|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Fede407 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Fede407  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EOS R7 Pros: Robust, good ergonomics, dual boards, lots of features and lots of useful settings Cons: Image quality always very poor (even at low ISO), exaggerated cost for an object classifiable as a toy Opinion: I have been passionate about nature photography for a long time (only photos, not videos), especially I love photographing animals in freedom. After four years spent in Canada where I managed to get excellent photographs, as soon as I returned to Italy I thought of giving myself a new camera, a mirrorless APS-C, with the hope of continuing to take pictures of the scared and distant animals present here. After several months of tests and shots in very different situations with strictly Canon RF or EF lenses, but always of the highest level (100 RF, 100-400 EF, 100-500 RF, 500 EF, 600 EF), I can serenely say that the quality of the images obtainable with this camera is decidedly poor, I would say comparable to that of images obtainable with medium-low range bridge cameras. In particular, I lament a non-existent versatility with regard to high ISO: photography is literally pulped from 1600 upwards, but to be honest at 400 it already shows some serious problems. Worse still, the images produced always have a sort of small, annoying and constant "mosaicization" (especially in the blurred areas or in the contours of the subjects taken), defect almost certainly due to a sensor too dense, I do not know how else to explain it. I let myself be fooled by the positive reviews without considering the negative ones glimpsed in some foreign websites, perhaps those who exalt the quality of the R7 have never tried an R5 or, remaining among the APS-C of Canon, simply an EOS 90D. Canon has produced a camera that I would call the classic lark mirror and it annoys me a lot that this time I ended up among the larks. sent on May 30, 2023 |
 | Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM S Pros: Good resolution (still acceptable at 600mm with maximum aperture), high build quality, decent focus system, ring or pump zoom. Cons: Considerable weight and distribution of the same very uneven, calibration with Sigma Dock (absolutely necessary) complicated, attack foot for the stand too short and zoom ring a little hard. Opinion: In the pros and cons I wanted to list the most relevant things, but now I have to be a little more precise and I press that my terms of comparison are always slow Canon my or friends'. I have done countless tests with optical aims built with cardboard, paper, colors and glue for short distances, but I have tried the zoom also in the field, especially in the city, which has allowed me to take advantage of indispensable regular elements and just perspective glimpses to highlight any problems of sealing even at long distances. I focused in particular on the focal lengths of 400 and 600 millimeters, those that interest me most (the focals 150, 250 and 300 fortunately did not need adjustments). Initially the disappointment was so much, the quality of the images at the first shots was decidedly poor. Then, after the first calibrations with Sigma Dock, things improved, but it took a long time to get the right calibrations. I think it is absurd to market a product that needs, right after purchase, such meticulous setting interventions, however it is better to have this opportunity that avoids sending to service centers (moreover the calibration software, although well done, leaves many things to chance, that is, there are no precise mathematical references or focus distances that can be modified according to clear measures , we proceed by trial and error and that is why it takes a very long time). The quality of the images obtained after countless settings was more than good, perhaps with a resolution lower than that of the 500 Canon IS II, but comparable if not slightly higher than that of the 100-400 Canon IS II (naturally with the same focal lengths and excellent light conditions). I was also impressed by the yield at 600 millimeters, especially with the closed diaphragm of at least one stop, but at 6.3 the photographs are still good. I wanted to extreme the comparative tests by adding to the 100-400 Canon the Canon 1.4X III extender and the 150-600 Sigma the 1.4X Sigma the Teleconverter TC-1401 and came the second surprise: qualitative loss of undeniable photos, but not traumatic, in my opinion the Canon with 1.4X behaves a little worse. Needless to say, one defect found was the obvious vignetting, especially at the most important focal points, but I do not find this a tragedy. The real problem with this objective, I believe, is above all the weight, not so much because of the transport difficulties, but also because of the freehand use and also on the stand where it remains too unbalanced forward with a high probability of obtaining moving images that may appear wrongly out of focus, the stabilizer does what it can, but often it is not enough if the light conditions are not really good and the exposure times remain too long. To try to minimize the problem I bought a telescopic fork support, of those used to support rifles, with this things improve a little, better than the classic single-seater I would say, but a very sturdy stand, possibly rocky, remains the best choice. The solid foot of the zoom should be replaced with a longer one (there is a dedicated one that costs an eye of the head, money that Sigma from me will never see), the cloth lens cover is well done, while of the focus system I can say that it does its duty, its speed is customizable with the usual Signa Dock which also offers other customizations of minor importance in my opinion. There is still much to be said, but I have touched on all the essential points. I certainly do not feel able to recommend the Sigma compared to other objectives that I do not know and perhaps it is not even an alternative to the 100-400 Canon IS II because the weight changes and not a little. However, I consider these qualitative zooms to be very similar, in the sigma there are 200 millimeters more if needed. sent on October 31, 2020 |
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
