|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Pgatto www.juzaphoto.com/p/Pgatto  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Canon EOS R7 Pros: Mah... Cons: Too many to be a top of the range, even if Aps-c. Opinion: After almost 3 years and over 100000 shots I sold it and I don't miss it... The "unfinished" (I call it such) that on paper should have replaced the 7D2, honestly, was a disappointment. Having been forced 3 years ago to replace a 7D2 whose repair would have cost too much for a camera with almost 200,000 shots to its credit and having already R6 that had worthily replaced 5D4, I could only take an R7 (in Canon then there were no alternatives...), the premises on paper were all in its favor for those like me who should have used it for sport, electronic shutter, burst, maf, in short, I should have improved the quality of my shots which translated meant working better in less time, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth, or better: if you used it as I used the Reflex then, mechanical shutter/1 electronic curtain, outdoors (then I'll explain why) in fact maf and iso hold were better (and fortunately...) but wanting to use the "advantages" of an ML, the problems begin and I dwell only on those that – as soon as I found a valid alternative – led me to sell it without regrets, but there are others already said by those who preceded me. Electronic shutter unusable in sports (football/basketball/volleyball balls that look like rugby balls as well as arms/legs of athletes that look bionic, given the unacceptable rolling shutter) as well as it is unusable in closed places illuminated by LEDs, due to excessive banding... But if for sport - patience for the burst ... - you can always use the mechanic / 1TE, in theaters / churches this is unusable because it makes more noise than a submachine gun ... Not to mention the buffer, ridiculous, especially if, for example, in birdlife you wanted to take advantage of pre-shot and similar features! So, if I change a 7D2 with an R7 to use the R7 as I used the 7D2, I might as well save a lot of money and take another 7D2, a single stop of iso and the more performing autofocus absolutely do not justify the change. Finally, after a few months ago – also shooting in the theater and not being able to use it for the reasons mentioned above – I added an R8 to the R6, out of curiosity I wanted to try the latter also in the field of sports / birdlife and it turned out to be superior to the R7 in everything, especially in what should be the primary field of use of R7 - sport and birdlife - even with teleconverter mounted... of course someone will say, compare a FF with an Aps-c... I would say that I compare 2 cameras with a similar price, one top of the range even if Aps-c and the other entry level and since in the end, in photography, what matters (at least for me) is the result, I sold R7 and I kept R6 and R8, without regrets. I have been using Canon since digital existed, I have had among others 5D2, 5D4, 6D, 6D2, 7D, 7D2, R6, R7 and R8 and I can say with certainty that the R7, of all, is the worst success, precisely the unfinished ... sent on June 03, 2025 |
 | Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Pros: 800mm, weight, sharpness, AF. Cons: Rather than "against", it would be appropriate to consider them for what they really are, that is, "characteristics" of this lens. Opinion: After a couple of months of almost exclusive use and a few thousand shots taken with R6 and R7, I try to have my say on this lens. Premise: if I had to base the purchase on what I read, especially on the opinions of those who don't have it, or have "tried it for half a day" (a classic now of any forum/site/group/etc), surely I would have avoided it like the plague... But since I'm curious and I like to "try it to believe it", as soon as I found a practically new one, with a lens hood (mandatory!) at the cost I had set myself to spend on a lens that I would have used little, I bought it and I passed the tantrum. The weight is the first positive feature that you notice as soon as you handle it and mount it does not unbalance at all. The autofocus is fast and precise, as well as the stabilizer (was I lucky?), I took bursts of up to 10 frames of birds in flight, all in focus, once locked the subject does not lose it and the results are sharp, detailed photos (as much as photos of subjects often many tens of meters away can be so the environmental conditions etc must be considered, and this applies to any lens...). The "problem" is obviously being able to frame the subject, but do we want to consider it a "defect" of the lens? It is an 800, an "extreme" lens, difficult to use and as such requires at least hundreds of "wrong shots" before understanding how and in what context it should be used, plus it is wrong to compare it with other "apparently" similar lenses (150-600 for everyone), personally I have 2 100-400 (EF II and RF) and with the 800 they have nothing to do ... At most it can be compared to the 800 f/5.6 which costs 10 times as much, but it would be like comparing the usual good Panda with the usual Ferrari (although, looking at the few photos available here in the "galleries", paradoxically it doesn't seem to me that the comparison is ungenerous for him...). As mentioned, I used it on both R6 and R7, walking with the 800 "physically" does not tire, but you have to go out aware that you need to "look from 6 meters onwards", and possibly on days of full sun (but even in this case, R6 and R7 make up very well for the limit imposed by the f/11 and then, for those who have them, the various SW with AI take care of the rest). So, if you think of going out with the 800 as a replacement, for example, for a 100-400, to shoot both distant subjects and butterflies or insects, better to avoid, it is not his job, but do we want to blame him? A "note" for R6 owners: be careful because on the R6 (at least on mine) just mounted it had great difficulty focusing (while on the R7 it was perfect, so I immediately ruled out lens problems), but I had not updated the firmware of the R6 (I still had Ver.1.8.3): updated to 1.8.4, problem solved! (too bad that Canon, in the release document, does not mention this "thing" and who knows how many others...). I didn't notice any big differences between the two configurations, apart of course from having to shoot with much "shorter" shutter speeds with R7 but even in this case, do we want to "blame" the lens? For the rest, with all the limitations that I recognize myself as a "simple avifauna enthusiast", I prefer to let the results obtained in the gallery I dedicated to the 800 f/11 speak for themselves. In conclusion, despite the fact that here some "serial commentators" even claimed that "it should not even have been born", evidently in Canon they do not read forums and this honest, extreme, difficult, controversial lens is there and in my opinion it does its job very well. A "defect", at least in my case, since I normally shoot sports/theater? Sooner or later, like all "extreme" lenses, it will end up in the closet or be resold, but certainly not through its "fault". sent on July 28, 2024 |
 | Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Pros: Sharpness, MAF speed, color rendering, overall quality. Cons: Weight and for those who work with Canon, zoom dial that rotates backwards. Opinion: After months of use and thousands of shots taken with this lens, I think I can have my say on this "particular" lens, unique in its 50-100 excursion that theoretically could make it seem "limited" compared to the classic 70-200 but that, born for Aps-c, makes it excellent for indoor sports which is then the use I make of it. Very sharp and usable already at 1.8, on R7 it focuses lightning fast and keeps it on bursts of even 10-12 frames, the colors are perfect without any dominant, the rings are fluid and the tripod ring, fixed even if rotatable, does not disturb in their use. To the touch it is a pleasure, like all Art, weighs, of course, a zoom f / 1.8 on the entire focal range is normal that it weighs, but once you see the results, the fatigue is quickly forgotten. The lack of stabilization is brilliantly compensated by the IBIS of the R7 even if, for the use I make of it, I would not have suffered the lack anyway. I also use it on R6 where, however, "vignettava" very little, too bad that with the latest firmware update Sigma has decided to make it "Canon", in the sense that the R6 immediately recognizes that it is a lens for Aps-c and automatically sets the "crop ratio / size" to 1.6, consequently reducing the file size. Too bad because, as mentioned, vignettava little and cropping the image "manually", the file size would have remained considerably larger and consequently also more workable. However, just shoot as you did once and the problem is almost solved. The only negative note I found, working with Canon, is the direction of rotation of the zoom ring: I wonder why Sigma decided to rotate it backwards, since I think almost all the other Sigma (I have the 24-105 Art, I had the 17-50 and the 10-20) rotate in the direction "Canon" and when you work with 2 bodies at the same time - especially in sports - it is not at all easy to have to remember the sense rotation of one or the other zoom... I just didn't understand this! sent on January 17, 2023 |
 | Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Pros: Weight, weight, weight!!! but also sharpness, speed and minimum distance of MAF. Cons: Probably the position of the control ring, a hindrance when you want to focus manually. Opinion: I state that I have been for years very happy owner and user of the EF 100-400 IS II, which for me remains the best zoom so far produced, which I use in Football, Rugby, air shows, etc. but I do not hide that outside the use mentioned above, I began to have difficulty carrying it with me "every day" even for a bit of birdlife or for fields. So, just switched to R6 and 7, curiosity got the better of it and, very skeptical, I wanted to take this RF 100-400 basically encouraged by featherweight for a 100-400. The first shots I took them in the garden, close-ups and already here, brandishing 1200 grams of R7 + RF 100-400 against the previous 2500 of 7D2 + 100-400 II, it was a pleasure! But even the results were not so bad indeed... So I took him to an air show and even there he showed himself up to it, but above all my back, after a day, was still almost healthy ... On Sunday, finally, I wanted to use it for the first half of a football match (in the second half I used the EF, so I could compare the results) and also in this case it behaved very well. Of course, the blurred, although pleasant, is not that of the "big biancone", in some situations of low contrast sends the MAF a bit into crisis, f / 8 if there is not so much light is the minimum union (although it must be said that the excellent management of the high ISO of both R6 and R7 (developing with DPP) helps a lot, it is not tropicalized (but frankly, I have always "protected" my equipment and I will continue to do so, tropicalized or not ...) but we are talking about a 100-400 of 750 euros ... and frankly, it's not worth 1/4 of its big brother EF but much, much more! I did not like the position of the control ring, I will probably have to take my hand, but it is the first I find when I intend to focus manually, perhaps the two rings should be positioned in reverse. As with all non-L lenses, Canon is careful not to provide bag and hood, but fortunately they are both (the bag even more valid than the "soft bags" and expensive ...) for little money, especially the hood: for the original Canon asks almost 100 euros, I took an excellent Profox - identical in everything except in the internal "velvet" - just over 10 ... In short, for me it is promoted with flying colors, I do everything, with R6 it is a "long all-rounder", with R7 you have fun for itinerant birdlife, sports with good light and many other occasions. ... And anyway, only those who do not have it speak badly, but on the web it is the rule. sent on September 20, 2022 |
 | Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Pros: Ta sharpness, construction, MAF speed, stabilization, value for money Cons: For what it costs, no one. Opinion: If you wanted to make a comparison with the world of football, paraphrasing even a well-known Ligabue song, I would call this lens an excellent "median": honest, versatile, well done, you mount it, shots and he always gives you a good result ... I had bought it for a use that -- at least reading a lot of reviews -- did little to suit what I would need, "a short zoom" to use under basketball basket, MAF's speed seemed not to be adequate, instead - as usual, I haven't put too much weight on what I read around and when I can, I prefer to buy and try firsthand... - it was enough to mount it on the 7D2 and "as if by enchantment" little Sigma became a splinter, keeping the focus on gusts of 5-7 frames, without any problem. It is already sharp at 2.8, the stabilizer works excellently, the blurry is pleasant although it is not at the levels of the "Hawthorn" IS II (but in my opinion higher than that of the 40 pancakes) and then the construction, even if there is a lot of plastic, is really beautiful, well above the purchase price, the barrel flows smoothly but with the right resistance, so much so that the 17mm lock button I think is superfluous, the lampshed fits perfectly even in the rest position and finally, no problem of F/B focus, consequently no need for fine adjustment (and it is already the third Sigma that does not require "fine af adjustment", I think that in Sigma they have changed something in the "quality control"...) sent on November 08, 2020 |
 | Sigma 24-105mm f/4 DG OS HSM Art Pros: Versatility, sharpness already at TA, speed MAF, blurred, colour rendition faithful, pleasant to the touch... Cons: In certain situations "vignette" lightly, the weight (but the quality "weighs"...) Opinion: Premise Duty: I was biased towards the Sigma, so far all 4 of the optics I had taken had always had problems of F/B focus, not correctable in the room and therefore my despite I always had to return, "folding" (it is to say...;)) on Original optics of Canon mom. When I took it (in Test...) I had already had as many as 2 copies of the counterpart Canon I version and in both cases (I will have been particularly lame...) I was disappointed: poor sharpness, af not up to an original optics, blurred better to let loose ... Not being a "range" by me much used (mainly shooting sports then with "long" lenses) I did not mean in this case spend too much to take the new canon, so I had taken the excellent 24-70 F/4 canon, sharp, fast, light, etc. just that in Too many occasions was short... those 35mm more would have made me comfortable and then, when they proposed to try it without any commitment for a few days, I took advantage, convinced that would have made the same end of his predecessors... Instead, to my surprise, not only the optics in question did not manifest any problem of F/B focus, but using it in various situations, from closed for events to motor shows, the more I used it and more I liked! I already wrote my impressions on the "pros", that "pleasing to the touch" is everything, it seems to use a perspective of the years that were, heavy yes, but the build quality is there and you feel in this case in the weight. I mean, I liked it and I like it more and more, it has a nice blur, TA you get a three-dimensionality and a detachment of the foreground subject worthy of much more expensive optics, as is faithful the color rendition (someone says that the colors are slightly Cold, it doesn't seem to me but I don't exclude it). Only flaw, but easily correctable in PP; In certain situations vignette (but also vignettavano the 2 Canon "old", I do not know the new because I have never tried) and for someone the weight, but as said before I do not consider it a problem, accustomed to turn with heavy optics, when I mount the "Fifty" I always fear Having forgotten the target, so its weight "reassures me." I took it in physical store to less than 700 euros with 3 years of official mtrading warranty, I think it's worth them all and even more! sent on July 12, 2018 |
 | Lowepro Flipside 500 AW Pros: So much space !!! Cons: Maybe the opening system on the back, but I think it's just a habit. Opinion: I needed a backpack that contained 2 "ready to use" reflexes with the Battery grip mounted + 100-400 on one and 70-200 on the other (in sports fields I prefer to avoid mounting and disassembling lenses). Without the BG, the honest Amazon could go well, but with the BG there was no depth, then fast search on the web and buy only 64 euros on Aliexpress for this gorgeous backpack, arrived in less than a month. At the figure paid I believe there are no rivals and anyway I can only confirm what has already been written, besides the quality and ergonomics of Lowepro products are not discussed, this is the third "Flipside" I have - of various sizes - and all have me fully satisfied. For use, I have removed several separators and there is plenty of space as well as accessories (batteries, etc) also for a sweatshirt, rain, water bottle, sandwich ... in short, a great buy. sent on November 29, 2017 |
 | Canon 6D Mark II Pros: The same as the "old" 6D ??+ MAF, burst, tropicalization, swivel screen, touchscreen, battery life, more workable files and more ... Cons: 98% coverage and second slot shortage. Opinion: I needed a 6D with an AF module and bursts worthy of being called so I could shoot into illumined gyms / fields where my 7d2 showed all its ISO high limit and the 6D showed those related to autofocus / burst. I found it.nn I add more, leaving the word to everyone who has "massacred" him for hearing or reading tests, graphics, etc. etc .: I prefer to spend my time shooting, rather than "googlare" and feed sterile discussions of the kind "me told my cousin ..." sent on November 12, 2017 |
 | Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro Pros: Versatile, light, crisp, "almost macro", pleasing bokeh, minimum distance of MAF, tropicalization. Cons: If you want to be fussy, it's not really a 300mm, the new price though for what it offers them all. Opinion: I had this lens a few years ago, coupled with a Canon 700D, and when I realized how to use it, I liked it a lot. Moving to FF, reluctantly, I sold it but I always went looking for a "handyman" that would allow me to go home with a go-go or on the go. Having an Aps-c body, I took advantage of an Amazon opportunity and resumed it. I use it with a 7D2 for the "read" outputs and honestly do not know what one might ask for more than one optic that maintains good sharpness - at least 200mm - already in TA (beyond just close 1, max 2 stop And sharpness returns to more than appreciable values), always considering the price range but above all the use it makes of such an optic. I find it particularly convenient to go in an instant and above all without having to change optics, from "macro" to "pushed" telescopes, especially in the countryside"I go to butterflies" or insects. Obviously it's not the 100-400 IS II, but weighs well over 1kg less and anyway, working a little in pp, the results you get do not regret having left home for a walk without a slut, the big brother .rnPacific blurry and natural colors, fast enough for MAF and great stabilizer, although I noticed that taking longer than 1/250 "and keeping it off, will be my impression, but the photos are crisper ... RnFollowing not being able to use it with 6D, but you can not have it all and anyway, the fact that it is tropicalized, I would prefer to pair with 7D2.rnIn conclusion, I am very pleased to have taken it back between "whites" and " Whites "that I have and I appreciate, this" little "Tamron does not matter at all! sent on August 20, 2017 |
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Pros: All! Cons: To be fussy, I would have liked the same minimum distance of MAF 100-400 II, for the rest nothing! Opinion: Writing the "Biancone" is difficult because now everything has been written and I can only confirm the positive impressions of those who preceded me. Already a happy owner of the "Smooth White", I doubted that the "big brother" could have the same excellent clarity as the little one (mine is particularly successful ...) already at TA. I am very happy to have been copying, this lens allows me to work where I first had to surrender or raise ISO ... Prior to him I tried another 70-200 f / 2.8 (the Tamron, Sigma) but none of them had the same clarity To TA, in the little lighted gyms indispensable to bring home at least decent results. RnPredred long focal lengths, so for me 70-200 is almost a handyman, especially if mounted on FF. Of course, it weighs more than the "whitewash", but the weight you get used to, the results obtained with this lens is a pleasure, even greater than the one I was used to. AvailEven on the 100-400 II I do not think I will use it with multipliers. I only regret it: did not buy it before ... but considering the price I got it, I removed Canon's cashback, maybe I did well to wait. The second regret: it goes to finish that I sell the faithful whitewash, from which I would not be separated for anything in the world ... rnrn sent on June 07, 2017 |
 | Kenko Teleplus 1.4x HD DGX Pros: Price - compatibility - sharpness. Cons: Some difficulties for the AF nell'agganciare the subject when used for small / fast subjects / with not optimal light. Opinion: I already had in the past some converter Kenko and I always judge them positively, excellent value for money, almost absolute compatibility, relatively small image definition loss. I bought this because the "old" (so to speak ...) DGX result is not compatible with the Canon coupled 7DMarkII + Canon 100-400 f / 4.5-5.6 IS USM II.Confermo the positive impression even for this new HD, but if you use it for stationary subjects or so fast; Here I think it is even higher than the already excellent DGX, but if you want to use in "AI-Servo" chasing a bird, maybe small, shows its limits (but I think they are the limits of all the teleconverter, are still additional lens between the subject and the sensor ... but I have not tried the Canon, my opinion is therefore partial) .My opinion is generally positive, but for static subjects or slow moving or particularly neighbors and good light. sent on November 11, 2016 |
 | Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Pros: Versatility (especially on FF) - Stabilizer - weight / size - Price! Cons: If I find one: AF a bit 'slow with poor light and lens hood "excessive" Opinion: Having also had far more "noble" zoom / tele as well as expensive, I can say with knowledge of the facts that this 70-300 - referenced to zoom hand hiking - definitely worth more than what it costs! The use of Canon 6D and 7DMkII and in both cases I get photos more than decent. With the FF then it is almost a "handyman" and the factor "crop" of APS-C brings its "length" the equivalent of 480mm, certainly sufficient for distant subjects. Someone "laments" a slight softness to "TA" beyond 200mm, personally do not understand the reason for wanting to insist on getting the most to "TA", just "close" f / 8 (which also did it with much more expensive optical, to get the maximum sharpness ...) and the "problem" is solved ... for against, the excellent stabilizer which is fitted to this objective, allows to earn easily stop 3 without risk of micromosso.rnPesa relatively smoothly and comes in a medium sized bag, while I do not like it at all excessive lens hood, with one mounted do not pass unnoticed ... and in the rest position does not allow to act on zoom and Maf, but it is a "classic" of the optical Tamron, nearly a price to pay ... rnSe I have to find a functional defect, I would say that the Autofocus - low light - is not fast; but in low light, most or all the objectives are in crisis, except they do not have optical light, but exponentially proportionate to the costs luminosità.rnConcludendo, I think for what it costs, and for its versatility (especially on FF) is perspective to have in your kit, knowing her and knowing she use you can take much satisfaction (and I add that: "if it was white and it cost three times, would be" for all "a great goal" :-D sent on June 22, 2016 |
 | Panasonic Lumix FZ300 Pros: Leica optics, tropicalization, versatility, burst, quality jpg, 4K video. Cons: The size of the sensor! Opinion: Possessor of 6D and 7DMkII, I took this Bridge for occasions where I like to travel light without sacrificing a good quality of scatti.rnHo ever had the previous version, the FZ200, which I was very pleased but which presented a weakness (too weak, given that in 16 months the two specimens in my possession were promptly broken ...): the rear dial button / wheel. Too bad because otherwise it was truly remarkable! RnAvendo learned from Panasonic - who had complained about the problem - that in this 300 the mechanism had been completely redesigned, as soon as I had the opportunity I got it and sincerely, aim apart (but also sensor, unfortunately ...!), it seems another camera! RNLA DMC-FZ300 superzoom bridge is not excessive but the excellent Leica lens, equivalent to 25-600mm f / 2.8 constant, does not regret those with focal even more pressures; This "compact" I find excellent the flurry and 4k videos from which you can extract pictures in high resolution, tropicalization it very useful on vacation, plus various other gadgets of sw at its disposal, not to mention the high quality of the jpg that churns out, I usually shooting in raw, but so far I am not able to improve the result of the same file offered by the camera, working it with camera raw. rnCome said, the mechanics have been completely changed for the benefit of ergonomics (and, I might add, of the resistance ...) remain the 4 programmable function keys with full functionality, improved stabilizer as well as the electronic viewfinder, MAF fast and Function tracking that once caught the subject, no longer is spring, combined with the deadly barrage, it can take home a remarkable effect shots. also improved the monitor, touch screen and now introduced the wi-fi with all its benefits for those who use it (although at the expense of battery life ...) rnC'è to say that disposing of a compact sensor ( absurd, although commercially understandable ... potEvano least mount to 1 "of FZ1000 ...), as long as you do not have to crop, after all the results are more than acceptable, but croppando are immediately out of all the limits of the sensor ... (and thank goodness, otherwise goodbye SLR, lenses, etc ...!) however, to travel light, it is perfect: with a weight of just over 500 grams and a footprint mini SLR, you will cover every conceivable focal and you take home more images that decent, without regretting too SLRs remained nell'armadio.rn sent on April 23, 2016 |
 | Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Pros: price-performance ratio - Quality of construction - Noise. Cons: Hood "excessive" - ??Minimum distance of MAF. Opinion: Tamron 150-600 are on the second, I was satisfied with the results obtained with the first, sold in a moment of "madness mirrorless" promptly returned ... Of this I can only talk about it even better, whereas in the meantime I got to use for about 6 months, II 100-400, definitely the top of the zoom at this time, but ... "laboratory" aside, really worth nearly triple the Tamron ...? As would the Manzoni, "posterity will judge!" Just arrived and mounted, having in fact already had a 150-600, it took a hit: half-pressing the shutter button, without even bringing the viewfinder eye, I did not feel it 'the hum of the MAF, it 'much less the ticking of the stabilizer ... I was now resigned to having to send back ends of the earth, because of your scruples than anything else, I tried to frame and miracle: the subject in sharp focus, red lED lights and image perfectly still! !! I controprova, off everything, reactivated, short, short, Tamron after one year must have changed more than anything in the mechanics because now, to hear the engine of maf in action, there must be absolute silence and stabilizer is much less invasive than usual, it seems that stabilize - as the 100-400 II based on 3 - the time of capture or very little before! A couple of days ago I got to try it for good, good light conditions though with slight haze, lake, birds and even here the impressions are still positive: up to 400mm, as sharpness, it seems to me is equivalent to "stuff" far more noble (and expensive ...), certainly the AF is not the lightning of 100-400 II, but with the 7DMkII in AI SERVO-houses and 1, once the subject hooked not lose, I got to take a couple of "bursts" between 400mm and 600mm in swans in flight, and the results are there for all to see in my gallery, very satisfying for me (with the 7D similar results could only dream of them ...). Dicevor "up to 400", but honestly even 600 is not bad at all and then, many 600 they get there ... not even to talk about what I do not like, tell you now that the hood is really excessive, almost embarrassing! Possible that they were really necessary and passes 20 cm ??? But apparently, in the house Tamron, the hood like the beautiful, long and tacky !!! Another unpleasant aspect, but only when compared to 100-400 II, MAF is the minimum distance that prevents me, once this lens attached, to do anything other than birds: in this, I miss the 95 cm minimum maf Canon 100-400 II that made it much more versatile, but ... that is what is written above and then, you can not have everything, this is born to "shoot away", and it does so well! In conclusion, I am extremely pleased with this honest lens that allows to have fun and take home great shots at a figure well below the quality of service (but this is the story of TaMRON ...), with 7DMkII to the maximum, but also with 6D I find it excellent. sent on March 22, 2016 |
 | Panasonic Lumix FZ200 Pros: The Leica is a guarantee: F/2.8 constant from 25 to 600 is remarkable and allows you to stay low with the ISO even with very little light. Great for taking pictures at concerts and theaters / museums without flash! RnOttima autonomy, "consume" very little! RnVideo eccellenti.rnScatta in RAW. Cons: Given the potential use in "Manual", it would be desirable to have a control dial, instead of the wheel / button that is prone to breaking! RNE then the assistance ... shopaholic that no faults ever! Opinion: If you want to have a camera that clicks good pictures in all conditions, I think the DMC-FZ200 is just the camera that is right: versatile, fast, maneuverable, powerful, I do not regret at all the previous SLR, with all its set of goals! Already in "auto" you get good photos, but if you really want to have fun in the "manual" gives the fullest! Not bad even in macro, of course if you do not want to print the posters ... Also good autonomy, almost 600 shots, a little 'less ease of use that requires a brief period of "break-in" before it can be exploited in pieno.rnPeccato only the lack of the "dial", the presence of various non-programmable buttons makes up for this deficiency, in this and bring it closer to a more compact "frame it and click" to a machine that does not controllable in all! sent on January 03, 2014 |
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
