|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Caorso www.juzaphoto.com/p/Caorso  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sony A7 IV Pros: AF eyes on even small birds, customization of controls, global image quality, possibility of having a cheap and valid set of lenses with third-party lenses. Cons: Monitor and EVF not up to today's technology. Crop the sensor if you shoot at 60 FPS in 4k. Readout slow sensor for those who want to use only electronic shutter. Opinion: Do not be fooled by the reviews that came out at the launch of this machine, the reviews of the so-called "early adopters" who complained about poor accuracy of the EYE-AF and other problems, Sony subsequently released 4 more firmware and fixed the software matters. Instead, what comes from hardware limits remains obviously, such as slow readout, but more than defects are limits, one knows it before buying. And while there are I immediately list the other flaws of this machine, or a display and a viewfinder not at the level of the competition. And then crop if you do 4k at 60 fps, this according to me they put it on purpose in sony not to step on the feet to the A7S III, because this A7 IV even in the videos goes very strong. Probably the A7 IV is not the first in the class, it is not perfect, but it is a hybrid car that I promote with flying colors, perhaps the sony product that makes the most sense to exist because of the price now reasonably dropped to 2100-2200 euros (online price, or RCE stores November 2022) and can even be considered by those who do birdlife. Indeed, the minimum decent and effective setup for those who practice birds could be the A7 IV + the 200-600. The user who wrote before me complaining about costs, tell me how to spend less to have the same efficiency. But in general you can have third-party prime lenses at much less. Compared to the a7 III at 1750/1800 euros it is still to be preferred because it is another car, in all respects improved. Even in videos, much better autofocus with the S-Log profile, Eye Af on videos, even with external monitror connected. And then separate menus for videos and photos, Live view also usable on built-in display even when connecting an external display, full size HDMI, extended aspect ratio, direct audio / video connection to the PC with HDMI cable, no more capture cards needed. Effective grip. Then I do not understand the criticism of the Sony menu that is linear and divided by areas, it is just a matter of habit or perhaps cognitive problems due to age. Touch Tracking function that works great. Improved AF sensitivity in the dark compared to the A7 III, Speaking of image quality it is true that if you look at the photos at 100% these are noisier than the photos of a camera with a less dense sensor, such as the A7 III or the Canon R6 but this is obvious because it is as if you were looking at the photo at different magnifications (the more Mpixel there are the more you need a large monitor to view the 100%) I understand that those who switch from A7 III to A7 IV and look at the photos at 100% can experience some sort of disappointment, but if you resample the 33 Mpixel photo towards a lower resolution, like 24 mpixel like the previous A7 III, then the A7 IV file results with comparable noise. Obviously, these speeches apply at high ISO, while at low ISO all the advantages of higher resolution are valid. To conclude, however, I want to bring attention to AF which I think is amazing in AF-C and tracking. Inevitable comparison is with the Canon R6 which is an amazing machine to which I do not attribute gaps in particular compared to this sony, and I thought for a long time to return to canon since the change kit did not cost me so much from RCE and since the R6 had made a very good impression considered to me at 360 degrees, but the 20 megapixels, FOR ME, are too few. In addition, the tracking and the Sony pose prediction algorithm left me stunned. sent on November 23, 2022 |
 | Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Pros: All the pros of the previous version VR2 Cons: Optical performance not exceeding the previous version. It costs too much. Opinion: At the level of image quality does not seem better than the VR 2. At 200 mm to 2.8 is better, but enough. The only thing much improved is the AF speed, lightning fast. If I came back I would not buy it again and I would keep the vr2 even if the change cost me a little. So it's a vr2, ok it's fine but it costs too much. 1800 Li Vale, 3000 asking for Nital No. The inverted ices are a problem for me but it is a matter of habit. sent on February 03, 2019 |
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
