, and to zoom in it serves to move, approach, move away ...... (and not there is always the possibility / desire to do so). You "force" to find special shots for its peculiarity of being a fixed one. I do not know you a few volsI heard the lack of a zoom (both down and up) but all in all, even when I was just zooming I noticed that upwards for most of 24-40 mm.rnAltra thing that signal it is the the presence of chromatic aberrations (which I have not always managed to solve in pp with the slow profile). Last thing .... is a plasticone .... it is not quite a counter, but report it as such. rnrnIs it recommend? Obviously yes for non-professional use. sent on November 25, 2017 |
 | Canon PowerShot A530 Pros: Durable - Definition image - Low noise - Ability to snap even in semi-automatic mode - power supply with AA batteries Cons: small screen. Opinion: I remember back in 2006 I paid € 150 ..... I resold in 2015 to 40 € ..... In nearly 10 years accompanied me on all trips and on all occasions with really sharp pictures when compared with compact period of the same type (a photo of my gallery "of a tourist" Ricordi is taken with this camera) .rnEra can also install an alternative firmware with which to shoot in RAW, timelapse do and more. One of the benefits was to be able to use common AA batteries AA or you had the certainty of not having to give up taking pictures because we had forgotten to recharge the battery fotocamera.rnLa remember with great pleasure. sent on March 15, 2017 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
