Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 2695, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

guydr: I don't understand some off the comments on the G7X, it starting to sound like all the bashing and trashing of both of the G1X models, and both of the G1X models blows IQ-wise the RX100 models right out of the water like a spacerocket. I have a RX100 also and it takes great pictures, so does the G7X. But people always forget to mention when they compare both RX100m3 and G7X, at least in my country, is the price difference. RX100m3 849€ and G7X 599€.
And if you speak about shot-to-shot time and AF-speed look at the nikons P7xxx models and P3xx than you see wat slow raelly meant.
Good review DPR

@Zeisschen - actually, the G1 X II doesn't offer nearly the IQ advantage that its sensor size suggests it should (which, given the age of its sensor technology, vs the BSI CMOS design in the Sony chips, isn't hard to explain).

The G7 X's images will match the G1 X II's image quality in almost every respect: low ISO DR, high ISO performance and, at most focal lengths, control over depth-of-field.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 17:49 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

W5JCK: Wow, a Cons list that is considerably longer than the Pros list, and questionable IQ, but good ol' DPReview gives it a 77 point Silver Award! Do their reviewers even know much about photography or camera gear? What a joke!

@lackikuss - DxO measures the sensors, whereas our conclusion also includes our assessment of the two cameras' lenses, so I'll stand by the suggestion that the RX100 III's IQ is slightly better.

Without knowing:

a) What the margin of error in DxO's testing is.

b) How much impact the downstream electronics (and Sony's compression of Raw files) could have on the numbers.

I don't know how significant that 4-point difference is.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 02:19 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Master Yoda: The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.

@Master Yoda - I'm aware that some people are critical of our ratings (that's been true the whole time I've worked here) and I'm certainly not going to claim that our scoring system is perfect. However, the award itself (independently of the score) is awarded on the basis of the reviewer's overall opinion of the camera, based on their usage and their understanding of the target audience.

Clearly Jeff didn't think the unreliability of the focus system was so great that it prevented him giving it a Silver award.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 02:13 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

monkeybrain: So the Samsung NX Mini's (also 1 inch sensor) sample's gallery was up and the camera on sale before the Canon was announced. But DPReview clearly prioritised the Canon review because it'll get more hits and have (presumably indefinitely) sidelined the Mini review despite the sample's gallery having some very promising shots.

@Altruisto - I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. We've not knowingly 'backed off' on anything. Jeff and I co-wrote the preview whereas the completed review is mainly him, but that's the only reason I can think of for any change in tone.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:15 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fudgington: This seems a rather negative review and one not borne out by other users on the focus issues. I was hoping to get this camera as an improvement on the S120 as a carry around camera, so this is a little disappointing. I guess the best thing to do is try it out for myself rather than place too much store by reviews...

@wexie - I wrote that response as I was racing out to grab lunch, please don't interpret its brevity as a sign of me taking offence. Your input is welcomed.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 22:16 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

monkeybrain: So the Samsung NX Mini's (also 1 inch sensor) sample's gallery was up and the camera on sale before the Canon was announced. But DPReview clearly prioritised the Canon review because it'll get more hits and have (presumably indefinitely) sidelined the Mini review despite the sample's gallery having some very promising shots.

We do have to focus our resources (reviewers) on the cameras that the most people are interested in.

We will be publishing a review of the Samsung NX Mini in the not-too-distant future, but the level of interest in the Canon was *significantly* greater.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 22:01 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fudgington: This seems a rather negative review and one not borne out by other users on the focus issues. I was hoping to get this camera as an improvement on the S120 as a carry around camera, so this is a little disappointing. I guess the best thing to do is try it out for myself rather than place too much store by reviews...

@wexie - we've tried two different cameras with significantly different serial numbers - both can be a little slow to focus and both will occasionally slightly (but noticeably) miss focus.

We can only review the camera we have.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 21:06 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

W5JCK: Wow, a Cons list that is considerably longer than the Pros list, and questionable IQ, but good ol' DPReview gives it a 77 point Silver Award! Do their reviewers even know much about photography or camera gear? What a joke!

'Questionable IQ?' that's an odd way of looking at it. It doesn't quite match the RX100 III, but that's a camera with probably the best IQ we've ever got out of a compact, so it's a pretty high bar to compare it to.

Name me another compact that can perform so well in low light or offer so much dynamic range. Or provide such control over depth-of-field. These seem like legitimate photographic reasons on which to give a piece of camera gear a *pretty good* but not great score.

Read the Pros list, then read the Cons list and it should be apparent that you don't assess a camera based on how long the list is. Some missed opportunities and quirks in implementation don't suddenly cancel-out some of the best IQ we've ever seen from a compact.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 21:02 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Master Yoda: The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.

The number of cons doesn't matter - it's how significant they are.

Take a look at the first two pros. This camera offers some of the best image quality to ever come out of a compact camera. That overcomes an awful lot of irritations about the detail of the handling and some of the features.

Overall it's a very good camera (if the RX100 III didn't exist, it might be vying for 'best-ever' compact title), however there are enough things that are wrong to stop it getting Gold. Image quality-wise, this will trounce almost every compact ever made. At which point a Silver award doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 20:57 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

meland: Did DPR actually test battery performance, or are you just relying on CIPA data? CIPA assumes flash used for every shot and full zooming between every shot. Is that relevant?

@meland - the problem is that different people have different ideas of what 'real-world' use consists of.

The CIPA testing standard has been used for many, many years now and does a pretty good job of representing battery life (even if the number itself isn't necessarily a reflection of the exact number of shots you'll get).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 18:53 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fudgington: This seems a rather negative review and one not borne out by other users on the focus issues. I was hoping to get this camera as an improvement on the S120 as a carry around camera, so this is a little disappointing. I guess the best thing to do is try it out for myself rather than place too much store by reviews...

We'd always recommend you try a camera if you can. However, even if you don't find an issue we raise to be as important as we think it is, with any luck our review will highlight some things to look for.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 18:48 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

meland: Did DPR actually test battery performance, or are you just relying on CIPA data? CIPA assumes flash used for every shot and full zooming between every shot. Is that relevant?

@meland - although CIPA figures don't directly correspond to everyone's real-world usage (how could they?), they give a very good idea of how cameras compare to one another.

So, while lots of people will get more than the listed 210 shots from the G7 X, it's highly likely that the same people would get 50% more shots out of an RX100 III, since its CIPA rating is 50% greater.

The G7 X was a camera where we had to constantly worry about keeping a spare battery charged, every time we went out shooting. Even with lowered expectations for a compact, it ran out of battery regularly.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 17:47 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Pineapples: First article, final paragraph: "by" -> "buy".

Both errors have been corrected.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 18:59 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Okay, but this isn't really a review, and there are no DNGs.

It doesn't claim to be a review.

DNGs from our test scene will be available soon.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:25 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (954 comments in total)
In reply to:

lacikuss: Okay, so according to the DXO marks the G7x Sensor outshines the SONY RX100III sensor in everything: Color depth, DR and High ISO performance.

Quote: "Meanwhile, the details of the sensor strongly suggest it uses Sony's IMX183CQJ sensor, so could well be able to match the latest RX100 series in terms of image quality"

My question is simple, aren't these two cameras supposed to have the same sensor? What is the meaning of "Strongly suggest"? Isn't this another bias preview? or Is it DXO marks with the bias? Or maybe this is due to simple sample variations of the same product?

When DPreview, DXO marks, CameraLabs or any other site base their product reviews on sample size = 1, What is the Statistical significance of any of these reviews?

Two possible factors to consider:

Experimental error (as in the inherent inaccuracy of any experiment, not any suggestion that the test isn't being conducted correctly).

Sony compresses its Raw file (which could have a slight impact when pushed to extremes).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 18:51 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

ekaton: I`m not trying to defend the X113. But the professional`s "review" is rather a piece of snobbery than a real camera review. If he can`t get a decent file with a state of the art 16MP aps-c sensor than it might be not the tool`s shortcomings. This 16MP Sony sensor is as good as FF sensors were a few years back. Good enough, for sure for many pro uses. "Inadequate DNG files....". Really?

My I suggest you look at the Saab example towards the bottom of the page?

I too was surprised when I read David's comments but, having tried to play around with the Raw files, I'd agree with him entirely. The shadows appear to be recorded with limited bit-depth or something, since they posterize to a surprising degree.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 18:18 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Of Course, where Dpreview give the game away is those two portraits of reviewers made with the GMC GM5............

Actually, one of them was taken with a GM5. The other was taken with a Pentax 645Z.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 17:59 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: I find it odd that the first reviewer does not link to full-size pictures in a review about the image quality of a camera/lens. A bit over-protective of his work, perhaps?

If that's the reason, then he should probably refrain from doing future reviews if he can't share the visual aids. I guess we'll just have to take his word on it about the shadow noise...

The decision not to show fill-sized images was my choice, because this article isn't about pixel-peeping (and the images were shot to learn about using the camera, not with pixel-level analysis in mind).

And you don't have to take David's word for the shadow noise issue - there's an example towards the bottom of the page showing how shadow regions are posterized if you push them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 17:57 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marathonianbull: I enjoyed (and trusted) this farmed-out review format, DPReview; please, keep it that way!

It's also intended as more of an overview/impressions piece, rather than a review. We'll try to do more of them (as well as the in-depth reviews) though.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 17:54 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (386 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: 'since it created the first 35mm film camera 100 years ago'

I don't know man, if you're going to write articles up on the internet for a whole bunch of people to see, at least get your facts right.
Not going to bother reading the rest of the article.
The first line pretty much sums up the (lack of) knowledge the writer has and the laziness in not bothering to research on the topic.

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

fmian - no need to apologise at all. If you being pedantic means that we get it right, then everyone wins.

My concern was much more that an error I introduced ended up undermining the work that David and Sam put into writing the piece. Thanks for letting us know.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 03:20 UTC
Total: 2695, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »