|Canon EOS R6|
Pros: everything (AF, burst, general fluidity)
Cons: not all options are available with third-party optics.
Opinion: What to say. A spectacular machine, it makes very little mistake like AF. Plus, dozens of photos per second without jamming. kind of a monster compared to almost any other camera. Fluidity almost in all (swallow files as if they were tablets, always responsive menus - only slowing down only in playback when classifying files). Especially a machine that almost always understands what you want and lets you photograph. even with 1.4 optics. A monster. The handle and general ergonomics are very good. Also impressed is the battery life and wifi which is a splinter. As body refinement machine Canon did not tell lie we are at the levels of the 6d2 (and not of the 5d4). Robust and reliable but a more cheap thread than the R. Cmq acceptable for those like me who do not use it in absurd climatic conditions. The only flaw is that maximum performance could remain foreclosed if you don't have Canon mom optics. The machine works well but maybe the gust is a little slower. Similar to the speech with the stabilizer: on non-native wide angles can go into confusion. I didn't do any repeated tests, better search on the net. But it's clear that Canon doesn't want to favor the old competitors and optics. Anyway, even then you have a beautiful beast not stabilized by 10fps... Not bad.. There's still a drop of rolling shutter. but what do I say to do? It is known that it does not have the global shutter and that for now this will be reserved for the top of the range in the near future.
sent on October 12, 2020
Pros: Holding high ISO, small system canon, WiFi, is full-frame!
Cons: Reactivity, viewfinder not 100%
Opinion: Estate, used and loved, I finally sold it. I write this review to help potential buyers. Excellent full frame camera to get started, understand the focal lengths. It shares the batteries with the Sorellone 5D2, 3, 4 70,80, 7D etc., so it integrates very well into the Canon system. Equipped with Wifi, from the very simple setup, it becomes extremely comfortable. Perfect for shots a minimum reasoned (landscape, architecture, static portrait) because it has an excellent sensor (good shots even at 12800) and still a good color rendition species on JPEG complexion. Strongly castrated by the parent company, instead on the reactivity side. 4.5 FPS can even be acceptable, but the buffer is small (especially if you have RAW and JPG active where they are only 7 photos!, only RAW is better), then you get nailed almost immediately. The autofocus is good if one does focus & recompose with the focus to the thumb, however, for a versatile use does not inspire safety and always pushes towards a second step, maybe a tap of full-time-manual focus.. So the car gets in the middle. Another malus there would be, the dynamic range, you know.. is inferior to the competition and to the most modern SLR, I confirm it, better to have it than to have it.. But for the kind of photos I rarely need.. It should also be mentioned that the viewfinder is not 100% so for a millimetric composition better to rely on Live view.. In short it is a machine with lights and shadows. If you know it and do not expect a crazy reactivity, can be a good companion or a second body maybe that mounts a wide angle or a zoom lens that does not squeeze the autofocus (70-300 F 5.6 etc). And especially at the price you find.. Can be a viaticum to start thinking about Fullframe
sent on April 30, 2019
|Canon 6D Mark II|
Pros: Excellent hold High ISO, Dual Pixel, Touch Screen, discrete Burst, good general soot, WiFi
Cons: Dynamic Range (if it serves an extreme recovery)
Opinion: Finally a complete car from Canon. Bistrattata by the YouTubers and those who expected a 5d4 at half price, in reality this is the real reflex all-round. Fluid the right, with good gust for portraits. Very reliable touch and DPAF Combination. To be small, she is very well in her hand. It is a kind of Golf of reflex: very good in all respects and without real flaws. Can be Improved, maybe. A 5d4 is even smoother and has more dynamic range. The 1DX make a flurry of fear, but in the end for those who do predominantly photos this has no areas of shade and is not little. Objectively The dynamic range is not at the top of the range, but it is also true that I felt the need only in a picture in five thousand.. Where I blatantly wrong I exposure
sent on April 12, 2019
|Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD|
Pros: Sharpness, construction, Autofocus
Cons: Maybe the weight, AF ring a little bit small
Opinion: I start the review by talking about the specs of this lens. 24-70 f 2.8. At first I had several doubts: there will have been a few 70mm ones on the long side? Would the 2.8 be enough to freeze the action? How useful would the stabilizer be? What portraits could have come out? After a little ' experience but I realized that a 24-70 f 2.8 allows you to really do everything, addiritutra with a thread of planning you can also do shots that could be done with fixed F2.. In short, a 24-70 is a lens that aspires to always be glued to the machine body. Could the Tamron Mark 1? The answer to all these questions is yes. First, the AF, to be a third party lens, at least in my specimen is very good and reliable. Then the sharpness is there and it is very good always. Maybe it's not a 50art, but still has a lot of it. Then if one is sick can try to pull out that fraction of roughness with a dash of sharpening. I haven't extensively tested the stabilizer, photographing people shooting often at less than 1/50. But to have it and know that it can give you 2.3, or 4 stops in the landscapes, however contributes to the judgement of lens in the round. Finally the construction is very solid. The only faults I have found are a little weight a high cicinino (which discourages to keep the reflex on the neck all day) and the ring nut for the full time manual focus a small thread and placed in the middle of the barrel, a position that requires a bit ' of habit. But the rest is a lot of stuff. A must for full frame
sent on January 23, 2019
|Canon 7D Mark II|
Pros: Autofocus, responsiveness, high ISO output. JPG very nice. Great all around, lets you snap thinking about the rest.
Cons: The only cases where you need the post are the photos with strong contrast in which it is recommended to underexpose and pull up the shadows at a later time
Opinion: Used to have a reactive reflex and I'm never disappointed. Customizable in the smallest detail (from the minimum shutter speed, ISO, AF behavior, the two slot management mode, the buttons). Viewfinder 100%. Fast and reliable Autofocus both through the viewfinder and in Live View. In the house Canon hard to find better. Very good gust and buffers. Great using two cards. JPEG, in my opinion very good from the start except in high contrast situations. It lacks wifi but behaves very well with an eye-fi card, with which it is obvious to the problem. As sensor quality we are in light and shadows. The surprising side is that at 3200-6400 ISO if there is cmq a wire of light (interior restaurant) you get very usable shots and a grain of noise for nothing annoying. Surprising considering it's crop. The side where perhaps you could do better are those cases with an extreme contrast in which exhibits a slight tendency to burn the highlights. In that case (also seen that the shadows come decently) The strategy is to underexpose and pull up in post the shadows. It is logical to compare a similar machine to a FF and in the comparison comes out with the head high because it gives the tranquility of a 1dx at a much lower price. Obviously, for optical issues can not get to the blur of an F 1.4 on FF, but coupled cmq coupled with bright lenses (for example the Sigma 30 and 50 F 1.4 that behave like F2) you can do almost everything with serenity focusing on the shot and not on the MA Machine. And it's not a little
sent on August 24, 2018
Pros: excellent performance and usability (despite his age)
Cons: some banding phenomenon over ISO 6400
Opinion: I agree with the previous recnsione: to judge this car you can not ignore the fact that is used below 400 Euros. Considering this is an exceptional camera. Good for portraits and landscapes. Clearly missing some modernity (such as Live View and a good algorithm for automatic ISO) but otherwise there is everything and made us do it very well 90% of the photos that you would do well with a more modern body. Excellent yield up to ISO 3200 and a drop of post-processing. Some of trouble rather than the ISO 6400 (obtained underexposing and then pulling up in software). However coupled with the optical f1.8 or more light hardly have problems. Still today the fund firmware with all the important settings (back-button focus, mirror lockup, bracketing sequence etc) already present. Incidentally until 2008 was the best car in the world ..
sent on April 12, 2017
|Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro VC USD|
Pros: Sharpness, stabilization focal length
Cons: For use with AF limiter
Opinion: Excellent lens, super sharp. Nice also the focal 90, of the 105 best in the portraits but then obliges to approach 1cm in macro mode. very good stabilization, even at 1/6 are obtained almost always crisp picture that is 3 / 3.5 stop vantaggio.rnUnica known in low light conditions, the AF goes up and down. It is almost obligatory to use the limiter, incidentally if you make macro you are under 50cm, if you make portraits or landscapes has over 50cm. Added limiter (max patted with full time manual focus) and there are no problems. At least macro genres, landscape, street, portrait. For use in sports photography not saprei.rnIn Basically an excellent lens, which perhaps should be in the bag all for portraits too. It does not have the bokeh of a 1.8 but very often the various 85, 100, 70-200 does not put you in focus under 80cm and therefore any close up is prohibited. This macro This limit does not have it and you shoot with confidence and with no regrets.
sent on November 16, 2016
|Canon PowerShot G7 X|
Pros: Spectacular compact, image quality, shooting in RAW comes to 20mm zoom range
Cons: It is not an SLR
Opinion: I recently this compact that I have taken to replace the little reflex in reading outputs. As a compact camera is a show. It ''s the perfect size (fits into the pocket, weighs more than one ixus, like a travel zoom), excellent zoom range. The sensor is very good, you can do to ISO 1600 photo calmly. If we think that the lens is f1.8 and is well stabilized, this means that one shot without the noise takes home almost always. The combination of these ingredients is deadly. For example you can make a night photo with T = 1/6 A = 1.8 and ISO 200 chooses, which is very clean in absolute terms. Finally in case of need then there is the 6400-12800 area, where the noise and a magenta hue begin to appear, and then would be the case of rescale the photos. In any case, for a compact is a eccellente.rnIl my use recommended performance is TV mode in the evening (with times between 1/6 and 1/40, so he choose ISOlow and large opening), Av mode of day (from 5.6 ìl openings up to the depth of field). With very strong sun I enable the internal ND filter because at f11 T = 1/2000 there is too much luce.rnUna gem using capture one, it is that the RAW reveals a part of the sensor normally cut off. By doing so you have a picture 16: 9 with approximately horizontal 20mm equivalent focal. Not always this band is used (there is a drop of chromatic aberration too and at high ISO you have a little 'too much noise), however, in some contexts you can return utile.rnLa battery life is decent. A day of tourist shots from the hold. But you just have to put extra battery .. you access remains in play mode, you do? RnVorrei now, however, open up the field and set the review as a comparison between the G7x and other photographic tools of today . Ie smartphones and cameras. Compared to smartphonegains and not just in image quality, especially in the night, and zooming. Then there is also the wide angle and the very useful folding screen appearance. On the connectivity side-social instead we are a little 'half-way. Unfortunately, the machine can not log into a WhatsApp account (which for me would be the most useful thing). So before I fetch the photos through the app canon, then I share them. A little 'more work than usual, but on holiday abroad where you have little data you do not realize the difference. From the manual are some ways to share via facebook, email and Canon Image Gateway (which is a private gallery, which can be enjoyed only after login). But I find them less useful. rnIl comparison with the SLR is also interesting. The image quality is not far aps-c with optic kits (what you lose as sensor size it is earned with the opening). Then, can in some casesco challenging replace the SLR? I think not: they are two very different experiences. Primarily due to the absence of the viewfinder. Secundis for the speed command; the changes of opening and very quickly, especially with the rotellone on the lens, but the electro-zoom is slow as of all compact and manual focus in some cases proceeds by millimeters. Finally there is a discussion on operational speed. The autofocus is decent, but slower than a reflex, shooting (as of all compact puts those two tenths too), writing RAW files is slow which precludes raffiche.rnInsomma finally, a photographic amazing tool and reliable. Always carry it pulls you out of something good in so many situations and out clearly smartphones. It also has nice features that have neither smartphone nor reflex, as the peaking focus. But beware: the SLR complements, not replaces.
sent on May 06, 2016
|Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM|
Pros: good image quality, light weight, price
Cons: Sin is USM but not full time manual focus
Opinion: The selection of Canon tele is very wide. It ranges from 55-250 for APS-c, to 70-200 for Full Frame, from a variety of solutions (stabilized or not) including the 70-300 DO. In this context the 70-300 IS USM is placed in the middle with a well-defined profile. Compared to others, the features that distinguish it are that it is full-frame (+), lightweight (+), stabilized (+) and in addition the optical performance that leaves no wishes unfulfilled. Of course if you need a lens Tropicalised or the focus of the 2.8, you have to look elsewhere, but at prices that are often three to four times as much. Do not underestimate the question footprint / weight: it is one thing to lug around 1 kilo and a half of the 2.8 stabilized (perhaps claiming its 20 centimeters in the bag) account to find a corner of the bag 600 grams of this. And in fact it happened so often. So overall, a lens covering of a well-defined, specific uses in that only makes us regret the bianchini (stabilized) and who often sits in the bag ready all'uso.rnrnDetto an accTwas the characteristics field that numbers can not say. The optical performance is generally very good, with only a slight decrease to 300mm. There is the wow effect when you zoom in to 200% but it is also true that if the composition is correct and does not crop the image and there is good. The contrast is good; I see around many more contrasted images but for my taste is so good. Now I did not detect any particular problems of flare. The stabilizer is very good (to 300mm of 5D1, 13mpx shutter can be released 1/20). It 'a bit' noisy limiting the use in the video (which I do not freaks). L 'autofocus is average. It is not distinguished for speed. It is distinguished by reliability in contexts such as landscape, portrait, street. The motor is not ultra-quiet but doing neither video nor bird does not affect me. Attention is that USM but not è full-time manual focus.rnrnNel complex lens that may be underestimated because it does not offer premium features (such as a beautiful iris, tropicalization, lenses at the top), but is a great lens for amateurs and for light use. In addition, at the price that is used it is a must.
sent on September 09, 2015
|Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM|
Pros: sharpness, speed AF, stabilization, range 24-105
Cons: for me no
Opinion: What about .. the perfect handyman. The great versatility given the range 24-105 I expected .. but I was surprised by the speed and reliability of the lens. He never betrays returning sharp shots without it neither flare chromatic aberrations, with a focus quickly and without problems even with the times "longish". It also has a sturdy construction, mechanical fluid and perfect balance on 5D1. Overall, in addition to the optical qualities gives a great peace of mind. So it really deserves the red piping:-) rnPrima had a 24-70 f2.8 and the comparison is only right. The 24-105 comes out with flying colors. It 'true that is a little darker, but you can recover by sacrificing a bit' the ISO. However, to freeze the action in the evening or for a dark street even the 2.8 is really enough. While if there is light or make a landscape f4 + stabilizer are a great cocktail. In fact the stabilizer is very good and almost always possible to bring home a shot at 1/8 sec and with a minimum ofluck also to 1/4 second (tests done on the 13mpix 5d). In terms of focus / creativity, a thread feels the lack of 2.8, but just a bit '. The fuzzy ones are made with massive canvases or with fixed 1.8 and down. And 50 / 1.8 costs 80 euro..rnDoveroso also a comment on the range thinking on full frame. 80% of my photos are in this range and does not feel nearly nothing for the lack of other kit lenses (except for specific uses such as portrait, macro, focus, fish-eye etc). Maybe mom Canon could do it a little longer (24-120?) But if this had then forced to optical compromises? It is fine. On aps-c I have yet to try it. Many say that to get the same yield on aps-c should be taken 17-55 f2.8. Optically they may be right. However I would like to emphasize the other use that comes out on APS-C, or as short telephoto. Covering a focal length from 39 to approximately 170 allows sbrogliarsela very well in the street or in landscapes from a distance. On more than one occasion I found myself with the 70-200 mounted but in need of a 50, forif even 40 and I potutto help but make more shots at 70 and then mount them. So the range 40-170 bodes well .. we'll see. rnrnKen giustamento Rockwell has noted that the space in the zoom ring of 24 to 35 is very small. True, very true .. but for now I have not suffered in the least. Usually if I have a lens capable of a 24, shot a 24 and not the intermediate focal .. because even a little 'crop is getting. Indeed .. as it is done has an almost natural to take you directly from 24 to 35 (my favorite focal) jumping the focal around 30 .. which basically jump enough. :-) RnrnAltra question portraits: it is often said this lens used to 105 f4 can give beautiful portraits. In fact in the 105 f4 his focus is not so much, the right not to distract. However if you use it with a little 'of malice choosing backgrounds that are far away from the subject then the focus grows and brings home something rnrnqualcuno, here in the forum and elsewhere, we did some nice portraits. rnVolendo just find a micro-defect is a thread of barrel distortion at 24mm butshooting in Raw corrects itself:-) rnrnInsomma is an excellent lens from all points of view .. and since it has no weaknesses is a real banishes thoughts that leaves you to focus on what is in viewfinder. Entertainment. rn
sent on April 11, 2015
May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me