Richard Butler

Richard Butler

Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Works as a Reviews Editor
Joined on Nov 7, 2007

Comments

Total: 2739, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

Looking at your list, you used to make do with a 27-216mm equivalent range from two zooms, plus an 80mm and 19mm equiv prime. (I'm ignoring the tele stuff because I don't know which TCs you have and I also acknowledge that teles are the main area of shared usefulness).

Now you have a 17-105mm equivalent range from two zooms, plus a 15mm fisheye and an 85mm prime (through replacement).

Obviously I don't know how or what you shoot, so I'm not trying to tell you what's right for you, but that makes it look like either your shooting style has changed radically, or some compromise was being made on one or other side of the transition.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.

My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.

I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.

So, it's no myth.

So you found all your lenses performed functions other than the ones you bought them for, some to the point that you had to sell and replace them, while others ended up providing capabilities that you'd had to live without, before?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 20:11 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: Speaking of myths, here is one myth that is still around despite countless articles and internet posts debunking it:

"but it remains true that APS-C and Four Thirds can still be smaller, lighter and less expensive: so the optimal system for you depends on your requirements."

Just compare the size of the Nikon D600 (141 x 113 x 82 mm) with the Canon 7DII (149 x 112 x 78 mm) and you know it is a myth. When Nikon released the 12mp noise bucket known as the D2X, it sold for $5K, or $2K more than the 12mp FF Canon 5D. The FF 6D sells for $1,800 with a $300 rebate, but the APS-C 7DMkII sells for the same $1800 without any rebate. Myth busted, again? Not. The myth will keep on living because people don't pay attention to facts.

Please note I didn't say APS-C *is* smaller, I said it *can* be.

Choosing a large, sports-orientated APS-C camera that's relatively new to the market and comparing it to Canon's smallest, travel-orientated full frame model that's been on the market around two years longer looks a bit like cherry picking.

How about Fujifilm X-E2 vs EOS 6D?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

gusmahler: Disagree with the analysis of the 50 mm lens. It's a great purchase for crop cameras. On Nikon it's the equivalent of 75 mm. On Canon, it's equivalent to 80 mm. Both are decent portrait focal lengths. IOW, 50 mm is a great portrait lens for crop cameras that is still usable as a walkaround lens for a FF camera.

The "will I upgrade to FF" question really comes into play at 35mm, though. Especially with Nikon. Because Nikon makes two 35 mm lenses, an inexpensive ($200), but crop-only lens. And a $500 lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies.

Several of the comments received have made me realise that I've written from the point-of-view of someone having to carefully justify the cost of each lens they buy, with the expectation they'll only buy the lenses they'll use most often.

Clearly, if you can afford to buy a 24, 35, 50 and 85mm set, then you only need to go out and buy a 135mm lens when you get to full frame. (Perhaps finding some of the funds by selling the 24mm, since you apparently didn't need a wide-angle prime on APS-C).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:22 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

shutterbud: The Myth of the upgrade path? What myth?
The article states that it could be seen as a myth because FF cameras tend to be bigger and more expensive. So what? Then it advises us to buy more APS-C lenses and pretends that no-one knows how to buy a FF lens for a Crop body.
The whole article is badly thought-out, slightly insulting, logically incoherent and seems to offer only one piece of advice, which, if followed, would ensure a bag full of useless lenses in the event of going to FF.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Actually the article suggests having a bag full of lenses that are useful while you have APS-C and selling some of them if you ever move to full frame so that you also have useful lenses *when* you make the move.

Nowhere does it advocate only buying APS-C lenses - it proposes only buying lenses *that you find useful* on APS-C when you're shooting on that format.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:19 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

gusmahler: Disagree with the analysis of the 50 mm lens. It's a great purchase for crop cameras. On Nikon it's the equivalent of 75 mm. On Canon, it's equivalent to 80 mm. Both are decent portrait focal lengths. IOW, 50 mm is a great portrait lens for crop cameras that is still usable as a walkaround lens for a FF camera.

The "will I upgrade to FF" question really comes into play at 35mm, though. Especially with Nikon. Because Nikon makes two 35 mm lenses, an inexpensive ($200), but crop-only lens. And a $500 lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies.

Irrespective of disagreeing about the usefulness of a 50mm on APS-C, you're actually reinforcing my point about the same lens serving a different purpose.

You may like 75-80mm as a portrait focal length but, as you acknowledge, that lens no longer serves that purpose when you move to full frame. It may be useful for *something* but not for the thing you bought it for.

28mm is another lovely example. It makes a great walk-around normal on APS-C it also makes a nice moderately wide-angle lens on full frame. But that still means that, when I move to full frame, I need to go out and buy a new walkaround lens and possible sell the 28mm, because I didn't necessarily want a wide-angle.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:17 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

BCSeah: 35-105 is odd? that was my favourite lens when i was shooting film.
50 on aps-c is odd too? 75-85 is a good range for half body portraiture.

this is one article that i'd like to forget asap.

@wildkat2 - the first lens I had on my first SLR was a Pentax 35-70mm. But having got used to the idea that 24 and 28mm equivalent zooms can be made, I'd never choose to go back.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 18:08 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: The best point made in this article is the one about all formats being price/size/quality compromises. And, I'd add, all sensor formats have some intrinsic photographic value. The notion that FF is definitely the place to be, especially for enthusiasts who carry their gear while travelling etc, needs to be put to rest.

The worst point made in this article is discounting the notion of an "upgrade path" for shared-mount systems. Many full frame lenses are quite useful on APSC, at least in a transitional sense, and it's quite reasonable to gradually build out a collection of lenses with an eye on buying a full frame body at some point in the future. I did that with the Zeiss 25,35,50,85 lenses over some years, looking for good prices on the used market while the yen was strong .. buying most well before I got an FX camera. If I was to buy those same lenses today I'd have ended up paying many hundreds of dollars more.

Clearly there will be exceptions to such a broadly-stated piece and strategically buying lenses when the market is in your favour is one of them.

However, would you agree that a 25, 35, 50, 85mm collection is more flexible/enjoyable than a 38, 53, 75, 128mm equivalent collection?

(Though as has become apparent from the other comments, I've written this from the perspective of only being able to justify the specific lenses you need - the restriction is less keenly felt if you can afford enough primes, at which point it's mainly the lack of a wide-angle that feels limiting)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:24 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Papi61: This is what I don't understand; why do you *HAVE TO* sell all your DX lenses when you buy a full-frame camera? This is what manufacturers would want us to do, but it's not a rational choice, especially now that lenses aren't selling on EBay as well as they did a decade ago. You'd be taking a huge loss, and for what? What's wrong with using a DX body *AND* and a FF one? A DX body is certainly more useful when you shoot with a long tele (or tele zoom), while your FF camera has the upper hand in low light. In other words, best of both worlds.

Making a loss on eBay would still be less of a loss than living with a two camera system, but I agree, my (possibly false) assumption was that the hypothetical person would want the money they spent to primarily be contained in a single *main* camera.

It's arguably more in the manufacturers' interest that you *don't* sell your existing camera - reducing supply in the second-hand market, narrowing the difference in price between new and second-hand and encouraging others to buy new.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:12 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think this might be an attempt to get people to waste money on lenses they won't use in the future, once they upgrade to a full-frame camera.

That's a very interesting interpretation (and almost exactly the opposite of what was intended).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2015 at 00:04 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

pannumon: Description of the article: "Full frame cameras have never been more accessible but what does that mean for owners of cropped-sensor cameras?"

Please pay attention on the terminology and please stop talking about cropped sensors. Cropping is not a property of the sensor, it is a property of the system (lens + sensor).

Cropping is not a bad term as such, it is totally fine to use it when referring to a situation where the sensor cannot cover the full image circle produced by the lens. However, as such, sensors smaller than 35mm are not crippled in any way. Also, systems using a different sensor size than 35mm are not crippled. They are full systems, not "cropped" technology.

Edit: Thanks for the article, I like it a lot! :)

This article is about systems with (or with the illusion of) an 'upgrade path' that comes from offering both full frame and less-the-full-frame sensors with the same mount (or variants of the same mount). In this context, it does seem reasonable to refer to the smaller sensors as 'cropped' in comparison to the largest sensor available in that system.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:44 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Old Baldy: I'm surprised the author of the article did not mention the use of Focal Length Reducers, in this context.

I have moved from Canon 20D, 50D, 5D DSLRs down to Sony NEX (5N & 7) and soon, the A7ii (on back order).

I collect old Canon FD L glass - and now have the 24mm f/1.4L, the 50mm f/1.2L, the 85mm f/1.2L and the 300mm /f4L, with the L zooms coming (20-35mm f/3.5L and 80-200mm f/4L).

The whole point of the article is a MOOT POINT when one considers that it's entirely feasible to use a Metabones Speedbooster with FF lenses to gain similar IQ, DOF and FOV as any FF camera. Sure, one loses fast AF - and if that is a concern then the article holds true, but for many of us, fast AF is never a concern, when we're shooting landscapes, stills, portraits, moons, etc.
Mountains don't move that fast. :)

I'd agree with that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 23:32 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: The biggest problem with the article I see is that it overlooks the primary reason for the pre-FF lens purchases: mitigating the cost of the purchase.

The point of the lenses applying to significantly different types of situations, depending on whether they are used on an APS-C camera or a FF, is obvious and clear. However, the main reason people start building up a small fold of FF lenses before buying the camera is they want to avoid a large single burdensome purchase, and start splitting it up in a way that is easier to handle. In other words the idea is that they can salvage the glass for the FF body, with the necessary usage adjustments, and still use it on the APS-C camera before making the leap.

This argument seemed to be completely overlooked in the article.

I certain do understand this (and did try to take it into account).

Assuming such lenses are available, then I'm suggesting buying the focal lengths you want for APS-C when you're shooting APS-C, then selling them and using that money towards the cost of the full frame equivalent focal lengths.

The difference in price between this and the 'buy in advance and muddle through' approach is the amount of money you lose when you sell those lenses. However, to make up for this loss, you have gained X year's worth of having the right lens for the job (which means, during that period, your money was more effectively used).

Obviously there are exceptions and it's impossible to assume a one-size-fits-all approach but, other than changing the timing of the expenditure, the method I'm suggesting doesn't radically change the amount of expenditure, necessarily.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

LensBeginner: A 645Z is a portable option compared to other MF alternatives.
However Dpreview seems to always find the way to insert a derogatory remark aimed against Pentax...

It wasn't meant as a derogatory remark - it was meant to highlight that there are higher image quality options beyond full frame.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 22:11 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Federer: Did you just claim, only a few sentences apart, that the 24mm FL is both not very useful... and that it's useful?

Actually, now you mention it, I do appear to.

In my defence, though, the two statements are made in different contexts: a 24mm prime is potentially handy on APS-C because it's approximately 'normal.' It's not so useful as the wide-angle end of a walk-around zoom for exactly the same reason (because it's not very wide-angle).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 22:09 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

valdazis: Dear Richard, what is wrong with using 50mm lens on aps-c...? Could you elaborate, please.

Personally (and, since it's a taste thing, you're welcome to disagree), I find it neither one thing nor the other: a touch too short for head-and-shoulder portraiture, too long for walk-around use.

But, regardless of whether you like it on APS-C, it becomes something rather different when mounted on ff.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 21:13 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnyP: Time and again - Richard doesn't see the forest for the trees. And everyone is doing something wrong, while he knows better.

Maybe if you are Butler and dont care about costs (because cameras and lenses are freely available at work), then sure - buying FF lenses with APS-C doesn't make much sense. For everyone else who has to work to buy their gear, it's makes all the sense in the world. Go see how much it will cost to replicate all lenses in two formats and how much it will costs if you buy FF right away and then just upgrade the body.

Yea, he missed the one big point. No surprise though, seems like Canon or Nikon are paying DPreview for these "myths"

JohnyP - I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. I was trying to write from the perspective of someone who has to think very hard about each purchase and doesn't have the luxury of being able to think 'well, it'll be useful for *something* once I change system.'

My point is that buying the focal lengths you want for full frame before you have a full frame camera is a false economy:

You either spend X years with a focal length that's too long for what you need it for now, or it ends up being wider than you wanted once you've made the switch.

Is it more cost-effective to buy the wrong lens now and live with that compromise until you change format, or to have the right lens for now, then sell that lens at a slight loss and put the money towards the lens that performs the same job on ff?

The second option costs slightly more money but means you always have the right lens - and that might be more valuable than the small difference.

How does this help Canon or Nikon, out of interest?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

WalPhoto: Hehe, I "upgraded" from FF to MFT :-D! And I feel totally happy, shooting with much more love and joy, like 30 years ago on film; I never felt that joy with digital being it D30/10D/5D until I've got the EM5. The whole idea "upgrading towards FF" is BS - why not "MF" or even "LF"? Why to stop at FF? I don't print larger than A2 on my 3880 from EM5, so MFT is more than adequate. Much better invested money is for lenses, books, courses, lightning etc. - one should "upgrade" the skills and not the HW. I watched recently Dean Collins' DVDs and I "upgraded" my understanding about photography much more than ever changing cameras - DPR should definitely point the readers to sources like that.

@nerd2 - From a Pentax 645Z owner's perspective, full frame users are giving up DOF control and low light performance for a small and light system.

All formats are a balance - don't assume the one that's right for you is optimal for everyone.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

steelhead3: The one problem with the analysis is that the major camera makers( sony, canon and nikon) all put their money on FF and leave aps-c lenses in the consumer level.
Fuji and 4/3 seemed to be fixed in their format and do produce good lenses (pentax less so), but of course this may change if FF starts dominating the market and these lesser camera companies have to follow suit to FF.

Could you turn that logic 'round, though?

If you decide you don't want a full frame camera (for price or size reasons, for instance), then are you not better served by a system that properly supports the format you're buying into?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 18:37 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: An opinion piece that could only appear on a site devoted to the myth that the camera makes the picture.

You could boil this down to one sentence: the best camera you have is the one that took the picture you wanted to take.

I see your point and I agree that the camera doesn't make the picture (though having a better camera can make the picture better).

I'd argue that you're more likely to get 'the picture' if you have a camera with the focal lengths you want, rather than ones you've bought in expectation of their behaviour when you eventually buy a different camera.

Having the right lens can help you see and take the shot (whatever camera or phone it's on).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 18:34 UTC
Total: 2739, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »