Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 2814, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Manti44: As usual, DPR does not even attempt to conceal their disdain for anything no Canon/Nikon.

I'm surprised that you'd draw that conclusion.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2015 at 01:46 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2279 comments in total)
In reply to:

RPJG: Does anyone know why Nikon and Canon have self-cancelling LPFs, rather than just not having an LPF at all?

RPJG - the reason both Nikon and Canon have told us is that it allows you to design the cameras without having to totally re-work the optical path.

Lenses tend to be designed to match certain stack heights, so it makes sense to avoid having to change it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 18:45 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Richard, great review, but as per my earlier comment - please update with at least some reference/comparison to the OM-D E-M1 "flagship". It seems that the E-M5 II surpasses the E-M1 with several of its new features, leaving the E-M10 in the dust, and so considerably less relevant to this article.

If nothing else, please could you at least extend the table on Page 1 (Introduction) to include an E-M1 column, and put in a visual comparison of the E-M1 vs E-M5 II bodies, which you say are of considerably different sizes?

It would be greatly appreciated by this E-M1 owner (and hopefully, others) ! :-)

Thanks,

Brian

Hi Brian

Now the Canon launches are out of the way I have some time to go back and look at the E-M5 II piece.

That table won't really support another column without everything being crushed up, so I'll see what I can do about it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 17:46 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: On the High Res Mode, why are the RAW pictures much softer than the JPEGs?

But look at it the other way: if there were 64MP of data being captured, why only make 40MP JPEGs?

I can't imagine they'd tell us that the process doesn't produce 64MP of information, if it does.

There's a solid history of features that Olympus has created (or in this case, brought into the mainstream), becoming more widely accepted, so...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 03:18 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: On the High Res Mode, why are the RAW pictures much softer than the JPEGs?

Because the camera isn't capturing 64MP-worth of data but is providing that data mapped to a 64MP grid?

Because this is preliminary ACR support?

A combination of the two?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 01:32 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Why no direct comparison in this review with the "flagship" OM-D E-M1?

Brian

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that most people looking at this camera would be put off by the bigger size of the E-M1 and would mainly want to know how it compares to the visually similar but less expensive E-M10.

When it comes to testing it, we'll certainly have a look at how the autofocus performance stacks up next to the E-M1.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 00:04 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sirandar: Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II. Am I missing something? Look at the green feathers...

Also, the addition of a articulating display is very welcome, but can you turn the display to face inwards when not using it? Since even with a screen protector the display tends to rub against stuff and take damage, turning it in would make shooting a much more carefree experience.

My old Pana FZ30 had this feature and I took advantage of it a lot as I tend to use the viewfinder.

@ThePhilips - there is no reason why because there is no basis on which it would make sense for us to sabotage a camera. It's in nobody's interest at all.

I'm not arguing that the 45mm is the best possible lens but it is a very good lens. The test scene has to in some way relate to the real world and this isn't achieved by cherry-picking the very best possible lens, regardless of how likely it is that anyone is to use it. By the same logic, we don't use the Zeiss Otus lenses on full frame Canons or Nikons.

Whichever lens we use, there will be people who decide that we *have* to use lens X or Y. It's disingenuous to suggest that not doing what you want means that anything is being sabotaged.

I repeat we are looking at why these shots are less sharp than they should be.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 22:10 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: Might want to mention which camera is which in the images. Not all are well versed enough in Oly cameras to spot that it is the II on the left and the older on the right.

That's a fair comment. I'll put a note in.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 21:52 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sirandar: Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II. Am I missing something? Look at the green feathers...

Also, the addition of a articulating display is very welcome, but can you turn the display to face inwards when not using it? Since even with a screen protector the display tends to rub against stuff and take damage, turning it in would make shooting a much more carefree experience.

My old Pana FZ30 had this feature and I took advantage of it a lot as I tend to use the viewfinder.

Why on Earth would we try to sabotage a camera?

We've said we're looking into why these shots don't appear as sharp as they could.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 21:06 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jan Chelminski: There appears to be an error in the text:

"However, because there's some overlap between the original set of four pixels and the set of offset pixels, the system doesn't quite yield four times the original resolution (64MP). Instead, the camera compensates for this overlap and outputs a 40MP file. These files are captured both as 40MP JPEGs and as vast, 100MB Raw files."

I believe there is indeed a 64MP output mode, but only with an (PS plug-in unavailable for now) externally processed RAW file.

According to Pekka Potka:
"64 MP is 9216 x 6912 pixels, or 192 MB when opened in Photoshop. The size of .ORF file is roughly 100 MB"

Please see Pekka's, or Imaging Resource's reviews.

There is an Olympus plugin. As explained in the text, we've used a beta of Adobe Camera Raw with preliminary support.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 20:37 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roman Korcek: It is really a pity that Olympus did not implement image stabilization with the 40 MPx mode. It should be quite easy from an algorithmic point of view.

badi - as it stands, the camera appears to disable *all* IS when in high res mode, even if you set it to 'Lens Priority IS.'

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: The studio shots on the new E-M5 Mk2 appear to be very out of focus for the standard. Was it shot poorly or has Olympus added no sharpening...?

We're looking into why the shots don't seem as sharp as they should (given the E-M10 was shot using the same copy of the same lens).

The 45mm F1.8 is a pretty good lens - it's certainly too good to dismiss as 'plastic fantastic.' It's a well-liked mid-range prime, which is what we use for these tests.

Given there are only two 45mm primes for Micro Four Thirds and the Olympus one out-scores the Panasonic/Leica Macro in DxO's test, I'd question the 'poorest 45mm' statement, too.

We don't cherry-pick the very best possible lens for every system (not least because someone always has a different opinion about which lens we *have to* use).

We're going to investigate the 60mm Macro but it would be inconsistent with the way we treat all other cameras if we decided to start using a $1600 prime for Micro Four Thirds.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 20:00 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Is there an error with the USB? Only version 2? That cannot be right. It is nice that is has a 64 MP output in RAW.

@brycesteiner - don't get me wrong, I can see the appeal, but it seems most manufacturers are seeing these benefits as minor, compared to whatever costs are involved in integrating USB 3.0 connections.

It's interested how much slower the move across to USB 3.0 on everything except the highest-end models (where tethering is more likely) is proving. It certainly seems much slower than the adoption of USB 2.0 was, from my shaky recollection.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:50 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Is there an error with the USB? Only version 2? That cannot be right. It is nice that is has a 64 MP output in RAW.

That sounds like too many to fit in a small camera.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

prossi: Can you update the spec table with the EM1 and take out the EM10? Nobody cares about how it compares to that lower tier model.

I chose to put the E-M10 in because it's physically very similar to the E-M5 and E-M5 II and I was trying to illustrate what you do and don't get for the additional money.

No meetings were had and Olympus's perspective was never considered: I did what I thought would be most useful for most people. If I've got this wrong, I'm happy to change it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:03 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Helstor: Does it have a new shutter mecanism (real first curtain electonic shutter)?

Your question should be answered by my previous comment.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 19:00 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevez: The only thing, and I really mean the only thing I don't like about this camera is the removal of the accessory port which means I can no longer use my previously supplied pop up flash, fiber optic macro light, accessory viewfinder or accessory microphone.

This has a viewfinder, better pop-up flash and a built-in mic socket, so it's probably worth selling several of those items anyway, isn't it?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Is there an error with the USB? Only version 2? That cannot be right. It is nice that is has a 64 MP output in RAW.

USB 3.0 isn't being widely adopted by manufacturers yet, for whatever reason (it's still only offered on about five cameras).

Ultimately it's usually quicker to just put the memory card in a descent (USB 3.0, perhaps) card reader.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:49 UTC
On Olympus OM-D E-M5 II First Impressions Review preview (1321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jan Chelminski: There appears to be an error in the text:

"However, because there's some overlap between the original set of four pixels and the set of offset pixels, the system doesn't quite yield four times the original resolution (64MP). Instead, the camera compensates for this overlap and outputs a 40MP file. These files are captured both as 40MP JPEGs and as vast, 100MB Raw files."

I believe there is indeed a 64MP output mode, but only with an (PS plug-in unavailable for now) externally processed RAW file.

According to Pekka Potka:
"64 MP is 9216 x 6912 pixels, or 192 MB when opened in Photoshop. The size of .ORF file is roughly 100 MB"

Please see Pekka's, or Imaging Resource's reviews.

Yes the camera outputs 64MP Raws but that doesn't mean it has 64MP worth of detail in the files - that's why Olympus outputs the JPEGs at 40MP.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2089 comments in total)
In reply to:

larryr: If I understand the article correctly, total light gives an idea of the quality of the images so a camera with a smaller sensor might do as well or perhaps better than one with a larger sensor IF it has a faster lens (AND using a slower shutter speed is not an option, forcing the camera with the larger sensor to use a higher ISO)? Pixel density is not important? This allows one to understand the relative importance of lens speed vs. sensor size (in terms of total light and IQ).

This changes the common wisdom that a small sensor camera performs pretty well in daylight but not so well in low light? But the daylight situation has not changed, and the low light situation has improved only where the camera has a faster lens and a slower shutter speed can not be used (allowing it to use a lower ISO?)

On cameras with smaller sensors does the adjusted aperture refer to the actual size of the aperture? In the cropped example the adjusted aperture does refer to the used part of the aperture.

Nobody is claiming that the sensor size has any impact on the light intensity.

However, light intensity is a measure of the amount of light cast on a particular area and sensor size gives an understanding of the area that you are sampling.

I repeat: an 25mm f/15.6 lens would clearly allow lower light intensity to the sensor than a 4.5mm f/2.8 but the difference between the two is proportionate to the different areas over which the light is being captured.

So: If both sensors have the same number of pixels, then each pixel receives the same number of photons during the same exposure time. The larger sensor experiences less light per-unit-area but has larger pixels.

Pixel size plays a surprisingly small role in image quality (if you resample images to a common size). Sensor size plays a much larger role because it determines how much light you can potentially capture (because it defines how much area you have measuring any given intensity).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 18:35 UTC
Total: 2814, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »