|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Mattia Campos www.juzaphoto.com/p/MattiaCampos  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon RF 24-105 mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: A high-quality all-rounder, it allows you to take your photos home in all conditions, whether on holiday or at work Cons: Small, skimpy and hard to operate selectors, on such a perspective it is quite "unacceptable" Opinion: As per tradition, this RF 24-105 L series, like all those of the other brands, is a versatile, quality lens, which allows you to take home the job in all circumstances. The construction is very good, there are three rings, the zoom one is a little too hard, very fluid and soft the one for manual focusing, useful and well done (it moves to the sound of clicks) the customizable one. The barrel is quite small and light, unfortunately, however, the selectors are really skimpy and extremely complex to operate, it would take small fingers, sharp and sharp as Swiss army knives .... A real shame because the comfort of use suffers a lot. The autofocus is fantastic, precise, silent and very fast, as long as it is controlled by a body at the height such as an R1/3 or R5/6. Certainly being an F4 it is not super bright but combined with professional bodies such as R1 / 3, which are not afraid to go up to 25600 or 51200 ISO, it always allows you to take home the work in any light condition, even in arenas, guaranteeing sharp images and with an all in all always pleasant detachment. The stabilization is good but not exceptional, the same goes for all RF lenses especially with the most recent camera bodies (R7 R5ii R1), you can go down to 1/10 1/25 depending on the focal length thus gaining two/three full stops, but for me, used to the full 5 stops of the micro 4/3, they are only good / mediocre results, The negative difference is clearly felt. As for sharpness, the most debated topic in the 38 reviews prior to mine (I had no doubts about it...), I don't intend to waste too much time ... Modern optics are designed to give their best already at full aperture and at all focal lengths, with superabundant sharpness for any purpose and use... let alone a 1400 euro L series... I gladly leave the games and competitions at 500% on the monitor to beginners sent on March 10, 2025 |
 | Canon EOS R5 Mark II Pros: Image quality. Prompt and precise autofocus. Beautiful and realistic viewfinder that remains quite pleasant even in bad light. Versatility, it can do pretty much anything well. Very very beautiful colors, even the JPEGs are much better than R5 old and R6ii. The only big regret concerns as usual the "form factor", i.e. body design and components at "Entry Level" levels. Nikon Z8, Sony A7r5 /A1 are in a much higher range... Cons: It's not a flagship... Some components are too cheap. Usable only with the new battery, which is also not very long-lasting (about 700 shots). Overheating problems during intense use that knock it out after 20 minutes (coincidentally officially mentioned among the things to be solved with the release of the latest firmware) The Eye control AF system, which on paper could have made a huge difference, a revolution, is actually unusable, pure marketing .. Mediocre image stabilization as on R7, to be reviewed and fixed. the R6II does better. Exclusive and increasingly expensive lens park, Tamron and Sigma are missing which would work very well and would give a lot of life to the RF system. Opinion: The R5 Mark II puts things back in place in the hierarchy of Canon's mirrorless cameras, re-establishing distances compared to lower-end models. From the very first moment of use, you can feel that the R5 II has reached a higher level of maturity. It is a point-in-point camera, with a solid autofocus and finally a good viewfinder, sober and with the right brightness, which remains smooth and beautiful even in low light. The new 45mpx stacked sensor has significantly reduced the problem of rolling shutter, which now occurs only in the most complex situations. In addition, compared to the old R5, the colors have improved and the unpleasant magenta tendency that characterized the old sensor in certain scenes has also disappeared. Regarding the ISO tightness of the new sensor, the question is very simple, it all depends, as almost always happens, on the light !!! If the scene or if the subject are sufficiently illuminated, the file is very valid (and the JPEG is ready to use) even at 25600 ISO. Conversely, if the light is not sufficient, the file is affected. Up to 6400 ISO no problem (and we would miss it) the quality is excellent, at 12800 ISO you start to notice the noise but the quality remains good, at 25600 ISO instead you notice a significant deterioration, it remains usable for documentary purposes. However, when the light drops (a lot), you notice a certain difference in general compared to the files derived from the 24mpx sensors, for example of the R6 and R3. The noise is more visible and the contours tend to fade and become kneaded. The R5ii isn't exactly lightning fast when it comes to alertness and wake-up. The sensitivity of the shutter button and the responsiveness of the joystick are not great, and the AF ON button used as a back button focus is a bit too skimpy and unpleasant and is positioned next to the joystick instead of above. In these respects the R5 II is still quite far from the Sony A1 and A9iii and also from the Nikon Z8 and Z9. I like the camera that supports me and allows me to shoot almost with my thoughts... I observe something that strikes me, I don't have time to bring my finger to the shutter button, I touch it, and I bring home the shot .. The R5 II does not allow me to do this, the Sony does... We'll see what the R1 can do. The R5II, however, is certainly a beautiful camera, it allows you to do practically everything and well, even in sports and nature as long as it is used with bright and high-performance lenses and consequently very expensive. However, it gives me the impression of being a camera more suited to static or semi-static photography, rather than action. In reality it does great everywhere, but it is the experience of use, and the pleasure, that make the difference and that for me are the fundamental thing. And personally I didn't feel entirely at ease. The impression is that of having a body for the hands a little too plastic, only mid-range, with an ergonomics that leaves a little to be desired, keys and dials do not fall like a glove for my hands (ditto with R5old R6ii R7) the side rubber to protect the grips is a long and single piece stuck with a "spit" that gives the impression of jumping away from one moment to the next. And finally there are the 45mpx, which I don't need at all in sports and photographic hunting and I'm just a hindrance when the light goes down (ditto the 50 of the A1 and the 45 of the Z8/9) disfiguring the image quality. By the way, I don't care about 300% surgical vision on the monitor, and if I really wanted to enjoy the file and crop like a desperate person I would take the GFX100 II whose file is from another planet and the optics park costs less than the RF one. sent on November 16, 2024 |
 | Canon EOS R7 Pros: Really low price. "Infinite" battery. Versatility Autofocus valid in the amateur environment Cons: Low quality materials, viewfinder really too dark and not very readable, Rolling Shutter. Good image quality but slightly inferior to all other competitor APSCs in terms of dynamic range, file cleanliness and ISO tightness. Valid autofocus but obviously not up to the level of the flagships. Keys and dials that are not very intuitive Opinion: sent on October 09, 2024 |
 | Fujifilm GF 250mm f/4 R LM OIS WR Pros: Optical quality: sharpness, blur, three-dimensionality. Autofocus. Stabilization Cons: Tripod bracket that is excessively awkward to hold Opinion: It's an exceptional telephoto lens. Although it is not super bright, in collaboration with the super sensor of the GFX it is able to highlight the subject and portray it with great sharpness and plasticity. Moreover, if used on a sensor as large and generous as that of the GFX 100II it has no problem to bring out wonderful photos even in critical or "absent" light conditions since you can easily go up with the ISO up to 12800 while maintaining a very high quality and a JPEG ready in the camera. The autofocus is valid and silent, limited only, in the most dynamic situations by the "slowness" of GFX bodies (without exception), situations in which the advanced amateur who buys the medium format will never find himself in his life. The stabilization is excellent, about 5 stops. The construction of the highest level, the soft and velvety ring of manual focus is very pleasant, as well as the ring for the apertures, which, however, lacks the lock for each value. The lens hood is also ergonomic with its very useful window for adjusting the filters. The only less positive note, indeed I would say quite annoying, is represented by the discomfort of the tripod bracket, totally inadequate for this type of lens. It is too small, with too little room for fingers both in length and depth, and it has no ark swiss binding. Fortunately, at least the ring, at the end of which the stirrup is located, is removable. Unfortunately, this defect affects many mid-range - medium-high range lenses of many other manufacturers. It takes so long to build generous and comfortable stirrups, with soft material possibly ??? evidently yes.... sent on October 06, 2024 |
 | Fujifilm GF 500mm f/5.6 R LM OIS WR Pros: Lightness.Image quality, very high and uniform sharpness from the center to the edges, stabilization. It is well built, on the barrel there is everything you need. Cons: Tripod bracket a bit short and angular; We lack 2 cm in length and a soft upper cover that would have greatly facilitated grip and carrying comfort Opinion: It is the first extreme and modern telephoto lens made for medium format. There is even nothing similar even for Fujifilm X (apsc) demonstrating how much the Tokyo company wants to focus on this "great" system! The purchase price, not low, is all in all correct, it costs a little more than its brother Sigma 500 F5.6 made for Full Frame. The autofocus is totally silent, and in my opinion, it would also be fast and accurate, the problem is that it is limited and slowed down by the camera bodies, which for obvious reasons, are not as fast as many other Full Frame or like Fujifilm Apsc. This behavior limits its use a little in the most extreme and fast areas and situations, but it does not take away the possibility of taking many beautiful photos in dynamic, sports and poop situations, including birdlife, both posed and in flight, over all distances, including birds of prey at high altitude. On the contrary, its lightness facilitates it and inspires its use freehand in wandering hunting, where it does not tire even after a day of use. Too bad, unfortunately, for the support foot which is slightly short: two cm are missing in length which would have favored and made the grip and transport much more comfortable, which instead are a bit uncomfortable in the long run. The bracket (ark swiss) should be a little longer and a little less angular, and have a soft upper part, as is the case with all valuable super telephoto lenses. The construction however is appreciated, there is everything you need, very nice and comfortable the ring for the apertures (even if you would need a lock for each value) very soft and pleasant also the ring for manual focus. The lens hood is equipped with a window, essential for adjusting any 95mm filters. The image quality is very high, the sharpness is excellent and above all it reaches its peak already at full aperture and is surprisingly constant from the center to the extreme edges. The blur is captivating and intense . Perhaps to be very fussy and super "strict", as I am, the images lack a bit of mellowness. A more pastel rendering would have been more appreciated, in order to differentiate itself even more than the Full Frame format. In fact, in my opinion, the high sharpness and the bright colors (of some profiles such as Velvia, and of the RAW worked) are a little too pushed, probably also at the hands of the 100mpx sensor that contributes to removing a bit of softness / "poetry" from the images. However, there remains a great ability to isolate the subject and highlight it. But they are dreams of a "poor" madman like me. nowadays no one notices it anymore, indeed this type of quality that the GF 500 has is just what everyone expects and desires. And the direct rivals (Nikon Z400 F4.5 / Sigma 500 F5.6) are like him. Moreover, if today, as usual, photographers pass over eight hundred coats of Sharpen and Denoise trash. they are really speeches that are worth nothing; ) Another positive note concerns the stabilization: freehand you can go down to really slow times, around 1/25 with great success. I sincerely think that with the release of this telephoto lens and the new GFX 100 II and 100 S II, those who are in possession of a double kit (GF for static and Full Frame with super telephoto for dynamics) can really do without the Full Frame kit and can fully use the Fujifilm GF kit alone with great satisfaction, "renouncing", unless you are a super handle with manual focus, a few super difficult photos with small subjects in fast motion. At this point we are also waiting for a 400 F2.8 and a 600 F4? ; )) sent on October 02, 2024 |
 | Fujifilm GFX100 II Pros: Really beautiful, three-dimensional, quality photos. It is built with precious materials. Viewfinder. Display. Autofocus, to be a medium format. Among the pros I want to put the pleasure of going around with a vehicle that attracts everyone's eyes to itself and to those who wear it ... as well as the pleasure of seeing the owners of FF, R5 Z8 A7r5 R3 R1 etc.., with their gaze down and their tails between their legs; ) on the other hand, he who wounds by the sword boasting of his own size, perishes by the sword because of his own size Cons: The slightly weaker aspect, wanting to be very picky, is the autofocus, which despite being very good, is not yet very ready and "perfect", especially some recognition of the subjects should be perfected. A little more readiness/speed wouldn't hurt for dynamic situations. Some keys are a bit awkward to use, they should be revised. Difficulty in using the electronic shutter, distortion perpetually lurking, almost a must to do it on a tripod and in situations where nothing moves Opinion: sent on October 01, 2024 |
 | Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM OSS Pros: Small, light, complete, fast, razor-sharp, Weighs half as much as competitors. Low price Cons: Carrying bracket or for attaching to the tripod small awkward and not ark swiss.. :unclassifiable Opinion: It's a gem !! A masterpiece (among many) from Sony, as small and light as or more than a 70-200 2.8. Build quality and top-notch optics. On the barrel there are the five fundamental selectors with which you can adjust everything you need, without having to enter the camera menu as unfortunately now happens more and more often with other brands. There is only one and very useful function ring (thank goodness there are not 40 as it happens more and more often) while the ring for the manual focus is nice and large as it should always be. There is the filter drawer, a fundamental and essential accessory, every self-respecting telephoto lens should have it. In this way, not only do you save on the purchase price of the filters (which are essential in many situations) but above all you avoid dirtying them and having to clean them continuously and you don't go crazy handling them in the assembly and disassembly procedures and also in transport. Many modern super-telephoto lenses do not have them... the new Nikon 400 4.5 and 600 6.3, the Olympus 150-400, even the Canon 100-300 2.8 .... and if you need to mount the filters, best wishes.... The optical quality is exceptional, and remains excellent even with the 2x mounted, as well as the autofocus always remains fast and precise. Thanks to its low weight and excellent balance, it is of course used freehand all the time and conveys pleasant and precise sensations. Unfortunately, however, (perfection still does not exist for anyone) this super positive experience of use is limited by the skimpy handle to which the small undersized bracket obliges, moreover not arca swiss. During the shooting phase there are no problems, but during transport and short or long journeys holding this 300 with the camera can become a problem and certainly not comfortable. On the positive side, this 300 2.8 with the 70-200 2.8 II cost three thousand euros less than the Canon 100-300 and weigh less (added together). Those who are interested will make their evaluations, is it better to have a single lens that costs more and weighs more and more but that allows you to go crazy less and to use a single body, or better to have two lenses that overall cover a little more, cost less and weigh less? For me at this point the bodies come into play ... At present there is no clear "winner" between Sony and Canon, and at Nikon the situation is even more complex as there is not yet a modern 300 2.8. But with the launch of the A1 II, which has received "silent" but very interesting improvements, which could make the difference, the balance could tip in favor of Sony. We'll see sent on September 28, 2024 |
 | Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S Pros: Built-in 1.4x TC, image quality Cons: I have no cons to report Opinion: sent on September 27, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Pros: Weight and dimensions. Good sharpness. Stabilization. All in all pleasant construction. Cons: It's a bit dark for certain types of photography. Blurred not exciting. Autofocus, in very low light conditions Opinion: It's really a very nice lens, and very useful. It is very light and small in size, it is the lightest 100-400 on the market, unattainable even in the micro 4/3 field. Of course the materials taste a little too much of plastic and savings, and the lens hood is also missing.... But considering what it costs and the focal lengths it covers, you can easily pass over it. Especially since it is built with criteria and there is everything you need: the zooming is quite soft, the selectors are complete, there is a customizable ring, perhaps for the apertures, with precise and pleasant shots and there is a nice ring for manual focus (which instead is shamefully missing on the new and super acclaimed 200-800 ... which costs five times more) It is quite / very sharp, certainly for the vast majority of needs... If you then consider that today practically all photos, even at 100iso (except mine; ) are altered and disfigured by the Denoise and Topaz garbage on duty, I would say that the sharpness is more than abundant for all needs. For the record, in reality, it is not the sharpest of the 100-400, but it is almost equal to the Panaleica and the Olympus 100-400, with a lower brightness and a less "interesting" blur, that is, therefore at the bottom of the 100-400 ranking... But as I said before, today the sharpness is so high that it is more than fine to do everything and in the field there are practically no differences compared to its much "more than big brother" 100-500, except in shooting conditions sought ad hoc and artfully constructed "naturalistic" sets ( = perches in the gardens of the house ....) The autofocus is good, although not at the level of the 100-500 in terms of accuracy. When the light goes down, and here I must, as usual, specify what I mean when it falls a lot, that is, when it really gets dark, and not at 6.30 pm on July 31st ... !!!! The autofocus slows down and struggles a lot, especially where the contrasts are not good. However, apart from serious sports or very dynamic bird use, the autofocus is excellent for everything else. As with all other low light RFs (including 100-500) this 100-400 is more suitable to be used on FF, for the usual known reasons. that is, for the unexciting performance of Canon APSC sensors and the unexciting performance of Canon APSC cameras themselves. Although, as I have said and resaid before, and as I always say, today you can do "everything" even with a Sony RX10 .. let alone with an R7 with 100-400 ..... I recommend it especially for trips, even challenging, perhaps where there is a lot of landscape, a bit of fauna, and a little bit of everything. Compared to the 100-500 in fact it weighs less than half, and costs five times less, but it has an equally valid stabilization ... In quiet situations it can go down to 1/40, sometimes 1/20 with an excellent success rate. You can count on four abundant stops. sent on July 31, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Pros: Excellent image quality, pleasant blur, excellent stabilization Cons: Obviously that F11 ... Lack of lens hood Opinion: Although I am very difficult in mouth, and very picky about amateur products, I had a lot of fun using this 800 f11, both on R7 and R6ii. The lens clearly exceeded my expectations, at the presentation I did not think it could be so effective and fun. Certainly it must be clear that we are not facing a professional product, but a very fun lens that allows you to do excellent birdlife or photographic hunting and why not to capture glimpses of distant landscapes, obviously in very good or at least acceptable light conditions. When the light starts to fall, if we have to photograph something static, the very high-performance stabilizer comes to our aid, allowing us shutter speeds in the order of 1/50, 1/40, even on dense sensors such as R7 and R5. Otherwise if we want to make birdlife and the light goes down then we are fried ... but this is already known at the time of purchase, it is useless to complain and be surprised. The lens performs best on FF sensors, and even if nothing prevents you from using it on R7 with excellent results in abundant light conditions, its use on apsc in my opinion is possibly to be avoided, as the angle of view is drastically reduced and the Canon apsc sensor which is among the worst in circulation mortifies the image quality a little ... On the other hand, the 100-500 also suffers in quality when used on apsc, so it's not surprising. As for the autofocus, considering that its correct field of use is the amateur one, I have no particular cons to report, except that the area on which it can work is significantly reduced, but in reality I still have no problems, I barely notice it. I am convinced that anyone who wants to have fun with a very long focal length will find in this 800 f11 a winning weapon and clearly more performing than any compact super zoom, including the P1000, and indeed, to be honest, even those who want to devote themselves to birdlife could seriously think of taking this 800mm instead of the 100-500 with the TC or possibly to add it to them, as between the two I consider the 800F11 more suitable because of the lower weight and the much lower price and also for the image quality that would at least be on par (but with 100mm more). Furthermore, considering that there is someone who dares to talk about game changer about the Canon 200-800, actually if the purpose is exclusively the birdlife, in my opinion this 800 f11 is more game changer, since it weighs half and costs a quarter, and has the same sharpness and even a really longer focal length (the subject fills the frame more than the 200-800). On paper the 800 f11 is also multipliable... But I don't care and I refuse to do it regardless sent on July 29, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko ED 45mm f/1.2 Pro Pros: Brightness, weight and size, autofocus, very well stabilized by the camera body, blurry Cons: - Opinion: The 45 F1.2 is a lens that allows you to shoot in all light conditions, genre and situation, at a professional level without compromising ... No ifs and buts! It's a little gem... Small because it weighs just 400g and fits in a pocket. Although many micro-four-thirders complain about the weight and size, it is a 45mm F1.2 !! 7x8 cm; how much does a 50 F1.2 weigh and how big is it for FF ? And how much does it cost? Needless to say more ... In terms of sharpness, already at full aperture, it is almost equal to the 40-150 Pro at F2.8, but with a much higher blur. Closed at F2.8 it is slightly sharper than the 40-150, and still retains a more accentuated blur at the same aperture. In addition, the stabilization (you can only use the body stabilization) is significantly more efficient than that of the 40-150, by more than a stop. You can shoot at 1/2 second with a high success rate. Even the autofocus is faster and quieter to hit the lens when the light drops (sharply). Compared to an F2.8 lens, this 45 F1.2 allows you to have an advantage in the order of 2 and a half stops up to over 4 stops depending on the genre or type of photography. Thanks to this advantage, the photographer can better manage his work. The blur is progressive and natural. Keep in mind, however, that, at Panasonic, there is the 25-50 F1.7 which is an amazing lens and mounted on Olympus it could replace both the 45 F1.2 and the 25 F1.2 and the 30 F1.4, with an equally differently beautiful blur, probably even more pleasant, a fast and precise autofocus, and superior sharpness from edge to edge !! (The stabilization, however, would be much lower) sent on July 11, 2024 |
 | Sony A9 III Pros: impressive responsiveness and speed, viewfinder and JPEG among the most beautiful ever (all shared with the A1) Improved ergonomics Unique performance Cons: Maximum performance, which is its peculiarities, is available with limitations. Battery life not great. Complex and infinite menus, written in an unspeakable way as per Sony tradition. It needs to be studied and set up more carefully than all the previous ones Opinion: Personally I think that the A9iii is the most performing camera on the market but at the same time also a commercial operation of strength, a bit "forced", by Sony. In the sense that it is undoubtedly the most powerful and high-performance camera, but few really need it. The global shutter allows full use of the electronic shutter without apparent limitations, with consequent benefits in the use of flash, banding reduction and rolling shutter. If we add to this the further improved ergonomics compared to the A1, with a slightly deeper grip, an inclined shutter button more within reach of the index finger and a customizable front button (finally), and last, but not least, the pre-shot up to 1 second (finally), the result is the most suitable mirrorless camera ever to face sporting and dynamic events, and photographic hunting. Compared to the A1 I found it very different, in common they have only the incredible responsiveness of the joystick and the shutter button. The A1 is a "spartan" camera (pass me the term), brutal, a sniper, without frills, which goes straight to the point, that is, to the target, regardless of the AF area used and the recognition of the subject. The A9iii, on the other hand, is more complex, more specialized,.. To work at its best and make a difference requires a greater understanding of the functions and precise adjustment of all settings. On paper both have the same viewfinder, but that of the A9iii adjusted to maximum brightness is brighter (a detail useful more than anything else for the record ..) The JPEGs, both very beautiful, are different, that of the A9iii can seem more natural, sometimes perhaps a little too much tending to "green / yellow", those of the A1 are more "crunchy". In general I would prefer the A1 during the day and the A9iii in the evening. When you exaggerate with performance then you must necessarily give up the flank in other respects. Unfortunately, nowadays the blanket is still short. If you introduce phenomenal innovations, you can only do it with limitations and/or "small" side effects. In the specific case of the A9iii it was in fact necessary to give something in terms of image quality: 1 stop of disadvantage on the ISO tightness compared to the best FF from 24mpx (half compared to the bigmpx) visible from 6400iso upwards, and 1 stop and a half in dynamic range, at basic ISO, compared to the best FF from 24/50 mpx. Personally, although this greater noise is undeniably visible, especially on monitors, I find this decline in image quality practically insignificant. Indeed, in my specific case, it also makes me smile a little the general discontent that has infected the Sony users themselves, both the fanboys of the various forums who obviously did not buy it, as slaves of 100% monitor vision and billions of mpx, and the same professionals (perhaps those a little more "unsatisfactory") who prefer the A1 because of the cleaner file at high ISO. The reason why I smile is simple... I shoot out of habit (and obviously because I feel good) mainly with a micro 4/3, which with good lenses (at least F4 during the day, and at least F2.8 in the evening) brings home any work with results absolutely indistinguishable from FF in terms of publications on the internet, magazines, newspapers, social networks, press releases, normal prints, etc etc. You will then imagine what incredible difficulty I could have, in terms of image quality, shooting with the A9iii and the 400 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 or the 135 1.8 etc etc .... ; ) But I evidently have no interest in viewing on a monitor (or rather for judging on a monitor) at 100/200% and I have no need to have 45/61 mpx to do photographic hunting nor to do sports photography, an area where all those mpx are absolutely useless. sent on July 10, 2024 |
 | Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f/4.0-6.3 ASPH OIS Pros: Weight and size, nice image quality Cons: Not great stabilization especially on Olympus bodies Opinion: It is a nice telephoto lens, certainly preferable to its direct cousin Olympus 100-400 (big and heavy, without dual IS). All in all it is light and compact, weighing about 1kg. The materials are pleasing to the eye and to the touch, too bad for the zoom ring that is really too hard. When using freehand I recommend removing the bracket for the tripod, which does not give any kind of grip being very small and angular. The stabilization (one of the greatest strengths of the micro 4/3 system) does not seem very efficient to me. acceptable on Panasonic bodies but too poor on Olympus bodies where dual IS does not work. Despite the mediocre brightness, especially in relation to the type of sensor, i.e. small, the image quality is very good, and the blur pleasant. It's basically the same sharpness as the Olympus 100-400 but with a slightly more pleasant blur. Just to be clear, the sharpness is not at the level of the most famous 100-400 F4.5/5.6 Canon and Sony, but it is at the same level as the Canon RF 100-400 with a more pleasant blur. With the recent micro 4/3 flagships you can shoot with excellent results in naturalistic even when the light goes down as long as you can keep relatively slow shutter speeds and consequently ISO values within 6400/12800, in practice exposing well. The autofocus is ready and fast, but in AFC you have to deal with the m4/3 cameras which unfortunately always have that nervous and jumping behavior that generates a lot of out of focus. A problem that is solved by making many bursts and many shots so that you can always capture the right moment. The second version has just been released and is very well talked about (by Ambassadors and youtubers) however I don't trust ... I hope to try it but I'm afraid it's just a commercial move, in my opinion it's identical in all respects to the previous one, except for the compatibility with extenders, which however is totally insignificant as mounting even just the 1.4x on this lens is completely useless and meaningless. sent on July 07, 2024 |
 | OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4 PRO Pros: Negligible weight and size, image quality. Ridiculous price Cons: It's not a Pro like its big brother F2.8 Opinion: The 40-150 F4 is an extraordinary lens that I recommend to all enthusiasts who use the micro 4/3 system, as long as they do not habitually practice sports and nature photography, areas in which the 40-150 F2.8 is definitely more suitable. There is nothing comparable on the market that has the same focal range, brightness, lightness and cost. The new Tamron 50-300 for FF is one of the lightest and cheapest, weighing and bulking twice as much. the last 70-200 F4s weigh more than twice as much and cost three times as much ... The pictures he churns out are very nice, just look at the photos below.. Clearly you can't expect a blur and a detachment of the planes to scream, and its fields of use are different. It is very suitable for landscape, street, travel and excursions. Personally, however, I use it very little, as I often like to practice nature and sports photography and I want to take home the highest possible quality from the system, in terms of files and ergonomics. In fact, this 40-150 being a project that focuses everything on very small weights and dimensions, by force of circumstances (miracles are not yet made) "unfortunately" must give way to some compromise. The construction, although valuable, is not the rocky one of the "real" Pro series (40-150 F2.8 / 12-100 F4), and does not withstand the full power of the OM1 not being able to shoot at either 25 or 50 fps. In addition, the effectiveness of stabilization and autofocus are not at the levels of its big brother F2.8, compared to which it also has a slightly more accentuated focus breathing. The sharpness instead is the same, excellent, but obviously with a disadvantageous aperture. To avoid misunderstandings, and above all because the many amateurs would not understand, it is necessary to point out that all the small weaknesses that I have listed above emerge only if a very dynamic photograph is practiced at a professional or naturalistic level in critical environmental and light conditions. Finally, I find that the non-compatibility with extenders is not a problem at all, the lens is in fact so small and light that a possible TC would totally compromise its simplicity and pleasure of use. sent on July 06, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Pros: Super sharpness, brightness and blur more than enough to do pretty much everything, weight and size Cons: The autofocus slows down a little and becomes slightly noisy in very low light situations Opinion: It's a relatively cheap lens, which surprised me with its exceptional sharpness, it's really an incredible blade already at full aperture. The blur is appreciable, it is not exaggerated like that of an F1.2 but it is more than fine to do practically everything. The materials with which it is built are the classic Canon RF ones of the non-L... without infamy, without praise. The lens is relatively small and light though. The autofocus is fast and quiet as long as there is light. when the light goes down (I mean when it really falls, that is, it is DARK, not at 6 pm on July 15th) it is still effective but loses a bit of speed and becomes slightly noisy .. A situation in which the vast majority of amateurs will never find themselves and will not notice anything. While a professional who shoots indoors at night may have some small problems. sent on July 06, 2024 |
 | Olympus OM-D E-M1 III Pros: Versatility, quality, ready for anything Cons: Display and viewfinder, although very good, have outdated resolutions. Very good autofocus, but very far from OM1 and other competitors apsc and FF Opinion: sent on June 26, 2024 |
 | Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Pros: Image quality, brightness, autofocus, excellent weight balance, can be used handheld even for a long time Cons: From some points of view, the price. It is addictive; ) Opinion: It is, of course, an extraordinary lens... and not so much because it's called Sony, but because it's a 400 F2.8, and all 400 2.8s are phenomenal lenses. In this case, also considering that it was released in 2018 and therefore ahead of its direct competitors Canon and Nikon, it also has a relatively interesting price and a little lower than the competition, and in used cars you can sometimes find very loose pieces, well below 10k. Despite its appearance, it is a relatively "light" lens, thanks also to the right weight distribution, and even the large and immense lens hood (the front lens is impressive...) is actually very light. The lens is clearly very sharp, but like all true super-telephoto lenses it is not so much the sharpness itself that amazes as the ability to reproduce in a "real" way, sober and frank the details and the subjects .. As for mere sharpness, pixel peerer, just to be clear, don't think you will see who knows what difference compared to modern super zoom 200-600 or similar, but what changes is the beauty with which a scene or a subject is reproduced. Beauty due to the harmonious detachment of the planes, the correction of aberrations, and the frank and more faithful reproduction of details thanks to the optical scheme and the remarkable brightness that, among other things, allows you to shoot at a professional level in all light conditions, also thanks to an autofocus that always remains very fast. But the real question to ask, today more than ever, is this: does it really make sense to spend 12/15k for a modern fixed supertele? Given that everyone is free to spend their money as they want, the answer is not unequivocal.... Personally, I think it only makes sense if photography is the main source of income and/or if you practice it professionally, so if you make a living from photography, or rather, you live... Otherwise, I'm not at all convinced that it's worth spending certain amounts of money to do birdlife, photographic hunting or safari trips at an amateur level even advanced (considering then that a 400 2.8 necessarily needs a top camera body, that is therefore the only R3 in Canon, Z8 / 9 Nikon, A9ii or rather A9iii and A1 in Sony, and spending increases significantly). The total expense, the weight and the size to be carried around, and the attentions/precautions to be given to it clearly superior to those of the modern very good zooms (Sony 200-600, Nikon 180-600 + fixed Z "cheap", Canon 100-500/200-800, Olympus 150-400) in my opinion do not justify that more or less visible gain in quality depending on the situation. Although, I realize, it's easy to fall into temptation.... economic availability permitting sent on June 21, 2024 |
 | Canon EOS R6 Mark II Pros: Versatility, image quality, autofocus (in relation to its category) very competitive price today, battery life Cons: Viewfinder, quality of materials, ergonomics and responsiveness far from the flagships, rolling shutter sometimes very evident with electronic shutter. The selection of shooting parameters with buttons and dials is too cumbersome. Jpeg beautiful, but far from those of the flagships Opinion: The R6ii is a beautiful camera that today is at a very attractive price and allows you to do practically everything with excellent results, in all areas. If you evaluate it for what it really is, that is a camera for amateurs, more or less advanced, and in relation to its price range, it offers excellent autofocus for all uses and an image quality close to the top. With a sensor reading speed of 14ms the R6ii is the fastest among the non-stacked , however we must not give in to easy fanboy triumphalism ... the R6II is a lower-end camera both to the R5 and obviously to the R3, and its autofocus system, although more recent and equipped with some formal innovations, in substance, however, remains slightly inferior to both that of the R5 and obviously that of the R3. The 14ms are unfortunately not enough to eliminate or make negligible the Rolling shutter with electronic shutter in dynamic situations, especially where the background has trees, poles, buildings etc .. which are unfortunately bent by 30/40 ° ... a pretty obscene see.... Thankfully the camera comes with a very fast mechanical shutter and more than enough buffer to do it all. Certainly to photograph sparrows at a distance of 3 meters with an artificial or artfully constructed background there are no problems, and not even to make birdlife with a uniform background. The autofocus is excellent, especially after locking. while there is some hesitation, sometimes, in the first hook, junctures in which R3 obviously does better, and also R5. The viewfinder is nice and quite bright, however the poor resolution prevents you from understanding if a photo is really sharp or if there is micro blur, moreover the preview of the viewfinder exposure did not convince me, and it is not very sensitive to adjustments ... you have to rely on the camera, which fortunately rarely makes mistakes. The image quality is very good both in terms of dynamic range and ISO tightness. You can shoot in many situations up to 25600 ISO ,without Denoise ... at ISO 51200 there is a significant deterioration. The 24mpx are clean and more than enough to do practically everything, especially in sports and action photography, where the 45-50mpx as far as I'm concerned don't make any sense, except for those who need to print along the facades of skyscrapers (which is quite unlikely for the average user). The JPEGs are nice, but compared to those of the flagships (Sony A1 A9iii, Olympus OM1 etc.) they lose colors and white balance. In conclusion, it can be said that it is an excellent all-rounder camera, with excellent performance in all contexts, especially for amateur use, and as per tradition Canon maintains the classic Lp e6nh battery, with excellent autonomy (bravo Canon !! ). The performance, however, is far from that of the flagships, especially in terms of responsiveness (it is slow to wake up, the shutter button is not very sensitive), ergonomics (plasticky materials, flap that opens with an obscene spring noise) viewfinder (a little dark and too poorly defined) and autofocus in difficult situations (some hesitation in the hooking, rolling shutter sometimes excessive with electronic shutter). In addition, often when you access the main control panel, inadvertently, without wanting to but above all without realizing it, you go to change some fundamental parameters due to the too complicated selection mechanism with the upper and rear dials. The ease of use of the "old" Canon reflex cameras has been lost sent on June 19, 2024 |
 | Sony A1 Pros: Relatively small and light body. High-end viewfinder. Autofocus from number (A) 1 ,a sniper Sensitivity and responsiveness of the joystick and especially of the impressive shutter button Cons: Battery life, Sony menu... kilometers, complex, and sometimes written in an unspeakable way: coll crs drnt ali.. mtd coll cntr .. Oct Gim ... etc etc ... But please Sony... Opinion: I don't want to make a real review of the camera, also because Sony is not my usual equipment, but talk in general about my feelings during use at sporting events. Shooting with Sony personally I don't feel like an immersive experience, as it can be with Olympus or Fuji, it is a brand that offers exceptional products for all budgets and all needs, and probably in terms of development and technology it is ahead of everyone, but it does not give me emotions. the same equipment even of the very high range, although incredibly valid does not involve me much, it is a brand let's say "without a soul", cold ... Apart from that... however, I cannot fail to recognize the goodness and the "superiority" of the Sony A1 (and in other ways of the A9iii) compared to everything I have used in the past and that I mainly use today.. With A1 we are several steps above Canon R5ii / R6ii / Olympus OM1 and in my opinion also Z8 ... The responsiveness, sensitivity and precision, which translate into effectiveness, are clearly superior. In the sports field I have often found myself in situations where I had given up several shots, I did not imagine that I had been able to bring home that particular moment ... yet as soon as I looked at the photo taken the photos were there, all of them, and exactly as I had searched for them, simply with a tiny and instantaneous press of the shutter button. In fact, the responsiveness and sensitivity of the shutter button of the A1 (and A9iii) are incredible ... to be left speechless. But in particular I found myself better for various reasons with the A1 than the A9iii .... I see the A9iii more for individual sports where perhaps an autofocus that is stuck to the eye (impressive...) can be more useful but in my shooting areas the feeling is that the A1 is still the queen ... that 1 is not put there by chance ..... Maybe it will not have some novelties, more than anything else in shape, compared to the A9iii or A7r5 which are more modern ... but this does not mean that it is less effective, on the contrary .... I definitely missed more shots with the A9iii than with the A1 ... The A1 is a real sniper... Furthermore, compared to the A9iii it is also significantly smaller, and this is a gift that I appreciate very much, and fortunately Sony has designed it without battery grip .. giving priority to compactness and lightness, which today are essential for me. An A1 with 70-200 2.8 II weighs "nothing" and the performance is an absolute record. The viewfinder of the A1 is obviously very beautiful, among the best. On paper, the A9iii is the same, but in reality it is brighter. the manufacturers at each update (applies to Sony and all the others) with the same viewfinder still increase the brightness ... However, there is no obvious difference, but only if you want to look for it on purpose. JPEGs are beautiful... Quite natural... Those of the A9iii are perhaps a more "natural" thread but not in an excessively different way. Anyway finally they are nice JPEGs!! Not the usual crap that Sony has always proposed with all the other inferior models...! This incredible speed and responsiveness, on the other hand, does not give you the feeling that you are shooting, and it is necessary to activate the simulation of the shutter noise. but if you are in the middle of cars or motorcycles or particularly noisy events you still don't hear the noise of the shot ... And you have the fear of having lost the shots ... But then in the end the shots are there; ) sent on June 17, 2024 |
 | Canon EOS R5 Pros: After the R3 there is still it, some components are of "old" conception, but the performance is still superior to all the other R's after 4 years. Cons: Outdated key ergonomics and viewfinder Opinion: It's a camera that has never "taken" me that much, but I wanted to try it to get an idea.. and I did well.. In fact, after the R3, this R5 remains Canon's second (and only) purely professional mirrorless camera. It is no coincidence that the CPS had "warned" me that my R6ii is considered by them to be an amateur camera only and with R5 I would have seen a "nice" difference... Actually, nothing tragic... It is just a matter of having personally ascertained that the autofocus performance of the R5, understood as the ability to recognize and lock on to a subject and to keep it in focus, is still slightly superior to the most recent R6ii and especially compared to the R7. In the forum (unfortunately it was obvious) the idea has passed that the most recent products must always be superior to the older ones ( thought unfortunately typical of fanboyism ) , and you often read scary absurdities such as that an R7 is superior to an R5 or even an R3 or that an R50 is superior to an R6 , just because maybe it's equipped with a cooler processor and a greater set of features. In fact, for example, the R6ii can shoot at 40fps without blackouts for a much greater number of shots and boasts more AF customization functions, including the latest and very useful tracking that can be activated over the entire area, while the R5 shoots "only" at 20fps with blackout and uses the classic tracking.... But still, as I always remember, Canon is not stupid at all... indeed... If you think that it will "give" you a new R7 for 3000 euros less than the R5 and that it is even better, well... you are very wrong.... Ditto for the R6ii, although the difference in this case is smaller than the one with the R7. As I said at the beginning, however, the R5 has never "taken" me too much, also because Canon for now continues to be only my second kit and at least for now I am not going to put too high figures, also 45mpx for what I have to do I do I don't need anything, the 24 are already enough... I think they are useful only if you want to enlarge a passerine bird to enjoy the details (a game that after a while leaves the time it finds) but to shoot sports JPEGs or if you can properly fill the frame in photo hunting, all those mpx are of no use to me... However, there are some aspects where the R5 has now been surpassed by the R6ii, in particular the ergonomics of the buttons: the joystick is old-fashioned, the button (or rather the button) AF-ON is small and above all recessed and too close to the joystick. all things that in the R6ii have been revised and improved for the benefit of comfort. but above all the age difference with the R6ii can be seen in the brightness and visual comfort of the viewfinder. that of the R6ii, although less resolute, is brighter and more comfortable. and in general the gap between the viewfinder of R5 compared to Z8/9 and Sony A9iii/A1 and also to my Olympus OM1 is "abysmal" .. Another aspect that doesn't make me crazy, which I had already noticed some time ago, regarding files, is a certain tendency towards magenta especially in certain light conditions, which can be a problem especially with regard to JPEGs. With the R6ii and R3, new, more "pleasant" color sciences have been adopted... In the future, an R5ii with the right improvements and even without mounting a stacked sensor could be a winning weapon ... sent on June 04, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Pros: Weights and dimensions, optical quality, focal range in relation to the remarkable constant brightness Cons: No filter drawer - no window on the lens hood Opinion: I have the "privilege" of being able to use this super lens, on loan from the CPS. I found it more compact than I expected, more or less halfway between the 100-500 and the 400 2.8 in size. Thanks to the generous bracket it can be transported comfortably. The zoom ring is very smooth. It is not very heavy, and thanks to the excellent weight distribution and the internal zooming you can use it for some time even freehand, but after a while the arms and back give way and the monopod becomes a must. Although outdoors, especially on the racetrack, you cannot better appreciate the sharpness, I could still see that it is at very high levels, with or without TC I did not notice appreciable differences. The blur and sense of "reality" of the images are obviously those of a super bright telephoto. For motorcycling it is basically useless, in fact it is practically not used, as it is too specialized and too expensive. it is much more widespread in Formula 1 where I have seen several examples (most for rent), but overall it is not purely a lens for motor sports, it remains more suitable for individual sports and fully expresses its potential for red-carpet, fashion, and indoor sports, Olympics, and any competition at the highest level ... On balance, even if I could, personally it is not a lens that I would take, unless I work permanently and at the highest level in the contexts mentioned above. I would say that it is also quite useless and meaningless for travel and safaris, as it has a price out of any amateur logic, and in any case it could not replace in any case a 600 f4, since those who do safari in addition to the 300 2.8 always carry with them also the 600 f4. The cons? Apart from the price, something can certainly be said about the absence of the filter drawer and the further absence of a window on the lens hood. Actually even the Nikon and the Sigma 120-300 I think are without them.... This involves a considerable expense for the 112 filters, in the order of at least 500 euros and more for the good ones, if you can find them .... But above all it forces special attention in maneuvering them and avoiding dirtying them .. all less problems if there had been the filter drawer. In my opinion, this is a serious shortcoming. In short, it is an extremely specialized supertele reserved for wealthy amateurs or professionals at the top of the world or simply with big returns at the end of the season. For all the others (normal) it is definitely convenient to aim for 300 2.8 II in combo with 70-200 2.8 sent on June 04, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Pros: Size, light weight and blurry very nice Cons: Lens hood Opinion: In my opinion, this is a lens that is mainly suitable for taking portraits of people or animals, or for panning in sporting circumstances. It is very small and light, and even if it is not compatible with multipliers it is not a problem at all, if anything it could be about the older brother F2.8 on which a 1.4x multiplier could fit in different situations, but unfortunately it cannot be mounted. The image quality is very pleasant, and as I said before it lends itself well to making portraits as the sharpness is high but not excessive and surgical, like perhaps that of the big brother F2.8 and other fixed ones, but it is pleasantly "soft", a bit like the old 200 2.8 II at full aperture. Above all, the detachment that is created between the subject and the background is very sweet and pleasant, which is not as exasperated as that of the brightest lenses where you do not understand anything about the moment and the scene and you only have the subject in focus and everything else has not arrived (photos that to my taste tell absolutely nothing) while with this lens you can have a sharp subject (and not surgical) in the foreground, it is a background that fades progressively and gently. The stabilization is very good, you can go down to 1/10, 1/8 handheld. Unfortunately, once again Canon slips me on the small detail, and with its obscene and shameful segmentation policy, on this 70-200 F4 has put a beautiful lens hood identical in all respects to that of the 70-200 F2.8 and the 100-500, that is the ET83, but not with the initials F ... but with the initials G, that is, there is not the small and very convenient window from which you can adjust the filters mounted on the lens... So I have to assemble and disassemble the lens hood every time ..... In short, Canon wants to make it clear that this 70-200 is probably not as professional as the others? Or simply because it costs less (but still a lot) he put a less professional lens hood? Truly a fall in bad taste, as per Canon tradition, alas sent on May 22, 2024 |
 | Olympus OM-D E-M1X Pros: Ergonomics, materials Cons: Very good continuous autofocus, but of "old" generation.. The keeper rate is a bit "too" poor. Value of the second-hand, to cry for those who have to sell, but super convenient for those who have to buy Opinion: After 5 years from the launch it can be found in mint condition for just over 800 euros (from official dealers!! ), while private individuals with 600 euros take it away .... to the delight of those who buy and the desperation of those who have to sell and find in their hands pieces of a system (OMsystem / Olympus) that is worth absolutely nothing on the market anymore ... Considering the type of camera and what it offers are really ridiculous figures, there is no other mirrorless apsc or FF that can compete, certainly not an a6600 with its monstrous lags or a reflex of twenty years ago on which you then have to put 2kg bricks ... Apart from the most recent OM1 (which are on another planet) it remains the most suitable micro 4/3 camera for action, but it still lends itself to do everything ... The quality of the file is very good up to 6400 ISO, the JPEGs are the most accurate compared to all the other Olympus, and the autofocus is equal to that of the EM1 III, with the addition of the recognition of the subjects, which however is not super effective, it is good just for static birds or animals. The ergonomics are fabulous, although personally over time I have started to appreciate more the small bodies without BG like that of the OM1, because I can no longer stand to carry heavy stuff on me ... The continuous autofocus is very good, even if like all the other micro 4/3 the keeper rate is poor, the focus jumps, dances and does somersaults at will, out of 10 photos of a burst at least half are to be thrown away .... In birdlife the situation worsens further, out of 10 you save one. That doesn't mean you won't take the photos home... it just means that in front of the PC you will have to waste a lot of time to go and check one by one all the photos of the bursts to choose the only good one and trash the other 100 ... Unfortunately the gap between the X (and all the others) with the OM1 is quite abysmal, both as regards the continuous autofocus, and for the speed and fluidity of the viewfinder during bursts, especially with low light, and as regards the quality of the file from 3200 ISO upwards, understood as signal-noise ratio and dynamic range. When with the X, in low light, you are already beyond the limit at 6400iso, with the OM1 you shoot without any problem and no post production at 12800iso. If you are looking for the highest quality and maximum performance in the micro 4/3 system at a professional level and in all conditions, then make a little effort and get a used OM1. anyway even that is as new at 1100 euros and by private individuals at 900 euros, since, as mentioned above, the system "economically" unfortunately is no longer worth anything ... But from the point of view of performance and results it is still worth it .... !! I repeat, in terms of dynamic and sports photography, the EM1 X, despite an AFC not at the top, still eats overall any R7 / a6600 / 6700 Z50 or xt4 / 5, even in terms of image quality .... And especially in the lens park you will have a great choice in used and at ridiculously low prices... The sensor and all the various functions in the camera, also allow you to take beautiful photos in other genres, even in landscape and portraiture sent on May 11, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro Pros: Built-in lens hood - phenomenal stabilization, you can shoot even at 5 seconds handheld, with a very good success rate Cons: Nothing to report, except the usual murderous and baseless devaluation that the OMsystem system has suffered recently, so buying this new lens at 1200 euros no longer makes any sense, as the next day you would not be able to take more than 600 euros, and the used ones equal to new are at 750 euros... Opinion: It's a lens I didn't fit in with..... actually the lens does its job ,I can't point out any defects.... but it doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't have its own "character", the images it churns out are very beautiful but "anonymous"... They don't arouse any particular emotions in me. I prefer the 8-25 F4 and the 8 F1.8.... The 8-25 is more practical and versatile, and the 8mm is much more suitable for night shots, as it is brighter and with a more captivating angle of view, and consequently creates beautiful images. The 7-14 is a nice lens, but it wasn't love from the beginning. Maybe it's just a matter of taste. sent on May 11, 2024 |
 | OM System M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II Pros: Overall quality Cons: I can't think of any... except that, those who buy it new today, should take advantage of it and keep it for a very long time... otherwise it loses a lot of money due to the criminal and senseless loss of value that is massacring the micro 4/3 system, especially OMSYSTEM Opinion: In the past I have always "avoided" buying this lens as I thought it was too limited in terms of focal range... but I was very wrong. It is a perfect lens for professional use, it always makes you take home work and even at an amateur level it is used great. It is very sharp at all focal lengths, the autofocus is very fast and precise. It goes very well with all the in-room functions of the OM1 (filters... High res... etc...) sent on May 11, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm f/4.0 IS Pro Pros: Image quality, autofocus, focal range, stabilization Cons: I can't think of any.. Perhaps, to be monstrously fussy, it would have been nice if it didn't even extend ... science fiction.. Opinion: It is probably the cornerstone of the entire micro 4/3 system, especially Olympus. They say it's extremely big and heavy for the system :) I feel like laughing, or rather crying... Why do people who use a used 35 euro 14-42 f22 say so... or people who then go around with the FF of 5 thousand euros and a 24-200 or worse an adapted 28-300 :) or even worse with an apsc and an 18-135 or 18-300 .. But do these people then realize the difference in photographic quality between the F3.5-6.3 zooms and this 12-100 F4? Evidently not.... The 12-100 is a phenomenal lens, you place it on an EM1 III or on an OM1 or on an OM5, you leave and travel the world, without needing anything else... At most, you put an 8mm/9mm in your pocket. You do it all, with fantastic results, and in all light and weather conditions. It doesn't have the blur of an f0.95 on FF ???? ... I'll survive anyway :) I just need to position myself in a "strategic" way, but more than anything else in an intelligent way, or, if I have the chance, put the subject where I want, and the problem is solved... Apart from this, in all normal situations, it still manages to "enhance" the subject by highlighting it with respect to the background. Of course, I don't care about isolating a subject from reality and totally alienating him from the context, just to look good on Instagram, or having half a pupil in focus of a cat on a bed that looks like a monster... but I prefer to enhance the context while at the same time highlighting the main subject, and an F4 quality lens with F8 equivalent depth of field, such as the 12-100, allows me to do just that. The sharpness is very high at all focal lengths, already at full aperture, and reaches its peak at F5.6 ... it's the same sharpness as the 12-40 2.8 and the 40-150 2.8.... The autofocus is very fast and precise, and contrary to what many chatterers write, on an OM1 or a G9ii or even a G9 first series, it is also able to catch the eye of a stationary subject and keep it in focus if it moves while walking. If, on the other hand, he starts running like crazy, he probably loses it and hangs it up again. but if it is a still child or a model posing up to that point, it comes to us from .... ; ) The micro 4/3 doesn't have the best autofocus on the market, but it still manages to do something better than a Canon sx20 from 85' or a Sony rx from 1750 BC ; ) sent on May 07, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Pros: Versatility, weight, price, size, autofocus, maximum equivalent magnification 0.46x Cons: Brightness (when there is little light) and consequent poor detachment of the planes Opinion: It's a "super" all-rounder more than honest, indeed good ... I don't know that there is another lens on the market that covers from 24 to 400mm weighing 450g and costing just over 500 euros .... For travel and reportage it's fine, but also to do something more. In fact, the autofocus is very fast and accurate, I would never have imagined it... The optical quality is good-fair, the sharpness is more than acceptable, as long as there is light everything is fine, when the light drops the limits emerge mainly due to the low light that "prevents" a dynamic use at sunset and in the evening. It still does well at events, even with low light, such as concerts, theaters, where you can use relatively slow times, and in combination with the OM1 you can even go up to 6400 ISO or more with excellent results. It is certainly not suitable for those who want to go and see the 100% crisp detail, and for sharpness freaks or for those who want to see subjects always well detached from the background and in evidence .... who on the other hand would not be happy even with a Nikon 28-400, which costs 1600 euros, weighs 300 grams more and lacks the 24mm at the bottom ... or with a Tamron 18-300 for apsc that weighs 200 grams more and doesn't have the 24mm at the bottom. Overall it's a fun and very comfortable lens that does its honest job and even something more... Although personally, being very demanding, and not liking compromises, I rarely use it.... But still, it can fit in my kit sent on May 05, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC1.25x IS Pro Pros: Unique project in the world .. fantastic image quality, weights and dimensions, ergonomics, characteristic and pastel blur Cons: The only fear is related to the durability over time and assistance in case of need once the warranty is over... Will OMsystem be there? And will it be up to it? In addition, the value of used ... If you don't like it and want to resell it after a while, in mint condition, we will take half of what you paid for it Opinion: The 150-400 with the OM1 represent the last two "devastating" shots of the "old" Olympus. which no longer exists and which, alas, has known no heirs. OMsystem, in over three years, has done nothing... The 150-400 is a unique super telephoto in the world, it corresponds to a 300-800mm, which becomes a 1000mm with the built-in 1.25x TC, but with the brightness and quality of the blur of a real 150-400 F4.5 super telephoto. With the external 1.4x TC, in addition to the internal 1.25x TC it becomes a 700 F8 (1400mm eq.) of still very high quality. The 2x, on the other hand, does not hold it, it is completely useless. It is incredibly light in relation to the brightness and focal range it offers, and at first glance it surprises, it seems a joke from how small, light and well balanced it is. Without the lens hood it does not weigh 2kg. It is perhaps one of the very few lenses, perhaps the only one I have ever used, to which I can not find any defect. The ergonomics are wonderful, you can carry it all day with the comfortable bracket without effort, the dials are soft, the lens hood is comfortable and generous, the autofocus is very fast, the sharpness is fantastic and the blur fabulous. Obviously it wins by technical knockout on all zooms for FF, Canon Sony or Nikon, compared to which it maintains a constant sharpness in all environmental and light conditions and has a more "captivating" engaging and intense blur. It is no coincidence that this Olympus costs five times as much as zoommons for FF. and those who buy it are certainly not stupid, contrary to what many "unprepared" think who do not know it and discredit the smaller sensor out of ignorance, or who do not know how to use the m4/3 system, due to technical and handle insufficiency, and resell it after three hours saying that it sucks ... Also compared with the super telephoto F4 for FF, as long as the light does not drop drastically it holds its own and does not disfigure at all, it differs only for the less accentuated detachment but still equally pleasant (in this regard I invite you to look on the forum for the test we did together with the Sony 600GM). When, on the other hand, the light really drops, the comparison with the fixed lights for FF begins to suffer, due to the smaller sensor for which it is designed and the autofocus of Olympus cameras that becomes fluctuating. In fact, I consider it a meeting point, halfway, between a super telephoto light for FF and a super telephoto zoommone F6.3... And for this reason in naturalistic I believe that the 150-400 with the OM1 represent the most effective and fun combo on the market. I no longer even remotely think about spending 20k in the FF and carrying 5 kg of stuff on my shoulders, or 7kg or more, to take two sensational photos a year and give up another 1000 photos because of broken bones and obstructive clutter and uncomfortable CT scans to assemble and disassemble... With the 150-400 I take all the photos I want, with fantastic quality and I return home fresh and happy, forgetting even tripods and monopods thanks to the phenomenal stabilization and the very low weight. Moreover, everyone turns to look at it, as it stands out and stands out from the "boring" and anonymous mass of the usual one hundred thousand canonists and nikonists all the same as stencils and all with the same equipment. sent on May 03, 2024 |
 | Olympus 2x MC-20 Pros: Quality, Weight & Size Cons: It costs less than the competition, but still a lot Opinion: For a 2x (top quality) it's pretty small and light. The main issue is that there are only two lenses in the entire Olympus/Omsystem lens range that can afford to mount it, namely the 300 Pro and the 40-150 2.8 Pro. All the other compatible lenses, which are few (150-400, 150-600 and 100-400) do not hold it, and lose sharpness in a very conspicuous way, in practice the 2x on these lenses is totally useless. Even the 150-400 doesn't hold it. If you own one of these three telephoto lenses, avoid spending 350 euros, it will be money totally thrown in the bin. To photograph distant birds it is absolutely useless, it damages the quality in a conspicuous way and makes the autofocus lose a lot of precision. It's always best to use smooth lenses and then crop. Conversely, if you own the 40-150 2.8 you will be able to use this 2x with satisfaction, the optical quality remains high, excellent closing to F7.1 and the autofocus remains very fast, even if it loses a bit of precision in very dynamic situations. Same goes for the 300 Pro.. the quality remains excellent at full aperture, there is just a slight tarnishing of the quality at full aperture and some slight aberration, while at F10 everything is fantastic again. Unfortunately, however, the continuous autofocus loses a lot of precision and becomes practically unusable for birds in flight. No problem for perched birds and wildlife. The stabilization of the lenses remains phenomenal, as if they were smooth. sent on May 02, 2024 |
 | Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 25-50mm f/1.7 ASPH Pros: Stratospheric sharpness, three-dimensionality, fast and precise autofocus, magical and unique blur Cons: Slight tendency to magenta, barely perceptible, in certain situations, as per Panaleica "tradition" Opinion: It's a spectacular lens, beautiful to use. It costs a lot of money, but it's worth it all... At first glance it looks big, thick and heavy, but it's just appearance... Grip in the hand is very light .. And right from the start it conveys a feeling of artistic "plasticity", plasticity understood as tear-jerking sharpness, three-dimensional shapes, magical out-of-focus ... You can take beautiful photos even at ISO 12,800 and above. Even before taking and looking at the photos, just by mounting it on the camera, you perceive that you have a jewel in your hands with a huge potential. The only thing that on some occasions perhaps "clashes" a little, to very attentive and very demanding eyes like mine, (99% of users would not notice it at all) is a moderate general magenta dominant, typical of many Panaleica lenses and typical of Panasonic m4/3 sensors (I have not yet tried the one of the G9II) ... Nothing serious... it's something that is quite easily corrected, moreover I use the lens on the OM1, where this tendency to magenta is much less, especially in the OM1 II with the new color science. The autofocus, right on the OM1, is fast and very precise in any context, even sports. The stabilization on Olympus bodies is good ,but not great.... depending on the focal length it is possible to go down to 1/25 or 1/50..good values but far from Olympus standards.. probably on Panasonic bodies, with which the lens communicates better, you will be able to do a little better, at least I think ... sent on May 01, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 300mm f/4 IS Pro Pros: Sharpness, weight, build quality.. Exceptional for semi-static birdlife in all light conditions. It corresponds to a 600mm for FF, with F8 depth of field, 840mm with the 1.4x TC and 1200mm with the 2x TC Cons: Since the accuracy of the continuous autofocus drops significantly at 2x, it may be too short for birds of prey flying far away. No problem for semi-static ones. When the light fades (and 99% of enthusiasts are already on the couch) the autofocus of micro 4/3 cameras abandons you... it goes by manual focus.... Opinion: It is an amazing lens for weight and performance, super sharp from the center to the edges already at full aperture, it shows no drops with the TC 1.4x and in terms of sharpness it remains excellent even with the 2x (with the 2x it becomes a 1200mm, actually a 600mm f8 sharper than the Sony 200-600 at 600mm from the center to the edges), However, it loses a lot of effectiveness in continuous autofocus in sports and birdlife. It is able to pay for all zooms per FF, except for dynamic photography over long distances (birds of prey in flight) where the 45/60 mpx of the FF make the difference. And it can also give a hard time to the super tele F4 for FF mounted on traditional 24mpx sensors ... compared to which, however, it pays a lot in terms of blur. The stabilization is at the highest levels, both smooth and with the TCs you can go down at very slow times .. 1/10, 1/15 without problems... The autofocus is fast and accurate when smooth, it loses a little bit in very dynamic situations with the 1.4x TC, but remains fully usable, while it becomes almost unusable with the 2x TC (it remains fast and responsive but the keeper rate is very low). It is the biggest and heaviest, after 150-400, yet removed the metal ring it is light and usable / transportable freehand all day up and down the mountains. and I'll tell you that I can't stand excessive weights anymore !! Many of those who ignore the micro 4/3 system laugh and don't understand how a 300 F4 can cost so much and weigh so much, arguing that a normal 300 F4 for FF does the same things costing less and weighing less (so we talk about SLR stuff, since the only current 300 f4 for mirrorless cameras are the Sony 300 2.8 closed at f4 (7k) and the canon 100-300 2.8 closed at f4 (13k). Well... buy a 300 f4 for SLRs and compare it with the Olympus 300 Pro. and you'll see the difference.. sent on April 29, 2024 |
 | Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM Pros: Optical quality, weight, autofocus, blurred nice for a low light zoom, good but not record-breaking stabilization, lens hood with window to adjust the filters. Overall it is higher than 200-800 on all fronts, except that the latter at maximum focal lengths detaches the subject more. Cons: The external zooming mechanism is not the best, the build quality is good but the controls on the barrel are a bit too "dry", not very sensitive, and a bit "uncomfortable" to operate Opinion: The 100-500 is a little gem. Compared to the 100-400ii, it has 100mm more battery life, slightly higher image quality and even more effective stabilization when combined with good camera bodies. The sharpness and "clarity" in the center are surprising, at the edges there is a drop but they remain excellent. In the 3k range, it's the sharpest telephoto zoom ever and probably also with the best autofocus. it's a bit sharper than all the 150-600s and even the Sony 200-600... it is slightly sharper from the center to the edges at all focal lengths. But compared to the 150-600 and the 200-800 it does not offer the same blur at maximum focal length, this may be the only "limit" in certain situations. overall the blur is really beautiful, the most beautiful of the zooms, and holds up even when the light is not optimal, juncture in which all the others lose quality, but obviously the detachment of the subject at 500mm f7.1 cannot be comparable to that of a 600 f6.3 or 800 f9 .... The only "defect" that I personally found in it, is the zoom ring .... it is a bit hard, but above all it is placed too far forward ... Being used to very soft and fluid rings and zooms that do not extend I did not find myself very well with this 100-500, the zoom system forces me to a somewhat uncomfortable hand movement and the zoom that extends does not drive me crazy. As light as it is, handheld panning is limited by these aspects, and in the end, if I don't need the zoom, I keep it fixed at 500mm ... On a professional level, an R3 or a battery grip on the R5 / R6 is required to shoot stably. I immediately removed the ring with the stirrup, because the handle is too small and uncomfortable and to gain on weight. The ready-to-use lens with the bracket and camouflage cover weighs 1640g. I like the lens hood very much, there is a very comfortable window through which you can maneuver the filters. The stabilization has not always convinced me completely. I find it very very good on R6ii, but definitely inferior on R7, and even on R5ii it dances a little too much.. I think it's a problem of the bodies... There is something to review and fix sent on April 28, 2024 |
 | Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Pros: Price,Overall Quality Cons: "suffers" when the light is not optimal Opinion: To date, I would say that it is the absolute best choice for all those who want to practice birdlife or who want a 600mm with a "minimum" expense but with very high level performance... On the second-hand it can be found at ridiculous prices and for many it may already be enough to combine it with an A6400/6600 to have fun and take home beautiful photos, all for less than 2000 euros .. incredible!!! The new Canon 200-800 (F9 !!) for example costs 1000 euros more on its own than a 200-600 a6600 combo (and I doubt it does better things...) To the connoisseur ..... ; ) Optically it is still at the top among the 600mm zoommons, it is very sharp at the center already at full aperture, at the edges there is a moderate drop but we are still at excellent levels. If you want to do pixel peeping, being able to close to f8/9 you can see a further increase in sharpness... The blurry is its somewhat controversial appearance... Nothing to say as long as there is plenty of light, when the light goes down or is not optimal it tends (the expert eyes notice it) a little to "fade", to "wither" .. Also for this reason, the blur of the 200-600 (and of other dark zoommons in general) is now more and more often subject to being altered and counterfeited with hours of work and dozens of software passages in an attempt to make it more "beautiful" and close to that of a fixed ... Practices that I personally consider barbaric and ignoble, daughters of modern times and social junk .... but "unfortunately" today more than ever tastes are tastes ... The optical quality in general, however, is affected by the loss of light, both in the center and especially at the edges and precisely in the out-of-focus ... It is NO coincidence, in fact, that all the most POPULAR avifaunists and naturalists of this forum all switch over time to the 600 F4 GM (which has an equally relatively interesting price) .... If you always want maximum performance, the 200-600 alone is not enough... But let's talk about levels that are already very advanced.... The stabilization, on the most recent bodies (from A7r4 onwards) is valid, it is possible to go down even to 1/30 to 600mm in favorable shooting conditions. We are not at the level of the best competition but there is no longer an abyss sent on April 28, 2024 |
 | Olympus M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro Pros: A little bit of everything .... Cons: Age.... Although it is still the reference in the Om/Olympus system, if you want to keep up with the competition it is essential that its successor comes out, and it would also be desirable that it be a 50-200mm F2.8. Unspeakable lens hood Opinion: In practice, it still represents the backbone of the system, especially at a professional level... This says a lot about the quality with which it was designed and built, over 10 years ago, to such an extent that in 2022 it withstood the power of the OM1, further improving ... Someone complains that it is big and heavy... Bah... Ok, if you find me an 80-300 equivalent, F2.8, which weighs 880g and does not extend and that optically holds the two TCs while maintaining very high quality, and that can go down to 1/6 freehand at 300mm eq. (and with only the stabilization of the camera) and that costs 1000 euros new ... I believe him !! Vice versa... I don't believe him !! And in fact there is no similar 70-200, not even today after 10 years. The sharpness is very high, in reality it is not tearjerker as other lenses can be, yet it holds the TC 1.4x and even the 2x maintaining a very high quality, especially if you close by 1 stop. The stabilization (that of the camera, because the optical one is not there) is still at the top today, it allows you to go down to 1/6 at the maximum focal length. The autofocus is very good, although not incredibly perfect as its other more modern competitors, for other formats... And it loses something with TCs, especially with 2x, however it is still perfectly usable at a professional level even with 1.4x TC. However, when the light drops (I mean it drops to drastic levels, that is, in the dark, that is, when amateur amateurs are now on the sofa drinking coffee) then it goes into crisis because of the Olympus / OMsystem cameras that in such conditions struggle to hit the lens ... patience... will be used in manual focus... The blur is normal ... it's not amazing... it is an 80-300 equivalent,with depth of field f5,6 , well ... but not very beautiful in certain situations. It would have been nice if the Mark II version had come out, perhaps lengthened to 200 mm .... but unfortunately OMSYSTEM no longer has funds, skills, and will to go on and the system is inevitably slowly dying. I recommend buying it especially in the used one. Not that new costs so much, but because if you have to resell it the next day, they will give you less than half of what you paid for it. Olympus/OM equipment is no longer worth anything sent on April 27, 2024 |
 | Panasonic Leica DG Elmarit 200mm f/2.8 OIS Pros: Unique images, sharpness, weights and dimensions in relation to what it offers Cons: Complicated assistance, in case of need it is easier to contact extraterrestrials on 51 Pegasi B rather than Panasonic/Fowa/Ltr ... luckily there are serious shops like FotoColombo and also FotoLandia and others that give you a hand Opinion: It is a "stratospheric" lens, capable of portraying subjects in a unique way. the sharpness is at the top, it is not afraid of comparisons even with super telephoto lenses for FF that cost five times as much. The blurred is beautiful and distinctive. The autofocus is really fast and accurate, even on Olympus/OM bodies it performs better than Olympus PRO lenses. The stabilization is very good but I wouldn't say phenomenal. With the optical stabilization alone it is possible to go down to 1/50, in combination with that of the Panasonic cameras you gain an additional stop. Certainly the stabilization on Panasonic bodies is much better used than Olympus. The lens is quite compact and squat, it weighs a bit but nothing unbearable, you can use it without any problem all day handheld. The lens hood isn't really the best, it's a bit of a pain in the ass to have to assemble and disassemble it via a tiny screw. This 200 on the new G9ii could be a deadly weapon to roam through the woods up to very low light conditions, or even with the TCs mounted. Be very careful when updating the firmware and I recommend that you always buy it with a valid warranty and from reliable dealers, because unfortunately in case of repair you are crazy and you don't know how many spare parts you can find because it seems that Panasonic no longer produces this lens ..... I say apparently because to date I still haven't figured it out .... Panasonic mysteries... And it would be inconceivable, as well as a shame, because it is the flagship telephoto lens of the whole system. sent on April 26, 2024 |
 | OM System OM-1 II Pros: Pretty much everything, plus the new color science and gnd filters. In the hands of experts and those who know and appreciate the system, it will give fun and satisfaction in use and fantastic results up to ISO 12800 and beyond... While in hasty hands, such as those of FF owners or curious and impatient people, who do not know and do not know how to use the system properly, it will be denigrated and resold after three hours. I already hear them: "at high ISO it sucks" / "it doesn't make a photo in focus" .." it kneads everything"..."at 200 ISO there is an incredible noise" etc etc ... the usual nursery rhyme; ) Cons: The same as the Mark I, if we want to call them defects ... i.e. the continuous autofocus still not at the level of the best competition and the limited dynamic range .. Obviously the firmware update procedure through Workspace.. It's time to stop it with this extremely complex process !!! Give us the firmware to copy on the card and we do everything in the car. Value of the used, as usual OMsystem pieces after purchase are no longer worth anything Opinion: Since more than 10 months after the release of the camera there is still nowhere a review worthy of being called such, and no one has been and is able to tell you how the camera really goes and what has changed compared to the Mark I, I will make yet another effort and I will tell you. There has only been talk, like parrots, of improved autofocus and improved stabilization. BALES!!! Placed and emphasized that we are talking about a super-performing autofocus and a stabilization at the top, probably the best ever, but the autofocus has remained exactly the same as before and the stabilization as well. The continuous autofocus still tends to lose the subject and then hang it up during tracking, perhaps imperceptibly less than before, but with the two cameras side by side for days (both before and after the 1.7) I could not see appreciable differences... The stabilization is exactly the same as before, the times you can go down to with any lens are exactly the same as before... The detection of the various subjects has received minimal changes and practically only in form, not in substance. Except in birdlife, where recognition really makes a huge difference, at a professional level or where there are various subjects the camera must be used in single point, as well as all other FF flagships. the various speeches on the tracking of faces that are so fashionable in the forums are stuff for those who use the camera as a pastime on Sunday afternoons in the historic center or on Sunday morning at the game of their son ... things that don't interest me and don't serve me at all ... The only difference from the OM1 Mark I is the new color science. and I don't understand how no one noticed it and no one talked about it, evidently the level of competence and interest in micro 4/3 has dropped to a tragic level, worse than I feared .... Just look at the files to immediately notice the difference... the new colors you find more natural, more pleasant, it has been reduced to a minimum, practically eliminated any tendency towards magenta, which had already been reduced in the Mark I compared to all the other models. The retention of the file at high ISO has also improved ( a little of course ..) , starting from luminance noise the maintenance of the detail and contours of the subject has improved. Rightly, however, many could ask if it is worth changing the OM1 I for the II, and my answer is mainly NO, unless you want to have the new GND filters in your room, which are the only really valid reason to upgrade. Although the procedure is rather cumbersome and slow, however, I really like the final result, the difference can be seen, especially because you can correctly expose the shaded area which has always been the most critical for the type of sensor... I find the shot with the GND filter significantly better than the high-resolution shot that was underexposed and then recovered. The new 14bit high resolution file (it retains greens and shadows better in low light situations) doesn't tell me much, as it is still too limited in practice. the high resolution Olympus/OM files are very clean and workable but unfortunately the detail is too planed... they do not always give benefits, you have to evaluate from time to time .. The buffer has more than doubled... true, but it only makes a difference when using Pro Capture, and in any case it remains significantly inferior to that of the FF flagships. But personally I have never had problems even with the buffer of the Mark I and shooting bursts repeatedly. To evaluate the resistance of the materials over time, I hope that they will be more durable than those of the OM1 I, which strips off paint too quickly and whose ferrules tend to harden over time and lose fluidity. sent on April 24, 2024 |
 | OM System OM-1 Pros: Performance, ridiculously low price for what it offers, excellent image quality up to ISO 12800 and more. Ah!! : calm and cool !! the long-awaited update 1.7 that with which now the autofocus of the OM1 and the high resolution shooting would have improved a lot, according to those who downloaded it at 11 pm and at 11.01 have already noticed obvious improvements ... in reality it has not changed anything .. everything is identical to before Cons: Dynamic range sometimes a little limited, continuous autofocus still a little behind the FF flagships. Criminal devaluation of second-hand vehicles, often by retailers, even official ones. it is NOT suitable for the hurried, who in fact systematically resell it after three hours saying that the image quality sucks and that it does not focus on one ... A classic Opinion: sent on April 22, 2024 |
 | OM System M.Zuiko ED 150-600mm f/5-6.3 IS Pros: Blur, stabilization, autofocus, pump zoom Cons: PRICE, weight and dimensions, optical quality not always brilliant, tends to mix fine details in situations of non-optimal light, selectors hard to operate, zoom that extends. Needless to say, the 2x is totally unusable and the 1.4x only and exclusively for very distant subjects and in perfect light and air conditions, that is, practically never. Opinion: sent on April 22, 2024 |
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
