Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 2398, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Enthusiast interchangeable lens camera 2013 roundup article (281 comments in total)

We have only updated two of the roundups so far - which is why this article is still dated 2013 and doesn't represent the latest cameras.

It will be updated in the coming weeks.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 21:02 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

marc petzold: I'm wondering because DPR did the "Experiment" the 1st Time - to compare different Sensor & Camera Classes, which are simply not comparable.

Otherwise, DPR compares different FF Sensor DSLR/DSLMs, APS-C, etc...but m43 and FF - why the hell? Both cameras have their different application & niche - the A7S for lowlight photography, the GH4 mostly for video - so why the hell a comparsion? no offence.

I do also not compare 1 inch sensors to APS-C, and so on...because that simply doesn't make sense.

Next time someone comes comparsion FF to Medium Format, or an MiniCooper to a Ferrari - WTF?

"the A7S for lowlight photography, the GH4 mostly for video"

It seems odd that Sony would include a video-orientated S-Log2 tone curve, 4K output or ITU709 colour response option in a camera solely focused on 'low light photography.'

The review will look draw separate conclusions about the two cameras (for those people who aren't in the market for the best-available stills/video hybrid camera), as well as a comparison of the two.

How I wish I'd called it a side-by-side review.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 20:44 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

ravi532: I expected that people will start moaning about this "small" sensor than one compared to current industry " standard " 1 inch sensor. This craze for size of sensor is reminding me of good old days of megapixel war incidentally started by sony...If sensor is so important then nikon D3000 TO D7000 must take same quality picture but it is not...most people buy without knowing what the sensor does just buy because it is larger in size..difference between {x20 and rx100 ii} is marginal during on-street morning and evening shoots...only at night rx100 ii performance stands out...eventually its for people who are nocturnal..for day light to me x20 performs better/equal to rx100 ii..[ I used both of them] and undoubtedly colors of fuji is unparalleled
camera is much more than sensor.. For god sake there is something called aperture...fuji[2- 2.8] is way better than its competitor rx100 II..
But yes without OVF the charm and retro feel is certainly missing.. overall to me its good one..

I'll need a bit more information:

What sized sensor are you using the 12mm lens on and what sized sensor are you using the 4.7mm lens on?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

ravi532: I expected that people will start moaning about this "small" sensor than one compared to current industry " standard " 1 inch sensor. This craze for size of sensor is reminding me of good old days of megapixel war incidentally started by sony...If sensor is so important then nikon D3000 TO D7000 must take same quality picture but it is not...most people buy without knowing what the sensor does just buy because it is larger in size..difference between {x20 and rx100 ii} is marginal during on-street morning and evening shoots...only at night rx100 ii performance stands out...eventually its for people who are nocturnal..for day light to me x20 performs better/equal to rx100 ii..[ I used both of them] and undoubtedly colors of fuji is unparalleled
camera is much more than sensor.. For god sake there is something called aperture...fuji[2- 2.8] is way better than its competitor rx100 II..
But yes without OVF the charm and retro feel is certainly missing.. overall to me its good one..

JohnFredC - if sensors are of similar performance (which they tend to be, *roughly*, at any given time), then there is no depth-of-field advantage to using a smaller sensor.

A larger sensor's lens can be stopped-down to give the same depth-of-field and its ISO increased to maintain the same shutter speed (which is one of the main factors that determines image noise, in many situations).

The only advantage comes if you can stop the small-sensor's lens down even further than the large sensor camera's one, but that point usually comes when diffraction has started to become problematic.

[This should give more detail](http://bit.ly/equivap).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 18:28 UTC
On Fujifilm X30 First Impressions Review preview (280 comments in total)
In reply to:

SergeyMS: No significant improvements comparing X20... Lenses and sensor are same. Other options not so important for me. I will proceed use X20 and wait really big improvements. Same story with new Sony 100III... Nice cameras, but no reason to replace previous models.

I can understand why X20 users might not rush to upgrade (though the X30 is a nicer camera, based on my limited usage).

However, the RX100 III is a *much* better camera than its predecessors. If you can live with the reduced reach at the long end, it's wider, sharper and brighter than the earlier modes. The electronic viewfinder greatly increases the camera's usability in bright light and the video features are much improved.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

mrcultureshock: I really dislike this combo review. The review for the Sony A6000 is 13 pages long and yet the combo review for GH4 and A7s, which are 2 of the most important hybrid camera releases ever, only gets 14 pages?

Please review the GH4 and the A7s separately.

@Lab D. We haven't got a 35-100mm lens but I will be looking at the continuous shooting of the GH4. This isn't a video comparison, it's just that a lot of what sets these cameras apart are their video features.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

estarkey: So I just realized, they removed the original GH4 preview! What the hell kind of operation is going on here? The original preview was better than this so called comparative review.

@estarkey - no apology necessary. I'm sorry it's so hard to find (I've added a link at the beginning of this review, to help with that).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

CaPi: I am still unsure wether these two really can compare. What are we going for here? Will we learn if sensor size has become unimportant.?I wouldnt think so. hm. Any ideas?

@Carlton Foxx - that would be nice. I'm currently finding it hard enough to get hold of a kettle (well, an external 4K recorder), let alone trying to round-up additional fish.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

mrcultureshock: I really dislike this combo review. The review for the Sony A6000 is 13 pages long and yet the combo review for GH4 and A7s, which are 2 of the most important hybrid camera releases ever, only gets 14 pages?

Please review the GH4 and the A7s separately.

mrcultureshock - there is still more review to come (one final update, which will include additional information and separate conclusions as well as an overall comparison).

We do not have enough writers to prepare separate reviews - I could split this one up and present exactly the same information in two separate articles, but I don't understand how that would be preferable. I'm going to be drawing conclusions about each camera separately, as well as then making a comparison but, since they have so many common features that need to be tested alongside each other and explained, it made more sense to put each camera in the context of the other.

My intention was to write a review that told you what you wanted to know about each camera, and *also* helped explain their strengths and weaknesses as the best two stills/video hybrid cameras we've ever seen.

I believed readers deserved to see both cameras in proper context (because readers deserve things, cameras don't).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:17 UTC
In reply to:

photo_rb: I may be missing it, is there any place that tells us which lenses are used on the studio comparison cameras?

If you click on the 'gear' icon at the bottom right of the comparison tool, it should be listed there.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Kwick1: Absolutely hate this "comparative review" format. If you want to have a set of common pages for video in each in-depth review, then fine, but the rest of the camera feature sets are apples and oranges.

Could you please break them apart?

Splitting them apart would give you exactly the same information as you just deciding not to read the pages with a7S or GH4 at the beginning of the page title.

In response to reader feedback I've re-ordered it so that the GH4 sections and a7S sections are clustered together, so that you don't have to read too much about the other camera if you don't want. It is not possible to cover both cameras in this much depth separately.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

duartix: Come on DPREVIEW... where is the ISO tab on the very first (and most important image comparison page, given the context)?
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-dmc-gh4-sony-alpha-7s/2

We need to know how how these cameras compare when recording video at ISOs other than 100.
We all know they are perfect at base, but what we really need (in such a video centric comparison) is how far can they be stretched.

Thank you.

We've never shot ISO for that test, but it's something we'll consider doing.

It's quite hard to retrospectively add another parameter to our comparison system (and it will take much longer to test each camera), so it's not something I can promise in the short term, I'm afraid.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

josbiker: At Richard,

Why o why is there such a great difference in the exposure in the comparison tool?
It seems,some one made a very bad mistake.

I have no idea why!

Which cameras are you seeing a discrepancy in?

Test Scene JPEGs are all shot based on matched middle grey (within 1/3EV), Raw files are now shot at standard settings and then brightness-matched.

If there are any serious variations from this, let me know.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

estarkey: So I just realized, they removed the original GH4 preview! What the hell kind of operation is going on here? The original preview was better than this so called comparative review.

I'm pretty sure there are more egregious examples of click bait on the internet than publishing a review in sections. We're not trying to draw your attention back every time we change a sentence, we added six pages of editorial content (which is more than many websites would consider necessary for a review).

I can't write the review any faster, so the choices I have are to publish updates (and be able to see what aspects people are interested in) or publish nothing until the whole thing is ready.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

Artpt: No matter how you cut, crazy ISO performance on the A7S....I know this is a video comparison, but come on...

I'm pretty sure we say exactly that on the IQ page.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 01:25 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lin Evans: "the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."

I guess you haven't seen Sigma DP Merrill cameras then....

Lin

You're welcome to your opinion but I'm struggling to think of any clothing I own that has pockets that can fit a Sigma DPm.

At which point, I stand by my statement about image quality. The lens is very good for a zoom, the Raw dynamic range and noise characteristics are genuinely class leading.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: You comment that:

the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.

AND

Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.

The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.

@ET2 - nothing I've written denies that.

However, if, for a certain shot, there is a minimum depth-of-field you wish to achieve, and the GH4 can match it, then *for that shot*, there is no sensor-size advantage for the full frame camera.

As soon as you're in a position to open up the aperture, the advantage attributable to sensor size is available.

Furthermore, the a7S's sensor out-performs the difference you'd expect from size alone (or, to put it another way, it's better at high ISO than other current full frame sensors), so there's that to be considered too.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:35 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lin Evans: "the RX100 III offers the best image quality of any pocketable camera we've ever seen."

I guess you haven't seen Sigma DP Merrill cameras then....

Lin

We have seen the DP Merrill, wouldn't consider it pocketable in the same sense and couldn't make broad-ranging statements about its image quality (no matter how much you may like some aspects of its IQ, it should be apparent that you need to include some caveats).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:06 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfreund719: Image quality is amazing. It would have been nice if in any of the many reviews raving about the camera that they mentioned that you can't use the viewfinder if you wear glasses. It must be so obvious that it does not get mentioned. However if you are nearsighted and wear glasses it is a waste of time to think the view finder is something you can use.

What is it about the viewfinder you find unusable?

I wear glasses and didn't find it a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: You comment that:

the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.

AND

Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.

The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.

I've amended the text to make it a bit clearer, but there is a distinction:

In video you have less freedom over changing shutter speed (since it will change the representation of movement). As such, if you're shooting footage where you need a certain amount of depth-of-field then you have to boost the ISO on the FF camera to compensate for the smaller f-number ([which you can do](http://bit.ly/equivap)).

In stills this shutter speed restriction is much less pressing: you can stop the full frame camera down to match the depth-of-field but you have more freedom to use different shutter speed (and maintain the sensor size advantage), rather than just having to use ISO (and risk neutralizing, but not losing, the advantage).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 22:51 UTC
Total: 2398, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »