Richard Butler

Richard Butler

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 7, 2007

Comments

Total: 3160, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ari Aikomus: Which ACR version will be able to open Fuji X-pro2 RAW files??

You're right, it should be mentioned (it's usually listed in the parameters for the Raw files in the test scene, and is being added now).

However, Adobe doesn't provide us with software builds until they're fairly far advanced (and usually identical to the public version that's launched soon afterwards). I can only think of one instance of a noticeable change in image quality between the build we were offered and the final public version from the last eight years I've been here.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: I love Fujis, but with the high prices and weird feature absences (no RGB histogram?!?!? FFS) plus customer manipulation (plastic skin textures on the 2nd gen high ISO jegs, denied by Fuji), I would jump ship but for one thing.

There's no getting around the fabulous portrait OOC jpegs that are a combo of fuji skin tones, autoDR, and wonderful jpeg engine. No need for RAW (in fact I can't get as good in RAW as I can in fuji jpeg).

Even Lightroom's Fuji modes don't come anywhere near the OOC jpegs. I did try, ladies and gents, since the plastic textures on the 2nd gens were a deal-breaker.

Thanks goodness this camera doesn't have the plastic texture issue because I was stuck. But it's time for fuji to get their finger out of their collective butts and give us an RGB histogram. I need to go lower on the ISOs to get a decent 4K image but I would then be troubled by blow-outs, particularly in the red channel. ISO 400 does not reach 4K except when shot in portrait orientation.

Sadly, I don't think we've ever encountered a camera that offers Raw histograms.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: If size is not an issue, you can still get Nikon D7100 for $500. It is a very capable weather sealed camera with huge selection of the lenses from Nikon or 3nd party, and build quality is much better than all cameras listed in Richard's article.

The article is simply using one of our roundups to discuss a general case. It's not *about* those models.

But yes, out-of-production cameras are cheaper than the latest models.

However, to the point of the article, there are smaller options, options with Wi-Fi, options that make it easier to shoot better video with. Options with greater usable dynamic range. Depending on individual needs, the D7100 could be a great or a terrible recommendation.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:21 UTC
In reply to:

pait: Page unviewable.

Where are you encountering that?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
In reply to:

ot73: love the review, but i never understood how can you compare different brands, which use different lenses...

BTW, which lens did u use on the Fuji?

thanks!

veritalens - potentially, yes (though there isn't a huge difference between the 50mm lenses we use most often, once you stop them down a little).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

ot73: love the review, but i never understood how can you compare different brands, which use different lenses...

BTW, which lens did u use on the Fuji?

thanks!

The lenses used are listed with every sample. Hover your mouse over the info [ i ] button to the lower right of each sample pane.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

Aroart: I think fuji makes great cameras but there asking price for this camera is a bit high.. The XT1 price was lower at launch... I hope they can launch it with lense discounts like olympus does...One thing that's great about fuji they make awesome lenses and only a few suck....

List price (in the US, at least,) is the same as for the X-Pro1 at launch.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

vincent0923: it seems like Fujifilm is no longer "faking" the iso rating.
I downloaded the iso 25600 low light jpegs of both xpro2 and A7R2, with same looking image, iso 25600, aperture 5.6, the shutter speeds are the same at 1/5000s for both camera.

We l're nor adjusting the lighting for the camera. JPEGs are shot based on image brightness (as per the sections of the ISO standard that camera makers use), Raws are shot using fixed settings to allow side-by-side comparison of noise.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Whoa what happened these images are seriously horrible. Surely this can't be the true output from this camera can it ? My little walk around Nikon D 3300 with cheap kit lens destroys this Fuji and I only paid $499 for it. Something is wrong here I just can't image it really being that bad.

JPEGs in our test scene are shot based on the camera's interpretation of ISO (or a photographer trying to shoot an image of a particular brightness). The shutter speed and aperture used are stated in the info button next to each image.

Raws are shot based on standardised aperture and shutter speed so that each camera is getting the same amount of light. That was you can compare noise.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

markam04: Can't find info re which lens used?

There's a small square marked [ i ] to the lower right of each comparison pane that lists the shooting settings and lens used.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

photomedium: IMO if every camera gets an award I question the point of a site dedicated to reviews. People sometimes like absolutes.

Not *every* camera gets an award, and we try to be very selective when it comes to Gold awards. Ultimately, the conclusion is a much more nuanced assessment of a camera than the badge at the bottom of the last page, and the review is more detailed than just reading the conclusion.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2016 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

HB1969: "One of the most witless arguments I regularly see is: ‘it won’t improve your photography – Ansel Adams would get better photos using an iPhone.’ (And it’s always Ansel Adams, isn’t it?)."

I'm OUTRAGED by this comment!! ...sometimes its Henri Cartier-Bresson :p

That's true.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

REDred Photo: As a photography teacher and camera collector, I've been making this very same argument to my students for many years. I'm glad to see someone in the public arena finally saying that equipment doesn't make the photographer but one can indeed make better images with better equipment and the know-how.

Increased technical perfection does not increase artistic richness. That's what we really mean when we say it's not about the camera. Most cameras current camera sensors really do have magical abilities when you compare to just 10 years ago.

But a Cadillac isn't just an engine. A Cooper Mini isn't for everyone. Interface deeply impacts every aspect of the human experience.

And you're more likely to go out shooting with a camera you enjoy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

agentlossing: Kind of silly to have a discussion that doesn't even mention the lens ecosystem, even though every single one of these cameras featured is an ILC. It's as if they are recommending them solely based on kit lenses.

piratejabez is absolutely right: this class of cameras was only discussed to illustrate a wider issue.

I've now added in a mention of lens options, because that is a very important consideration that I should have included in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

solarider: Hi DPR and Mr. Butler.

Describing in each case that a given reviewer would want that camera or not want that camera, even tho' they give a high mark would actually be helpful to know in every review, especially if it didn't fit their requirements. Is it possible to add this to the reviews? I think showing that it's not a slam dunk just because of the rating gives the reader something more to think about and consider.

Again, DPR does a great job in bringing good ideas into the spotlight.

Thank you.

We try to express our own perspectives in the shooting experience section of the review, and try to spell out where a camera does well and badly in the conclusion, so that you can decide whether your needs align with our conclusion.

However, I regularly end up reviewing cameras that aren't aimed at me (maybe more high-end than I would personally buy or more point-and-shoot orientated than I'd prefer), so it's not always relevant whether I'd personally want that camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 18:57 UTC
In reply to:

Andrei L: Also, the piece almost sounds apologetic towards perhaps some unsatisfied readers. Maybe it shouldn't. Camera producers target specific users and groups when launching a model, while photo reviews have to guide ALL users to a certain extent. Mission impossible. I hardly ever resonate with the documented opinions here, but that's good, because I can get different perspectives. I'd say DPReview is definitely one of my all-time favorites as far as photo stuff goes and I've been able to get extremely useful insights and samples. So, thank you!

Hi Andrei L - thanks for your kind words. You're right that it's impossible to guide all users, which is why we try to spell out the logic for our decisions as well as highlighting strengths and weaknesses. We can't second-guess every possible use-case or set of preferences, but we do try to provide the information required to make an informed decision.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

exapixel: Want to make this article more helpful? Run through a list of credible "best cameras for somebody", and for each, legitimately try to describe the photographers who would indeed be best served by that product.

What, for *every* camera?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Many Cameras are great, makes choosing one harder!
vs
All cameras are great, but that doesn't make choosing one any easier

In technical writing less words is the BEST way to say it.

They also mean *slightly* different things. That's an element of technical writing, too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Why do you guys continue to even showcase (i.e. front and center image) Samsung which every one knows is not committed to sticking around when Pentax is still at least trying ;p. The K-S2 was an earnest effort. No real coverage of any of Pentax's last 2015 efforts. A Samsung NX500 gets shown front and center as well as further product links. Samsung is out of the game! Pentax is still trying to be in it, but given the ongoing snub I'm guessing you guys are already preparing to write similar articles for Pentax as you have Samsung. I guess being the only DSLRs around with IBIS isn't good enough and it just *has* to be mirrorless to get coverage?

Really the article should be, all cameras are great! But we pretty much never mention Pentax any longer.

We grabbed picked up a number of cameras that we had to hand. The NX500 made it in there because there were a couple of people making strong arguments for it when we provide published our roundups and that was one of the triggers for me writing this article.

This article isn't **about** these particular cameras, it's about cameras in general.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: The difference between the best and worst AF - and the best and worse sensor - is many less than the difference between the best and worse camera *system*, when one accounts for systemic IQ (lenses), handling (controls, responsiveness, comfort), support (firmware updates, customer service, quality of warranty repair), and cost (value for money, resale).

That's a good point. I should have mentioned the wider system - especially lens choice (though I don't consider handling to be a systemic property and support is virtually impossible to assess).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
Total: 3160, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »