|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Photograffer www.juzaphoto.com/p/Photograffer  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Pentax K-1 Pros: THE QUEEN OF THE NIGHT possesses all the features most recent in the field of photography, such as the star-tracer, for example, in addition to wi-fi and gps; the articulated screen in all directions is a remarkable plus; exceptional stabilization that allows you to take freehand with ridiculous times and with any lens, including fixed large-aperture, using them and being able to photograph with long times are obtained nocturnal images crazy; held at high ISO to the highest levels; pixel shift improved compared to that of the K-3 II, although still far from having an effective utility apart from that for the subjects perfectly still; sharpness of the file to high ISO low (does not have the AA filter, however simulated); impressive dynamic range, which comes in 17 eye stop in pixelshift mode and between 14.5 and 15 in normal mode (update: Doxmark found 14.6 stop); price. Cons: The autofocus module, which does not seem to be quick and accurate as that of the best competition, also because it has too sensitive points clustered in the center; video industry just enough. I see no other defects. Opinion: DOXMARK put it just behind the Nikon d810, Pentax and veduta.rnrnParlando reason, in the past I had the K-5. Compared to that, this weighs a 200 gr in addition, to the eye, and it is very slightly larger, and therefore not in the slaughter carry it around, while revealing a remarkable building solidity. The sensor is exalted: the latest generation of Sony, run by a muscle CPU, and the yield at high iso is just barely below that of D810A (even comparing to the naked eye RAW), which is widely regarded as the best among the ultradensi cameras with sensors as regards the cleaning to iso high. It follows that even surpasses that of the D800 'smooth' where I come from. Despite the 36 MP, STABILIZATION 5 AXIS ALLOWS TO AVOID shake-IN MANY CASES; and in the recovery of static subjects in critical light conditions you can take freehand with long residence times, avoiding to raise the iso and then gaining in cleaning the image. This in my opinion is theperfect machine to take pictures at night, especially free hand, because of the combination of excellent stability and cleanliness at high ISO. Apart from the huge advantage for those who do astrophotography, to take advantage of the movement in combination with the built-in GPS sensor to follow the stars, 'IN PRACTICE THE QUEEN OF THE NIGHT STREET, when you mount the tripod is not desirable ... Consider that machines top from 5000 € Canon and Nikon have less dense sensors and therefore (theoretically) the cleanest, but they can not count on stabilization at 5 axes in that mount objectives: this means that if with competitors in a typical situation night photos can not fall below 1/30 sec., although with the lens stabilizer, with K-1 can get to 1/20 or even 1/15, which means maybe go from 12800 to 6400 or 4000. not to mention that fixed focal aperture lenses stabilized still do not exist, while the Pentax I stabilizing 5-axis even using a 50 mm 1.4 ... Do you. IN THIS REGARD TO AN IMPORTANT NOTE: The native software per PC, ie the SILKYPIX, as often happens with the supplied data programs does not shine for developing capabilities and sharpness of the picture, but I've never seen a software capable to the point of demosaicizzare s at high iso file without coming out noise. The machine itself is a little noisy, but it is amazing to take iso 6400 and, while setting the noise reduction parameters to zero, having really straining for noticing the slightest trace. And the preservation of colorful details in 'extreme' situations is record-breaking. Using the other hand, for example, Lightroom, and bringing the NR to zero, a minimum of noise is known, although very little by little, so that also prints on A3 up to ISO 6400 would be unnoticeable in my opinion. Another advantage about the sheer quality of the file, together with the low noise at ISO higher, AND 'THE SHARPNESS A ISO BASS: to ISO 100 you have an ability to capture absolutely incomparable details: working in RAW with LR performance in this regard are incredible and really allow, andnot to pretend like when sometimes tells of some machines "miraculous" to crop pushed maintaining a high quality ... And consider that I am using a 50 mm 1.4, hardly a champion Pentax home and at risolvenza. At these levels of quality, the result with prints made on paper 'as it should' is certainly monstrous. The exposure latitude, then it is even absurd. DR OBTAINED WITH THIS CAR IS 'SIMPLY TO SCREAM. With the default settings often tends to overexpose with photos made with a lot of light, so you find yourself thinking that the high lights tend to suffer burning them too often. In fact, once configured and understand the metering modes to use depending on the scene, the results are incredible. We do not know how but Pentax have even managed to overcome the D800. I come from that then the comparison I have beautiful light. There you can safely indulge in underexposed photograph, even a lot ... This will preserve the highlights and shadows becomesno black, but ... Do not worry! The K-1 is able to recover so unthinkable. You can lift the dark area of ??2,3,4-stop and still not notice appreciable noise ... Bellissimo.rnrnIL PIXEL SHIFT AND 'DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS CAR PENTAX: when the camera takes 4 photos and puts them together, the soft internal detects image areas that do not match perfectly together and makes us a 'piece' reconstructing by interpolation. In any case, in order to obtain the promised results, namely a drastic reduction of noise compared to the normal shooting (and an increase in the DR of at least two other stop, for a latitude of it poses that at that point is estimated at approximately 17 stop ...! !!!!), it is still necessary to rely on the tripod, clearly beyond the shutter remotely, also because it is evident that the management of the machine jpeg obtained with quadruple shots is still little mature and some times the mechanism of recombination of the 4 images fails to superimpose well, even with minimal displacements during the shots, generating artifacts wellvisible. It 'clear that if the pixelshift technology still needs a perfect stillness of the machine is that of the subject to function, is an unnecessary technology and looks more like a gem sciapa that serves as a mirror for larks; in fact, the same result would be obtained at that point by recombining 4 common shots in succession, made with 'common' cameras, and then reworking to a PC with appropriate software. It is hoped that this is due to the internal software still imperfect, which would also be demonstrated by some bugs found during the use of the ring 'SmartWheel' ... rnIL FORM AUTO FOCUS is given to get to -3 ev, however, to almost dark wavers a bit ', although it must be said that I have used so far only the Pentax FA 50 mm 1.4 which is known to not be good to cooperate with the AF of the machines which it is connected (in addition to the fact that it is slow as a sloth early morning and noisy to suck) ... In any case there is always the auxiliary illuminator.In any case, there remains the feeling that is confirmed with the K-1 Pentax the long-standing problem in not being able to match the top competitors as regards the autofocus. In fact, even in situations with a lot of light in the form shows a certain indecision nell'agganciare the subject when the same has particular purposes which, by its shape or color, put the whip ... When the phase detection, in the same situations, Canon and especially Nikon go without fail. Chasing moving subjects, the music does not change, there is a certain difficulty to engage them and keep them in focus, also because of too dots clustered in the center. And in birds, for example, it is certainly not helped by 4 shots per second burst ... In short, I've owned machines Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Fujifilm and I can say that so far, the level of the first two it is unsurpassed. We only hope that on this occasion we can improve even with a future firmware. rnrnI JPEG MADE MACHINE look very good: not to the level ofThe Canon 6D (who had know what I mean ...) or a Nikon 810A, but still among the best I've seen: the mixed effect becomes boring only by 3200 up, diciamo.rnIL FUND AND VIDEO ', AS USUAL iN PENTAX, UN PO' snubbed: we are at 1920 x 1080 30 fps the P and 60 at most. It was claimed the 4k, but the full hd yes to at least 60 fps progressive. Personally, I do not give a damn to do video, but if you are interested, well, we Scarsini. The good news is that relying on the stabilizer 5 to the video axes are also moved little freehand, and especially the rolling shutter is well final neutralizzato.rnIn is a machine to be considered certainly PRO-level; the shutter speed up to 1/8000, is fully customizable, and has dual slot, it is obviously tropicalized in a workmanlike manner as Pentax tradition, and has a shutter tested for 300,000 cycles. The autofocus can be improved, especially in tracking moving subjects, and K-1 and non &serious; fast continuous shooting at, but it must be said that none of the 36 MP camera is less than a mirrorless and therefore can rely on the electronic shutter. with savings in every way cropping APSC (MP 15) comes to 6.5 FPS ... Anyway NOT 'a machine designed for dynamic genres and if your industry is no better, even in APSC at that point, the pennies. If your bread is more 'static', like mine, that street (even at night), portraits, landscapes, this is a car to be taken immediately, by virtue of impressive performances in critical light conditions and even more crazy yield in terms of dynamic range. I have paid 1999 euro as the official price in the store, but there is including the 4 year warranty Fowa; Otherwise it can be found on the euro in 1800, which means many pennies cheaper than virtually all the other cameras of the same range, even those with projects that start to be dated...rnrn sent on June 11, 2016 |
 | Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G Pros: Risolvenza sublime in relation to the cost, minimum weight, bright, at room temperature and up to 2.5-2.8 even goes well on FX SLR (with very little vignetting eliminated PP) Cons: Autofocus goes sometimes in crisis with openings from 5.6 up, plasticky, manual focus ring loose, chromatic aberration at the edges quite obvious if used 2.2 up Opinion: It 's amazing to think that costs 200 euro to be new if you consider the sharpness which already allows TA: the 1.4 mm 50 g for example, to have the same risolvenza must be pushed to 4.0 and higher. As a result although more detailed, ideally slightly dimmer, at night allows picture so to exploit the densest sensors like the one of my D800. That's right: in fact, despite being designed for DX runs quietly even on FF, and indeed, enhances even more the features. E 'literally impossible to find a glass that makes it so at that price. Up to 2.5 or so vignetting that is created using the FX it is eliminable in the post, over no. However you can always set the DX format and at that point you do not have problems and we get a more resolvent 1.4 g 50 mm focal VERY. The yield is quite amazing, and to enhance the 36 MP of the D800 is ideal; other lenses that can cost us from 1000 up on Nikon and Sigma 800 (series ART).The defects are typical of economic lenses: plasticky construction, glass untreated and more cheesy and therefore the edges manifests chromatic aberration and a certain deterioration of the image. Also the ring of manual MAF is loose and 'hooked' after some slippage. L 'AF sometimes wrong when diaframmavo above 5.0 - 5.6. In short, it has its flaws but risolvenza the center is really scary. And 'in my opinion a very good fixed lens to begin with and, for certain uses (nocturnal street in my opinion is his) even the professional can not do without it. But it makes as it should be used from 1.8 to 2.8, both for the vignetting (if used FX), and because these diaphragms within the image defects at the edges are limited. sent on March 01, 2016 |
 | Fujifilm X-E2S Pros: Speed ??and sensitivity with little assist Beam improved a lot compared to the x-e2 and now the same as the SLR, light weight, physical rings for aperture, and exposure times. As it once was. very functional menu. outstanding electronic viewfinder. Optics supplied sublime. Image quality up to 6400 (in raw) just superb, dynamic range up to ISO 800 amazing species in the recovery of the shadows and noise virtually INEXISTENT up to 3200 ISO, you would not believe. It still lacks full support of demosaicing the x-e2s. Perfectly suited for photo in B / N, I do not know what depends but makes the spectacular files Cons: Jpeg in the car just good with optimal light conditions, mixed with very low light environment. Raw exceptional but that can not be pumped over 6400. Battery 'short'. Poor balance and stability with photos free hand because of the low weight and the optics that protrude from the body and moves the center of gravity forward, to take more than 1/50 lenses you have to have very steady hands to prevent blur. Opinion: Excellent speed of use that allows the arrangement of buttons and above all very rational approach 'physical' permitted by metal rings 'old style' that mounts. The electronic viewfinder thanks to the peaking focus allows to use AF glasses with speed and satisfaction (very big value), and is large and bright, the highest level. Also instantly it informs about the exposure changes made through the metal ring allowing you to get exactly what you want. Fantastic. The lens kit is definitely not like the classic plastic barrels with glass operetta which are usually also provided with FF, but it is a Mr. 18-55 with max aperture at 2.8, robust and fluid. The quality of images in jpeg is good if you shoot up to ISO 2500-3200, as well are kneaded and acquerellosi with whatever setting it operates in the car but this applies to 90% of cameras which are 2 or 3 models of FF. In any case it is not true, asIt is read by many, that the jpeg of fuji are so good. The only way to push the ISO 6400 is to use jepg, so it is a limit. The raw deserve a separate discussion: to develop them decently, lacking at the moment a support for E2s even in soft historically fairly well run by RAF (p. Ninja, Capture, etc.), you should use soft SILKYPIX the house but demosaicizza to suck (noticeable color noise, not from fuji sensor), probably because even optimized for previous generation fuji. A good system is to transform the RAF to DNG and then open them and work with LR. That way you actually have the good results promised by the x-Trans sensor: the chroma noise is really very low. Consider that in LR, with photos in 6400, just take a 5 slide to reduce chroma noise and also disappears what little noise there is, while up to 3200 you can even let go of all the noise reduction! Two defects as regardsthe sheer quality image: the camera does not allow, as we said, iso beyond 6400 in RAW, and - you also for the 16-megapixel, not many - the sharpness of the pictures at night is not excellent because the luminance noise than 1600 it is quite present. It must be said that makes a grain effect to '' film not unpleasant. Let's say that, leaving aside the optical kit, however spectacular, and acquiring a 1.4 or, spending more, a 1.2, there also has fun with little light, being able to remain below the 6400 ISO at every opportunity. The dynamic range seems exceptional. I also possess the D800 and I can say that the laying latitude appears on the same level. There are no technical evidence documented by the usual sites in the sector but we are certainly among the 13.5 and 14 stop at least. Up to 800 ISO the shadows rise almost indefinitely, the high lights dim a little 'less, proportionately, but always at high levels. sent on February 21, 2016 |
 | Nikon D800 Pros: Very robust, just one step below the flagships from 5000 euro. Fast autofocus. Customizable at will. Flash more powerful than the media talking about integrated. Resolution up to A3 prints allows masking the noise, which is still contained in the report to 36 megapixels and that responds very well to the chromatic reduction in LR. Dynamic range almost 'infinite' in RAW Cons: Whereas the quote for a used car (currently 1200 to 1500 EUR AC for not more than 50,000 shots), the noise at high iso is higher price of new machines of equal or almost (Canon 6D for example, but also the same D610 ), while remaining low, well manageable and above all capable of maintaining the colored details even at very high ISO Opinion: The amount that I paid (1390 € with 5000 shots and still in warranty of two years) I could not find better. The best thing of all is the incredible dynamic range, which allows you to adjust virtually any shot made from 100 to 800 ISO. In addition, clearly the range is reduced in proportion to the increase in ISO 1600 but also the recoveries are good ... Anyway it's great. The latitude of pose is such that in fact becomes unnecessary to do double or triple exposures! For the noise at high ISO, although as resistance to noise now there are machines that exceed (Canon 6D, D610, D750, not counting of course the respective TOP Canon and Nikon or Sony mirrorless 12-MP), the difference is It reduced almost to nothing for a given resolution. But not only playing with the exceptional dynamic range is possible in many situations expose below even a couple of stops than you would with other cameras without being outside noise more, which compensates for the difference in sealing at high iso . I come from a 6D, whichthis side has practically no rivals, and do not feel frustrated, because in LR with the demosaicing D800 works wonders, especially in being able to keep even special colored at high ISO while using NR. The fact is that while the 6D holds a bit 'better in the pictures at night or indoors without flash, collapses miserably in dynamic range up to ISO 800-1600, while the Nikon in this area is outstanding, then the D800 camera as total wins hands down. It also offers 1/8000 shutter, dual slot and is in general more configurable. Finally, it suits optical APSC Nikon and then you can mount everything. Sure: the 810th took away even the problem of noise, making it the top of the top, but costicchia a little '... sent on September 18, 2015 |
 | Canon 6D Pros: High ISO monstrous point center cross idem, light weight, exceptional value for money, wi-fi well supported by the Canon software, dynamic range at high ISO higher than Nikon Cons: Tropicalisation partial movies without continuous autofocus, continuous autofocus rather slow and not suitable for moving subjects unless they are of the 'handles', improved auto-exposure, dynamic range at low ISO lower than Nikon cameras Opinion: The dynamic range of up to 800 ISO is undoubtedly lower than rival Nikon, especially the D600 (the D800 should be considered to belong to another segment), while above this threshold and in proportion to the increase in ISO, the situation is reversed: this sensor seems devised to work better (proportionally speaking) to 12800 to 800, both as 'see' in the dark is just for the workability of the shadows pulling out where others (many others) are cut off from the noise of the basis of the fact that flattens the dynamic curve. The proof is in the wonderful jepg-made car, the best I have EVER seen; the 6D manages the impossible, as he pulls out files even acceptable to 25600 (limit his native), a clear sign that the soft internal interpolation can work on a sensor that, on its own, generates very little electrical interference. Consider that shooting in jpeg you can afford to eliminate all noise reduction for up to 12,800 (!!) we will file a bit 'of luminance noise but NOT chroma. If we take intojpeg with noise reduction limit extends up to 25600, but for postcard size prints you can push up to 51200 ... Crazy. The amazing thing is how to keep the color even with such high values. Speaking of Raw, with the files 'cold, hard' not processed in any way after it is considered that up to 1600 ISO the noise is practically absent both luma and chroma (unless you zoom in beyond the limit 'vision' of the A3) and becomes visible (but very manageable pp) only from 6400. I took Raw to 25600 overexposed at night, and normoesposte in LR are impressive: with the signal / noise ratio is optimized by the high sensitivity is in front of an impressive result, the noise is reduced. However, if shooting at low ISO (say up to 800) and then a little contraption 'with the shadows you see the most (only) default' sensory 'of the machine, in the sense that at low altitudes the dynamic range does not compare Nikon (D600), which in fact is equipped with a sensor for deadly dynamic range, I think the best ever (if you work at low ISO, Though.) But it does not compare even with Pentax (K-5) that mounts the aps-c more performant from this side, but that's lower level ... Okay. Nothing dramatic if you think that is inserted in the package even the most sensitive AF focus of the story (for what I do, at least) ... After I bought it because of the high ISO and good for the development fire from the pupil of feline ... That's right guys, this is a car that really sees in the dark, without exaggeration or phrases sliced ??... SEE IN THE DARK, POINT. I shot that almost always at night or in the evening, street and live events are over the moon: the focus on the cross (I only ever use that, but I am told that even the peripheral points are only slightly lower) is the I've tried most sensitive, manage to connect the fire in absurd situations and in fact allows to shoot in any light condition. This, coupled with the behavior at high (these forthcoming) iso super allows this machine to be the 'must have' for anyone cerAC professional results in critical condition without having to spend a fortune. From this point of view, only two machines ALL OVER THE MARKET, in fact, exceed, the 4DS and the 1DX, it was clear ... but the pass very little and cost 3-4 times more. Pity about the weather sealing and the burst: the first is partial and probably ineffective in a real downpour (sd door without fittings, as well as that of the battery), it can hold up some sketches but nothing more for me; the second, stood at 4 frames per sec, Pochini ... And the 11 AF points do not help to Engage well being mobile. Sensitive to the darkness, but you can not ask them to behave as if they were 61 when something is moving fast ... However, with a good workout and if you are the 'handles' you lavoricchia even in these cases, but if you're a photographer sports / nature of a certain level there it takes another, the 3d Mark III, for example. rnInsomma: Total machines, excellent throughout, are the two top of the range mentioned above, which cost between 5 and 6000 eurotti.Removed those two, if your genre is the street in the evening / night or live events (or situations from interiors in general) this is the car to be taken. Compulsory. and without the 1.2 ... It takes 50 to 35 1.4 Sigma.rnHo started working using the s-raw mode. This is a very important aspect of the machine, since, unlike the m-Raw that at least to the eye is not that a processing of the raw materials and which then provides a similar result in terms of noise and worst in terms of sharpness (in addition of course at a lower resolution), the s-raw it seems to be the result of an effective pixel binning. This technique works in the construction phase of the file and not a posteriori, that is, the sensor uses 1/4 of physical pixels (5 megapixels then instead of the native 20) at the time of the shot, turning blocks of four photodiodes in place of a (typically 4 located around the central pixel, which is not activated), with the predictable result of reduce noise at high ISO. Canon has never officially released on this format in cow functions, so it is impossible to have the CERTAINTY that it is an effective binning, but if you try to lower the resolution of a raw normal up to 5 mpix and compares colleagues' s-raw will immediately notice that in any case the end result is significantly better in terms of noise and also of color fidelity, especially to ISO 25600 and 12800. Therefore, this experiment should be ruled out that the picture may show less noise just because the car down to the 5 mpix. Further evidence of the activation of binning should be that if you do two identical photographs is at a standstill, with a raw and one with s-raw meal and are given in the DPP applying a noise reduction elastic, interpreting pictures, and not fixed a priori (such as LR) we see how the software applies much less to the NR-raw photo's ... It is not over: although the picture is starting at 20 mpix, the luminance noise reduction applied by the DPP makes it very acquerellosa by 6400 iso up, and with no small format, with the end result that the s-Raw only 5 mpix is ??becoming increasingly clear (andless noisy) than that by 20! Empirical evidence shows that then, if yes, with this car, it was not possible to apply the NR least up to 3200 ISO in RAW, with the small size limit is extended up to 6400, they speak of untreated raw files in post at all. .. One thing stratospheric. sent on June 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
