|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Vinnie www.juzaphoto.com/p/Vinnie  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon 5D Mark IV Pros: Enhance the performance of the already great 5D3. Good burst, excellent dynamic range, incredible AF, high-end display, touch screen, gps, wifi, dual pixel AF for video. Cons: Lack of spot display on all AF points, unbalanced display, 4k video only at 30fps, no fullHD video at 120fps, exaggerated battery consumption. Price is definitely too high. Opinion: Replaces 5D3 after 4 years of glorious use around the world. The baked file is even more malleable than the one already good for the previous one. By making some videos, I really enjoyed the added value of the dual pixel AF. The dynamic range is scarecrowly improved and at higher ISO known much less chrominance noise, which makes denoise easier to handle. There is no traumatic trauma as the two bodies are virtually identical and the basic keys remain in the same position. Comfortable wifi connection. More than 30Mpx provide many more details than 5D3. I would have preferred a tiltable screen and the lack of spot metering at all AF points is always very annoying as it is known, it is only castrated at the software level. The AF up to af / 8 allows you to use multiplied canvases. If I had the only center point on 5D3, I now have all those double crosses, not much, but better than nothing. If you had not sold the 5D3, I would never have taken the 5D4 as I found itPrice is really too high and, in my opinion, unjustified with the improvements made to the mark III. Ultimately: an all-around body that meets virtually all my needs. sent on May 08, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II Pros: Sharpness across the frame, very high resolving power, color, saturation, construction, af fast. Cons: The bill for this lens is outstanding particularly salty, given the price, a best case they could put it there. It also would be a killer IS lens. Appreciable to 24mm although less than the 24-105. Opinion: It replaced the 24-105 as "handyman", now is the lens that remains almost always glued to the SLR, despite the 24-105 remained in the running (for now) .rnLa special feature of this lens is to provide pictures taken and finished . The various corrections that normally did in LR on pictures taken with the 24-105 are a distant ricordo.rnLa made of this lens it is really record-breaking. It's incredible precision and high speed contrast even in critical light. I understand why, along with 70-200 II, is the lens of choice for matrimonialisti.rnI colors are incredibly saturated and detail returned throughout the frame is really elevato.rnAnche bokeh is very nice, both in TA that stopping down. rnIl high price made me give up for a long time, but as soon as I had the chance I took off the sfizio.rnA 24mm lens distorts, but the profile of LR are well made and the distortion is removed agilmente.rnLa vignette to 2.8 but this to me, personally,like. sent on October 26, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II Pros: 4-stop IS, fluorite lenses, finally to tropical minimum room MAF, AF lightning, sharper throughout the frame already in TA compared to the previous model, resistance to flare, 77mm filters. Cons: Heavier than its predecessor, the ring tripod adapter can not be removed completely, price, mild CA in extreme conditions but easily eliminated in PP. Opinion: The age difference with the previous model of the design you see and hear tutta.rnNonostante mark I had a well-managed can say that the IQ of the mark II is another cosa.rnL'IS 4-stop is a boon to 400mm, more silent than the 70-200 f4 IS. Allowed me the shots with the times really high in relation to the focal length. The recovery of 4 stop there tutto.rnLa sharpness in the center of the frame is similar to the old, while moving to the edges maintains excellent clarity (not excellent), else than the old modello.rnIl bokeh has improved a lot even though we are far from the one returned from expensive paintings mark II.rnMa one of the things that struck me most is the minimum distance of MAF which is passed to 0,98m.rnDiventa "almost" a lens to close up. Keeps diameter 77mm filters and the new hood with side slit opening allows easy adjustment of GND.rnInteressante being able to remove the hook part of the easel but all the ring can no longer TOGLiere completely, some may be fastidioso.rnLeggermente heavier than its predecessor and more massive. Well built, it returns a nice sturdy feel. I had grown accustomed to the pump system in the mark I, very versatile. Here comes back to the zoom ring. Less fast in step 100 to 400 with respect to the pump but infinitely more precise in intermediate zooming. Remains friction ring Zoom but it seems less modulabile.rnOttima three-dimensionality and Out of the plans, much better than I. mark Excellent with 1.4x teleconverter II, loses much less in sharpness and af remains quite fast. rnIl price is still a little high and perhaps not justified by the difference in performance, there are about 800 € at stake and there are many in my avviso.rnDi contrast, the mark II is superior in every respect to the mark I. sent on March 05, 2015 |
 | Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Pros: 12mm, distortion, sharpness already in TA, build quality, color Cons: filters used very few and expensive, slight loss of sharpness at 24mm, reduced brightness, flare light with front / side Opinion: I bought this lens after going to FF. I came from 7D with the legendary 10-22. I needed a wide.rnEro torn between this, the 16-35 f2.8 II and 17-40 f4.rnAvendo was lucky enough to try all the tern I decided to sigma.rnIl 16-35 tried was very lacking in terms of sharpness, the corners then was a disaster (perhaps fortunate not copy). The 17-40 was good, not too expensive with a high sealing to flare than other due.rnMa 12mm wide with their 122 ° field made me fall in love especially for photos of the interior, where, in my opinion, this lens from 'the massimo.rnIncredibile also the almost total absence of distortion than concorrenti.rnDifferentemente perspective distortion is inevitably present, but also fun to utilizzare.rnNon is a lens easy, you may often attracted by 12mm, to put inside "too much stuff" in the frame with the result of having a photo absolutely trivial, especially when photographing paesaggi.rnDiverso is the speech for internal appunto.rnÈ a lens that I have often led below, nowplaying space in the backpack with the new 16-35 f4 L IS I find most suitable for paesaggi.rnIl flare phenomenon is very present in this lens, due to the pronounced asphericity of the front glass. More with the light side with that frontale.rnAttualmente that there is nothing like it on the market. More wide lenses are just fish eye.rnLa my copy is also very lucky, does not suffer in the least f / b focus. Sign that perhaps, reading other comments, in Sigma, something has changed. sent on January 22, 2015 |
 | Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, stabilization, weather sealing, absent distortion, weight, 77mm filters Cons: No One Opinion: I was the owner of an EF-S 10-22 when I had my old 7D. With the transition to the FF was undecided about purchasing. Between 17-40 and 16-35 2.8 II not inspired me neither. Perhaps more than the 17-40. We know that the 16-35 2.8 is a good lens to the center to the edges but leaves much to be desired. I did then groped by 12-24 mark II Sigma. It 'a great lens, 12mm is really a wonder, especially in interni.rnDi against, having the front lens aspherical, suffers much the backlight and mount the filter to the plate to 122 ° angle of view would be a drain. I was pleased, but in half. I was about to take the canon 17-40 but then the announcement of the 16-35 f4 IS.rnHo eagerly awaited and the first field tests have paid off the wait. Bought on Amazon, arrived and was immediately amore.rnNitidezza top throughout the frame, weather sealed, light and with a great stabilizer. The light points by stopping return a sunburst spectacular. The lens cover is great and the flare occurs only if really put the whip. The 12-24 comparedto this, I can say that Flara the dark. 10 VOTE! sent on December 04, 2014 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Sharpness, color saturation, excellent stabilizer, AF lightning, light, space, tropicalization, construction powertools and unrivaled value for money Cons: No Opinion: Lens taken in 2010 for the trip that took me through the parks of the western United Uniti.rnUsata on that trip with 7D and lately with 5D3.rnIncredibilmente light and easy to carry around. For the type of use that I do (not forgetting landscaped outdoor sports) I think is the perfect lens since I always carry it appresso.rnHo tried for a day II version 2.8 and what is actually even better than the f / 4 after 10 minute neck I wanted to throw everything down to the woods. Really too pesante.rnLa sharpness of the TA bianchino IS is impressive, without aberration, distortion and with a great bokeh for an opening certainly not a record. And 'one of those goals you "give something" in the shots. Great even in portraits. Lightweight and q / p ratio me they did prefer the mark II version 2.8. sent on March 20, 2013 |
 | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Pros: Sharpness, flare resistance, low distortion, ability to mount filters, light weight, good sealing of the price used in Cons: Cost from new, lens hood sold separately, slight vignetting at the shorter focal length and maximum aperture. Opinion: It 'a beautiful lens that I used when I had the 7D. He gave me the shots crazy. The construction although not by L-series I can say to be more than good. Despite being plastic I did not notice obvious faults or weaknesses. I've used it in the most varied: near Vernal Fall in Yosemite powder with water, in the Nevada desert, in the snow of the Dolomites. Never made a turn, obviously treated him with care and cleaned / wiped immediately before putting it in your backpack so that I sold at a good price and the lens appeared as nuova.rnMe are very reluctantly had to separate due to passage FF.rnUnico real flaw is a slight vignetting wide open at 10mm but fades until it disappears a little bit the closing with the economic diaframma.rnConfrontato 18-135 18 to 22mm can say to be almost completely free of distortion and have a definition considerably higher along with good saturation colori.rnNon I never felt the need to montarci a polarizer. The heavens that returns this lens are meravigliosi.rnAssolutamente a lens L failure from my point of vista.rn sent on March 19, 2013 |
 | Canon 5D Mark III Pros: AF, AF point, high ISO noise, ergonomics, control panel, simply beautiful video practically free of moire. Cons: Dynamic range less than its direct competitor, I would have preferred a dual CF slot. Opinion: I come from a 7D and I can say that in hand "falls" in the same way and it can only make me piacere.rnStessa ergonomics (although I would have preferred they left the same button layout rear side of the 7D, I I was used to ). rnFondamentalmente I wanted was a Canon 7D full frame and I was happy, improving AF significantly. The estate is impressive high ISO (work only with raw) and also ISO 12800 the file is usable with virtually post-production. The grain is not annoying and returned with a slight intervention in the PP file is perfectly usable for large print formato.rnTutti AF points are perfectly usable and the module is configurable down to the particolari.rnI files returned are well lavorabili.rnInoltre I saw that with the firmware that will be released in April 2013, the AF will be usable even with minimum f / 8. Great news for people like me who occasionally uses video teleconverter.rnI have virtually no moire at all apertures and all speed & agrave, ISO. About the resolution of the sensor on the long side is exactly 1920 * 3.rnPenso that among the FF is not the first band to be the most balanced among the concorrenti.rnBrava Canon :) sent on February 21, 2013 |
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
