Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 2678, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: It is time to DPR to provide cameras sensor *total* area in mm² (besides the old ones), terms like 1 / 1.7, 4/3 are very misleading.

@BarnET - 41.7mm (assuming use of [this sensor](http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol69/np_imx144cqj.html) ), would be the size of the whole chip.

Unlike the LX3 and 5 (which used crops of a 1/1.63"-type sensor), the LX7 uses cropped regions of a 1/1.7"-type. Our figure of 35sqmm is based on the pixel count of the LX7's output, compared to the full region being used in other cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 21:19 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: @DPR:
it would be awesome, to see a head-to-head comparison,
between the G1Xii and the LX100.
(ditto for G7X versus RX100iii)

You should find the G1 X II in all the major comparisons in [our Panasonic LX100 review](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100).

The LX100 wins in essentially every respect - image quality, handling, speed, video...

And, though I see your point about the GM5 and 14-42 PZ, that combination ends up being much slower: 28-84mm F7-11.2 equiv, rather than 24-75mm F3.7-6.2 equiv. The LX100 also offers a lot more in terms of direct control than the GM5, given it's solely designed as a photographers' camera.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: It is time to DPR to provide cameras sensor *total* area in mm² (besides the old ones), terms like 1 / 1.7, 4/3 are very misleading.

@Francisco Aragao - they are the 4:3 areas, but that's the largest area you can use on these multi-aspect designs. The full sensor area becomes rather academic at that point.

They're something like 42sqmm, 224sqmm and 262sqmm respectively, but you don't ever get access to that area, so we've quoted the largest region you can actually gain the benefit from.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

FRANCISCO ARAGAO: It is time to DPR to provide cameras sensor *total* area in mm² (besides the old ones), terms like 1 / 1.7, 4/3 are very misleading.

You mean like the table on page 1 does?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

pantherpinot: How did you do Adobe Camera Raw conversions when neither Camera Raw 8.6 nor Camera Raw 8.7 RC supports the LX 100÷

Adobe was kind enough to give us access to a pre-release beta. This usually means there's a public version not far behind.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 20:23 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: You give this camera a higher rating than the Sony RCX100 III yet in virtually every respect the Sony has equal or better performance specs. 85% vs 82%, the percentages are, as usual, misleading and completely arbitrary.

P.S. I don't own the Sony so all of you poised to accuse me of being a fan-boy are going to have to do better than that!!!!!!!

I think you might have misinterpreted the comparison tool.

The RX100 III outscores the LX100 by a *tiny* margin in optics and high ISO performance (thanks to its slightly better JPEG noise reduction). However, the LX100 significantly outscores the Sony in terms of build quality, features and, most importantly, ergonomics and handling - it's just enough to push the Panasonic up to 85%.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 20:22 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bram de Mooij: I own this camera for while now and I agree with almost all of the conclusions in this review. I do not care about the seperate flash, since I almost never use flash. I like the camera very much although at this moment I have no possibility other then rawtherapee to process raw files on a computer. I have noticed the distortion of uncorrected wide angle raw files is severe and am a bit surprised that this seem to have little effect on corner image quality or did I miss that ?
A viewfinder on a camera is essential to me (for that reason I do not like my GM1 as much as I expected). The quality of the LX100 viewfinder is not that great. As I wear glasses I keep on fiddling with that correction wheel. I do not seem to get that right. I will do some experimentation with the contrast and color settings of the VF now. Thanks for that advice.

The distortion correction may contribute to the camera's corner softness but, since it gets pretty good as you stop the lens down, it suggests it's not terrible.

This is the approach most (all?) wide-angle compacts and even some mirrorless cameras take to offer 24mm equivalent fields of view. It tends to work pretty well, so it makes sense to judge the camera based on the final results, not on image with incomplete processing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:49 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

newworld666: I am surprised picture quality is so far behind a nearly twice cheaper Canon 100d . http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/12
Canon 100D + 40 STM is not really bigger, but definitely can give much better pictures compared to the LX100 which seems to be more or less an expensive video camera.

The EOS 100D/SL1's sensor may be bigger, but it's also considerably older. Its noise performance is very similar to the LX100's despite the larger sensor, and its low ISO DR is likely to be worse.

I also think it's find a 64mm equivalent prime a little limiting, compared to a 24-75mm equivalent zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:30 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Markr041: This statement is not true:

"Unsurprisingly, the LX100 isn't about to challenge the GH4 as the videographer's choice, since it captures 4K at a lower bitrate (100Mbps)"

The GH4 captures 4K video at 100Mbps; so does the LX100.

Please correct this, or show me I am wrong (I own both).

Sorry about that - I'd got the GH4's 200Mbps 1080 figure stuck in my head.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:27 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

tom1234567: Your post starts ( Panasonic's Lumix DMC-LX100 turned a lot of heads )
NOT as many heads as the Samsung NX1 i would think
but that camera may not get the same headlines or praise as the
you no which cameras !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it also does excellent 4k video better than GH4 from what I read, and you can copy the video straight of the S.D Card you can not do that with the Panasonic,

Tom G

The LX100 attracted a *lot* more attention at launch on this site than the NX1 did.

The other difference is that we got access to a production LX100 much sooner than Samsung could get us an NX1 (final firmware for which arrived this week).

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'can copy straight from the SD card' - you can do exactly that on the Panasonics (and it uses a common standard for its video, rather than the currently less widely supported h.265 compression system).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:25 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Are you sure the video was shot at ISO 12,800? I believe video is limited to ISO 6400 but I am not certain which mode you used for the high ISO clip.

Sorry, my error. I don't know why I wrote 12,800 - as you say, video tops-out at 6400.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:15 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Another con would be the lack of a built in lens cap/shutter, which is pretty much standard for compact cameras. One more thing to carry/lose.

It's standard on small sensor compacts but less so on high-end models. Having recently had to help repair a camera whose metal lens cover blades had got dented, I'm not finding a proper lens cap a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 19:12 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

prossi: How about DPreview focus on some of the cameras people want to see reviewed like the GM5, a5100, EPL7, d750?
Why would anyone want to get this thing when the rx100III is out there?
I don't know what's up with Canon but I gave up on it since 2010.

Our site traffic suggests those aren't necessarily the cameras 'people' want to see reviewed (first).

On paper, the G7 X looked like it might be at least as good as the RX100 III. It's only by reviewing it that we found that the Canon doesn't fully live up to its spec.

Some of the cameras you mention are in the process of being reviewed.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 20:06 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

afm: Reviews here do make me smile. The G7X fits in your jeans pocket but is so small that your thumb covers the rear dial. Other P&S cameras are too big! The exposure dial is too far back and difficult to use - others are extended and so often moved by mistake. And it goes on and on. A constant source of entertainment.

We point out potential irritations, it's up to you to decide how significant they are to you.

If the small size of the G7 X is important to you then you'll probably accept a couple of handling compromises. By highlighting the potential concerns, you can decide how much of a compromise it is.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 20:03 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 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 - first two RX100s had F1.8-4.9 lenses, when meant their performance (in terms of low-light capability and depth-of-field control) drops off dramatically as you zoom in. The G7 X and RX100 III both have F1.8-2.8 lenses, so are much closer in terms of capability than the older models. As such, those are the two it makes most sense to compare.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 18:00 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Hmmm. Thanks to that comparison chart, I think I'll go with the G1X II. Compared to the G7X, it has a larger sensor, further reach, lower ISO and a hotshoe.

@Joseph Black - my comment was simply a response to a reader who's set out the things they thought they'd find useful in the G1 X II. I was trying to point out that the won't see any benefit from the additional sensor size (which our test scene shots and real-world examples illustrate, in a way that's consistent with DxO's data).

And, because the G7 X's lens is so bright, the G1 X II only offers any depth-of-field advantage between 24 and 26mm equiv, and at the 100-120mm equiv end that the smaller camera doesn't reach.

My aim wasn't to snipe, it was to try to highlight to a reader that one of the theoretical benefits they were hoping for doesn't translate into the reality of the photos that the G1 X II takes. My intention was to be helpful but clearly it hasn't come across that way.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 20:05 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Hmmm. Thanks to that comparison chart, I think I'll go with the G1X II. Compared to the G7X, it has a larger sensor, further reach, lower ISO and a hotshoe.

@Joseph Black - I'm literally in the process of writing up the DR comparison for the LX100 review because I'd much rather show than expect anyone to take it on trust. I'd have asked Jeff to include it in the G7 X review if it had been ready in time. But, as I say, there's already a demonstration in the G1 X II review that illustrates the same point.

With regards cameras behaviour in Raw mode, I couldn't agree with you more. Sooner or later a manufacturer is going to build a camera based on optimal exposure for Raw (with the JPEG rendering being secondary to that, rather than the other way round), or at least providing the necessary tools. That would be great.

But with regards objectivity, the sensor in the G1 X II is directly derived from the one that appeared in the EOS 7D, five years ago, whereas the BSI technology was only implemented at the 1" size last year. I'm didn't mean to make a qualitative statement - the technology in the Sony chip is unequivocally newer.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 19:54 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Hmmm. Thanks to that comparison chart, I think I'll go with the G1X II. Compared to the G7X, it has a larger sensor, further reach, lower ISO and a hotshoe.

Ultimately, whether you look at DxO's data (the testing, not the overall score), or the photographic examples here or on Imaging Resource, you'll find the results to be consistent - the rather elderly sensor in the G1 X II cancels-out the advantage its sensor size should give, over the smaller (but much more modern) sensor in the G7 X.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 18:59 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Hmmm. Thanks to that comparison chart, I think I'll go with the G1X II. Compared to the G7X, it has a larger sensor, further reach, lower ISO and a hotshoe.

@Joseph Black - our DR tests are based on JPEGs, so what you're seeing is not greater sensor-level DR but a difference in how the sensor output is mapped to the JPEG output (in the highlights) and how contrasty the tone curve the manufacturer has chosen (in the shadows).

Take a Raw file, exposed to protect highlights and push them by the same amount and you'll find the G1 X II's noise floor is sitting immediately below where its JPEGs cut off. By contrast, the G7 X is continues to capture relatively clean tonal information for more than a stop.

There's an illustration of this in [the G1 X II review](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii/7), and we'll be publishing a comparison between the G7 X, LX100, RX100 III and G1 X II in the forthcoming LX100 review.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

NWT: "Based on sensor size differences alone, one might expect the G1X II’s twice-as-large sensor to show 1 EV better ISO performance compared to the G7 X; in reality, ISO 6400 on the G1X II is noticeably noisier than ISO 3200 on the G7 X."

What a strange way of comparing. Base on the reviewer's theroy, because RX100's sensor is about three times larger than S120, one would expect its RAW at 3200 iso would have less noise than S120's at 800.

A 3x sensor size difference would be around 1.58 stops, so that would lead you to expect the G7 X's Raw ISO 3200 to be similar to the S120's ISO 1100 or so.

Sure enough, look at our test scene shot in Raw with the G7 X set to ISO 3200 and you'll see the S120 is better at ISO 800. Switch to ISO 1600 and the results drop behind the G7 X's.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
Total: 2678, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »