|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Maurocarbonaro www.juzaphoto.com/p/Maurocarbonaro  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Nikon D750 Pros: Ergonomics, battery life, responsive without asking for miracles (type in the dark). Sensor quality. Cons: Video department for those who work there. Opinion: I've been using it for months now, coupled with the D700. The D700 is a great car, but rightly the D750 is more so in almost everything, and for the moment it made me pass the desire to ml. Fast enough, comfortable, very comfortable, it is also light and for the photograph that I do (events and portraits) I think the most is just an optional. The gust is great (perhaps the buffer I would like more full-bodied, after 2 seconds slows down) and the autofocus is reflex, that is, it must be managed without asking for the help of the saints (type eye-af), but it is fast and reliable (I use only the central points in af s), in short the handle is still important. I think at the price at which it is found it is impossible to ask for more. A round of applause for ergonomics: I have big hands but I do a whole day without effort and when I come home I look at it and wonder where the miracle is. The (original) battery also makes me 1500 shots, and the tires that uncut them seem like a distant memory. The construction is solid, to me it feels like it's sturdy. I do not use customizations of the controls, except the iso on the rec button (position that I so envied in Canon..) so on this point I refer to the previous review (which I fully share). If you need a sledgeby all-rounder on 1000 euros the D750 is the best at that price, imho! In Canon the comparison (in terms of IQ) I do it with the 5D4 (which is spatial) but already we talk about another category of product and price. The limits it has are the limits of all SLRs, now overcome by the new ml cameras. But the optical viewer i generally find it indispensable and still unsurpassed (if it had been bigger would have been perfect). In conclusion, I find it a great tool to photograph, but I do not make videos with Nikon (with this Nikon, I mean). I'd buy it back with my eyes closed. sent on September 22, 2019 |
 | Sony A6000 Pros: Lightness, size, ergonomics, burst, operational speed, raw quality up to iso medi Cons: High yield iso, jpeg, colors, battery, viewfinder Opinion: Very compact and lightweight car, I always carry with me and for the price you can find I can recommend the purchase. Unfortunately, the kit lens is not at all alike (distortion to the absurdity limits and sharp drop in the edges) and the alternatives are few and expensive. I find ergonomics also great for large hands and the accessibility of the main functions is from reflexes. The operating speed, when not jammed, is great. The raw are good but not amazing: the sake of the incarnate has never satisfied me and the colors, even though working on white balance. Personal opinion apparently. Also there is a bit of noise already in iso medi (400, 800) but it does not bother too much. Already from the 1600s if you snap with little light it is annoying and the details are affected. I find it almost useless at 6400 iso. It has a good recovery of lights and shadows and a good dynamic range. He kicks herIt is difficult to spare, it is indispensable to have a spare. The autofocus in turn is very fast and offers many settings, but it does work a bit when the light is shorter. Other negative is the electronic viewfinder, under the sunlight is almost useless. I do not know what competitors or newcomers do, so I can not go down heavy. I've listed the limits even though my comparison meter is a d700 (over 1000 shots with a battery and top sensor in everything) buying it I thought the age difference allowed her to approach my "old" FF. Ultimately with good light it is a pleasure to use it and the comfort and quality that comes with very little effort are still a luxury. I still have not tried it with optics worthy of luck. A negative note about jpeg: tried for necessity I was a bit disappointed (I thought that at least iso bass and under the sunlight did not look artifacts). rnConcludendo, I would go back to buy again but above all for good value for money and for its lightness. I do not know what the other Aps-c's offer now. The advice for those who want a light, economical and versatile machine with a satisfactory quality anyway. rnAgrication: thanks to some discussion on forums I solved the problem of mysterious (working on Acr profiles) and I can tell you a lot more satisfied with the raw file. The a6000 is a real miniature bomb, only the small choice of optics. sent on August 29, 2017 |
 | Canon 40D Pros: Ergonomics, construction, price, burst. Cons: at that price, and considering the age .. nobody. Opinion: The reviews here have led me to purchase and I found them all very useful. Reviewing the Canon 40d is not easy, from her age: I have often used the most modern machines and the difference (I speak only of the sensors) can be seen. For everything else it is still relevant and has everything you need to learn to take pictures. To then see the beautiful pictures below, it would say that the 40d allows to obtain excellent results (in short, in the end depends on who uses it). We start with the pros: ergonomics, excellent! I chose it because of it. For my large hands this Canon is perfect. I use it often without the neck strap, the machine holds up well and a lot of confidence and security. Once on the familiar with the controls, you can easily reach. It is not by chance that Canon has that same design even on the most professional bodies. Same positive impressions for the construction, very solid, is not afraid to mistreat a bit '. Another pro is the barrage, amazing. rnPrezzo: today is less than 200 Euros. Thereworth? It depends. Considering the age and technological limitations (Iso noise more than anything else) should perhaps spend a little 'more and try something more modern. then the sensor speaking: 10 mpx are sufficientissimi if you think to photograph and nothing else, is trouble-free printing 30 x 45, larger sizes have not tried. still talking about the sensor: the era rival (the d80) has a better sensor (the CCD was from another planet in my opinion, regret my nikon d60 only and exclusively for that) to dynamic and color range. Here, if I had not used the CCD which mounted the Nikon at that time, maybe I would not be talking about the only flaw that has this Canon in my opinion. He had that sensor, would be the perfect aps. The sensor 40d has a smaller dynamic range and light and shadow recovery working on B does not satisfy me. For the noise, I refer you to the previous reviews, I rarely push above 800 ISO, already in effect over the noise increases fastidiosamente.L'AWB is inaccurate, soprattutto indoors with artificial light, and sometimes I find it hard to adjust the white balance in pp (this already but I was confident I had read here). I have never tried to set it in person before shooting, the operation seems counterintuitive. The Jpeg in daylight sounds great. For Af not know, also it depends on the goals. Ultimately I rnih recommend it only to those who have a limited budget (you buy at the price of a compact mid-range) and want to learn to photograph seriously relying now to a semi-pro body and thinking (and saving) to a possible upgrade. With the availability of more eurini recommend also assessing other machines, and read well pretty well the various reviews here on Juza, always excellent. In conclusion: the 40d is the best digital SLR that is, to date, in the price range 150-200 euro. If we start with no kit and not being fanatical brand, plus something maybe you could replace with a 50d, a d200, or even a d300. Edit: after months I feel I have to commend thefeeling that is created with this body and its excellent ergonomics. sent on January 07, 2016 |
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
