|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Leo45 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Leo45  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Leica R4S Mod.2 Pros: Compactness and lightness, ergonomics, quality of the SLR viewfinder, timeless aesthetics, mounts the fantastic Leica R lenses Cons: This camera is a jewel of mechanical precision but it is mechanically and electronically fragile. Opinion: I worked with the R4 (*) intensely for twenty years is a beautiful camera, compact and light but perhaps a little too much, the micro-mechanics multifunction used is rather fragile, in fact to avoid the multiplication of sticks, buttons, wheels, etc .. and maintain a good compactness and ergonomics the controls have a very elaborate mechanics that allows them to have multiple functions but these pieces are not very thick and resistant enough. It has all the necessary functions and excellent ergonomics but as I said it is a bit fragile, during the period that I used it I had several problems with the light meter due to false contacts, sometimes it worked sometimes not, sometimes it worked only in certain ways of exposures such as AV and P (first return to assistance) and once I could no longer unscrew the flexible shot from the shutter button I had to force it a little and that caused the vision to block in the viewfinder of the selected diaphragm (it is not clear why, but second return to assistance), also after fifteen years I would have to replace all the seals of the back of the camera because they crumbled and the film took light, I used it a few more years by putting black tape on the back to avoid light infiltration but not having the intention of repairing it again I ended up selling it, For the rest it withstood the worst climatic conditions and use but proved to be the most fragile and most "problematic" camera I have ever owned. The viewfinder is excellent (although not at the level of Nikon F HP: F photomic, F3 HP, etc ...) as magnification (x85) and eye distance but not very bright, it is very easy to do the MaF manually but the central stigmometer darkens and makes the MaF difficult with apertures more closed than 2.8 / 4. the different types of spot exposure measurement, central weighted, over the whole field, etc. They are very useful and extremely precise. The SLR mirror and the shutter are the best cushioned (just hear the noise it makes... a pleasure) that I have never known on a SLR and this allows if the photographer has a steady hand to use very low shutter speeds without risk of blur due to vibrations. in short, the budget is a bit contradictory, all in all I took beautiful photos taking advantage of the excellent quality of the R optics (I had a wide range), this camera is a "gem" of mechanical precision but must be manipulated carefully and is not made for professional or intensive use and despite its considerable qualities and the satisfactions it gave me I do not feel like recommending it even on occasion, because of its fragility it does not seem to me that it is a good investment.... with the old SL2 mot for example that I bought already well used, in 20 years I have never had the slightest problem, if you want to photograph in analog with Leica R lenses I think it is wiser to orient yourself on an R7, 8 or 9 .... in digital the ideal would be to mount them on a digital SL2, but also any ML will make the deal. (*) (first model without S mod.2, but comparing it with that of a friend who has the S mod.2 I did not notice any visible difference, maybe the electronics? if it would be a good thing, read above) sent on October 27, 2022 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Pros: Ideal brightness (no need to go beyond f/1.8 or f/2), optical quality at all levels: sharpness, colors, bokeh, resistance to flare and diffraction, absence of distraction and various aberrations just a little vignetting up to f / 2.8 which in the end is nice (I often add it artificially in PP). Compact and lightweight. Af silezioso, very precise (total absence of back / front focus with all my Canon FF SLRs even those without micro-adjustments of the Af) and lightning fast. All-round focal length... and of course the price. Cons: It looks like a "toy", the construction is all in "plastic" but it is quite accurate to the point that for me it is not really a con, the "plastic" in practice turns out to be more stable, more resistant and more solid mechanically than the metal construction, the only thing I really regret is the absence of metric scale and PdC. Opinion: the 50mm around f/2 is a "classic" and is a focal length that I have always used a lot in my photographic practice (or had Leica, Contax Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc ...) and is therefore of course that the 50mm f / 1.8 stm has come, finally replace in my current kit the old 50mm f / 1.8 II that I have used so far, "remnant of war" of the analog era today more elegantly called "Vintage". The optical schemes of these 2 lenses are absolutely identical (a symmetrical planar type scheme) so I expected a purely mechanical improvement (faster and quieter af, better quality plastic, etc ..) but in practice it is a whole other story, the anti-reflective treatment "Super Spectra Coating" (also used in certain L series lenses) makes all the difference and has repercussions on all criteria, contrast, color fairness and saturation, flare resistance and even T.A. sharpness are considerably improved and reach optimal levels. At the bokeh level not only Canon has added a supplementary lamella to the diaphragm (7 slats instead of 6) but in addition they are rounded to form a practically circular opening, but the improvement of the general contrast also has an impact on the quality of the bokeh which is nervous, contrasted, progressive and with a beautiful relief effect comparable to the old Germanic optics, of course it is a matter of taste others will prefer a blurred that "brutally" detaches the subject on a flat, uniform and low-contrast background (as if it were contoured on a uniform background) so much to the "fashion" of today with the Japanese ultra-bright lenses and will find the bokeh of the 50mm stm mediocre or even ugly then that I find it excellent. Finally, the Af is of a speed and precision without faults and in addition it is perfectly silent, so apart from the absence of metric scale and PdC I can only recommend it 100%. Evidently the f/1.4 usm model, more luxurious and better built (it has a beautiful MaF ring with metric scale and PdC references) and with excellent performance (they are equivalent to the f/1.8 stm, with a very nice bokeh for my taste but with a lot of distortion and a huge vignetting) is a serious competitor not so much for 1 f / stop more opening or for performance as for quality and completeness of manufacture, but that's another story... PS : despite all the old 50mm f/1.8 II I do not retire, its Vintage yield without resorting to adapter rings, etc ... because perfectly compatible EOS is still useful to me on certain occasions. sent on March 08, 2022 |
 | Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Pros: Extraordinary sharpness (on the other hand on DxO Mark is classified as one of the most "resolving" lenses), general optical rendering including bokeh, Beautiful color rendering, diffraction resistance, usable PdC references, good flare resistance even without hood, the aperture of f / 2 is the ideal compromise, sufficient to "detach" the subject and / or work in low ambient light, useless to look brighter. Cons: The good quality plastic construction is very accurate and even if it is not worth a magnesium alloy construction it has the advantage of lightness. Frankly on a lens of this type the IS is superfluous and levitates the price and the bulk compared to the previous version, I would have preferred more compactness, the hood and bag provided instead of the stabilizer. The MaF ring is not wide enough and its stroke a little short (AF obblige) to be really comfortable but it is precise enough to work in manual and the references of PdC are present and very usable to manage the PdC and the hyperfocal. It is not really a defect but this lens is so "sharp" that you have to be careful in post-production to dose the sharp to avoid the appearance of artifacts and give a more natural look to the details, in fact often even the Sharp values by default of the various SW are excessive. Opinion: I do not know what sense it makes to judge a lens in absolute and so to be more "objective" I compared it to the Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 R (a lens of the 70s) which has been my reference for at least 30 years. the Canon behaves very well, the contrast is equally high and maintains quite well even in blurred areas (1) and the correctness and separation of colors (2) even if not at the level of the Leica are of excellent workmanship. Due to the slightly lower contrast of the blurred areas the bokeh of the Canon is more "sweet" and less "sculptural" than the Leica (3) but remains of an excellent level, one could compare to that of a Zeiss for example. The vignetting and distortion of the Canon are much more pronounced than the Leica but now digitally they are no longer a problem. On the other hand, the sharpness of the Canon is superior to that of the Leica, it is truly extraordinary at all apertures (from f / 2 to the most closed apertures such as f / 16 and 22 which are very usable). At the level of flare and parasitic reflexes the Canon behaves well (I think they avoided the expense of the hood) but the incredible thing is that the 40-year-old Summicron is even better (incredible but what the hell of anti-reflective treatment used Leica ?). In short, after all, the Canon 35mm f/2 IS is really an excellent lens that has a beam of quality such as to make it attractive, in my opinion it is a lens not to be missed among the fixed focal lengths of the Canon catalog. (1) To some the bokeh of the Leica may seem "nervous" or "hard" but it is precisely this that makes its "magic", the beauty of its rendering and the quality of the 3D effect. It is a blurry type that of the Leica that I would define as a nice bokeh and not, as you can read here and there in the forum, a blurred "kneaded", uniform and without contrast that brutally detaches is uniformly with the subject in focus as if behind it there was pulled a tent and that unfortunately is so "fashionable" currently. (2) Qualities where Leica excel and which make the slightest chromatic nuances from the softest "pastel" colors to the most saturated colors with a unique accent of truth. (3) the subjects have a volume, they seem to be carved with summicron. sent on October 06, 2021 |
 | Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2 Pros: What model are we talking about? I think you mixed it all up. Cons: There is some confusion in the re-comes of this goal.... let's see each other clearer... Opinion: ...... what model are we talking about? There are two models: the first one in 1964 (which should be the subject of this re-enactment as indicated in the list of re-enactments) is without integrated lampshade, was built only in Germany (in the 1960s leitz had not yet decentralized the assembly units in other countries for reasons of production costs) and is optimized for infinity. And the second model (which is absent from the list of reviewations) of the eighties conceived by Walter Mandler (to which we also owe all summicron (35, 50, 90) modern r and m, the 19mm f/2.8, the apo-telyt, some summilux, etc. In short, all the most famous leitz objectives), with integrated lampshade, optimized for medium distances and assembled in different assembly lines leitz in Germany, canada or Portugal but absolutely identical being precisely the same model only that was assembled in different units relocated for reasons of labor costs. For more than a year and a test visit the marco cavina website http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Leitz_Summicron-R_50mm/00_pag.htm sent on October 07, 2020 |
 | Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III Pros: Compactness and lightness (it has at a minimum the weight and size of a fixed), optical quality closing a little diaphragm, ridiculous price Cons: what can be said against a lens at 10 degrees (I bought it 7th combined with a canon eos 500) that also works well?... all plastic? It is rather a Pro that a Con so compact and light... the range that starts at only 35mm?... low light?... it would have been much bigger and heavier... ?! you can't expect everything from an entry level lens sold in kit almost 30 years ago, the only thing I'm sorry about is that there is no DxO correction module that would have "exalted" even more its good optical performance. Opinion: this all-plastic toy that does not inspire any confidence has very good optical quality on FF (eos 6D), is uniform and sharp to all the focal and openings from 35 to 50mm, only to the longest focal (80mm) is mediocre, see poor at TA, but it becomes good by closing already by 1 f/stop, in addition this lens suffers very little divening even to the most closed diaphragms (16 and 22) the sharpness is good, the AF is quite quick and very precise, the blurred certainly a little limited by the opening is good quality, the flare is a little present not as colored spots but as a loss of contrast in cases of strong light on the lens, control. a bit like the "vintage" goals, the various abertions (AC, etc...) are invisible even without SW correction, only the 35mm distrophion is quite visible... in short, a really surprising lens in relation to the price that is lower than that of a cap per machine body. The range, the compactness, the discretion and the remnance to the difpher (use in snapshoot to hyperfocal) make it a good optics for the Street Photo.... given the price and performance I can recommend it, certainly not as a "main" optics but in addition to a more "serious" set when you want to come out light and discreet. To get the Target Correction Profile for Camera Raw and Lightroom please contact me for MP https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&show=1&t=3147923#17469607 sent on August 08, 2020 |
 | Canon 350D Pros: My first digital SLR Cons: It has failed after 10 years of use very intesivo Opinion: What can I say better than the Canon 350D except that I would have kept it as a life camera if after having martyred in all the manière possible and imaginable: Dai-30 ° of Finland to + 70 ° of the bonnet of the car under the sun of my native Sicily, the rain, the Wind and sand of Brittany, shocks, etc... Climbing on Mount Etna... I was not "successful" to oxidize the motherboard (due to prolonged use in the rain) and make it irreparable for lack of spare parts. It Is a camera that goes to the essential no frills or technical specifications, is used to take pictures like a Nikon F or a Leica M... Compact and light with the zoom 18-55 IS that I strongly recommend (instead of the 18-55 IS not the Kit that sucks) you can always wear ' on ' almost like a compact (I had a bag ready in leather) and the battery is forgotten so hard for a long time. The image quality is excellent, more than enough for any use, with 8mpx I did enlargements 50x70cm. Of an astonishing quality in relation to what I used to realize in analogue (and I was accustomed to a Leica kit) and also compared to the more modern "inflated" cameras of pixels do not disfigure at all. Of Course you have to shoot in Raw to get the best and preferably develop them with DxO that completely transforms the files of 350D, giving it a precision, a fidelity of colors and an absence of unheard of noise for analogue ratio, and that are reclaimed over time To each new version of DxO, with the versions that have the RAW denoise (starting from DxO Optics Pro 9) to at 1600iso has the noise is so moderate and the details so well preserved that one wonders why Canon did not include the ISO 3200as in the 20D which has practically the same s Ensor. The only "nei" of this camera are: 1) The dynamics of the sensor that does not really huge tends to irremediably burn the highlights, I set it with a compensation of the exposure of-1/3 diaffram to remedy, but nevertheless you have to expose with care Even in raw, better to choose the central weighted measure and rely on the "conditioned reflexes" inherited from the analogue. 2) The viewfinder is really unworthy of a reflex, small, dark... Oh My God, you get used to it and it doesn't restrict photographic practice, but you're always dreaming of a better viewfinder (which I found with the 6D that replaced it). 3) The autofocus is extremely precise, I have never had back/front focus problems, but the AF points are too centered, better to use it than the old doing but focusing with the central collimator and then squaring up later. The AF continuous penalty to follow the subjects on the move I ventured to photograph a game of friendly football with good results but it is not made for the sports photo. For Travel and reportage the AF behaves well but for the instant and the Street I often prefer to use it in the ancient manual focusing on the hyperfocal that I marked with a notch on a piece of adhesive on the barrel of the lens to be able to easily Return the notch of the focus ring. So If you have one do not leave it in a drawer, use it can still give big soddifsazioni, but if you want to separate contact me I'll be happy to get rid of... As the saying goes, "The first love is never forgotten." sent on April 12, 2019 |
 | Minolta DiMAGE 7 Pros: Zoom 28-200 Luminous and of great quality, richness of functions (it has even an intervalometer), compactness and weight, macro position with 200mm. Cons: Only 5MPX, Batteries that last a little, little defined viewfinder and small LCD, grain pronounced aldià of 200iso. Opinion: It is a pre-sistic camera, I bought it in 2001 because at the time the DSLRs were inaborable (later I replaced it with a Canon 350D) but it will seem strange still use it today with great satisfaction. I created the profile of the lens with Adobe Lens Profile Creator and shooting in Raw with the profiles of Raamiel I get untried results for a camera of this time, the colors of origin not very faithful find all their wealth, with the objective profile That I created the distrorsion and vignetting disappear and developing the raw with care and treating them later with Nik Dfine you can contain the noise satisfactorily adilà of 200iso... Sure 5MPX remain few but for a "familiar" use is more than enough. It is my wife who uses it more makes everything from trips to family photos and personal photos and is very satisfied, I take it sometimes for the Street and macro. It is indispensable to feed it with the latest generation rechargeable batteries that hold the charge for a long time if not used to have the camera always available when needed. If you want the lens profile for Lightroom and Adove camera raw contact me sent on April 05, 2019 |
 | Yashica ML 50mm f/1.7 Pros: Price, construction not Excellsa but luxury in comparison to the objectives AF all plastic, frames as a 75/80 in APS-C and can serve for portrait Cons: Manual focus, anti-reflective treatment of another era that can become critical in digital, yield of the boken and good relief but a bit trivial. Opinion: Unfortunately I have to contradict Ianni74 the Zeiss planar 50mm f. 1.7 has nothing to do with the Yashica ML, already the planar has an optical diagram of 7 lenses in 6 groups optimized for all the distances of inlaid egg and not like the Yashica 6/5 , the anti-glare treatment T * is miraculous, etc... rightly in the years 90 I bought about 3 Yashica MX Super 2000 Col 50 F. 1.7 Yashica and I was very happy with it, but in the end I bought the Zeiss planar and I must say it was another world, to such an extent that if you found it us ATO the compreri immediately is one of the best goals that I have ever tried together with the Leitz Summicron 50mm...ma we return to the Yashica ML, frankly does not have great flaws but not even great merits, very little distortion, an easy vignetting and good sharpness to intermediate diaphragms; The colors are quite faithful but nothing to do with the Zeiss, idem for the resolution, contrast and relief... In short, was an honest optics, practically donated with the camera body but frankly does not offer grandché in digitale...al limit the old model Quoted from Kaveri63 is more interesting, better built, vintage yield but excellent sharpness, etc... sent on December 30, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Pros: Well built, fast AF, good resolution at all apertures and focal. Very light and compact. Cons: The performance expires progressively starting at 100/135mm, lacks ' IS, blurry horrible, huge chomatica aberration, lacks the lock of the zoom ring and the lens stretches with its weight carrying it to the shoulder. Opinion: I had bought this zoom €150 to use it with an APS-C I was very disappointed: the AF hesitant and inaccurate, mediocre optical quality, but all accounts made for the price as a travel zoom for panoramas and architectural details can suffice. For Portraits It is a catastrophe due to a blurry (bokeh) Horrible, the worst I've ever seen. It rediscovered a bit in FULL FRAME, the performance of AF has improved much (in fact it depends on the camera) and the optical performance is a bit better in FULL FRAME, the bokeh is always the last of the class. Then I regret having bought it? ... No because considering the price and compactness I always had in the sack and I never missed a shot when a telephoto lens was absolutely necessary, but I think replace it with a 70-200 L IS F. 4 as soon as possible...... I have the optical correction profile for LR/ACR for APS-C, if you are interested contact me. sent on February 08, 2018 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Pros: Price, excellent resolution starting from f.2,8 but usable at TA, size / weight Cons: Blurry absolutely ugly, but fantastic for those who are used to zooming; huge flare and collapse of contrast to backlight or when light sources frame, all-plastic construction, lack of depth of field, prehistoric autofocus Opinion: Despite all the faults is a view that I use with pleasure and of which I do not regret the purchase (at the time analog), now there is no more reason to buy it and except if you find it at the price at best price is better orient the purchase towards the new STM version that has been improved in: boken, the AF and the flare for a price that remains super-économico.rnPS: I use it in FULL FRAMErn sent on February 07, 2018 |
 | Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Pros: Optical quality: useful to T.A., it is excellent from f.4 to the extreme corners of the frame, very good colors, absence of flares and parasitic reflections even backlight "shot", effective stabilizer, solid and reliable construction, multivalent for reportage and panoramas, modest price, 5 years of warranty Cons: weight, blurry not ugly but a little banal, lacks the field prondity scale (but lacks in almost all current zooms), try your specimen at the purchase, there is a lot of dispersion of quality according to the specimen (front/back focus). Then it is very sensitive to diction, the quality expires quite after F.11 Opinion: It's really a handyman's optics that is always in my bag, at first I found it a bit heavy and cumbersome, but I got used to it and now I'm very fond of this goal, : the optical quality is really good, only the blurred (boken), sometimes, makes me regret the fixed focals; not that it is ugly, it is very harmonious but a bit banal without "personality"... but for reportage and travel is not a problem. In short, I am very happy with the purchase, if I had to buy a zoom I would buy the same, but I did not abandon the fixed focals that for me remain indispensable. PS : when I bought it again it had such a back-focus that you could not recover it with the micro-adjustment AF camera. I sent it to the race from Tamron and a week later they returned it perfect to me, now the micro-regulation AF is zero and the AF is extremely precise and fast, all free including shipping costs, under warranty... don't forget to take an AF test when you buy it. sent on February 06, 2018 |
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
