Rishi Sanyal

Rishi Sanyal

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Deputy / Technical Editor
Has a website at www.rishi.photography
Joined on Feb 25, 2014
About me:

Although I'm a scientist by training, having recently completed my Ph.D in biophysics, photography has always been a huge passion of mine. It's been an incredible opportunity to meld these two interests together here at DPReview!

Comments

Total: 2529, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

sibuzaru: For the RX10II review would be nice to see some tests on the anti-distortion electronic shutter. If there's no rolling shutter and no image degradation, I wonder why they didn't ditch the mechanical shutter.

We're pretty sure there is still some rolling shutter, which is particularly evident at longer focal lengths when panning the camera, so we imagine it's even more of an issue on the RX10 II than on the RX100 IV. It's well controlled, but we still noticed some rolling shutter in the live view feed of the RX10 II during operation. We don't have a standardized test for this yet so it's a little difficult to test; the side-by-side shaking method we used for the RX100 III vs IV is all we have for now as a make-shift test.

We'll look into it though.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 06:52 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

kodakrome: Is DPR trying to suggest that it's possible to put a 600mm F4 lens on this camera? The whole point of this camera is to have a longer zoom, so why criticize it for F5.6? These reviews would be much better if you would just give us the facts, and stop with all the brand bias.

"There's a difference between mentioning that trade off, and suggesting that they'll be happier with a different camera with a shorter lens."

Not sure what statement in particular you're referring to, but all I see is that Barney wrote:

"On balance then, *if you don't need the long zoom reach*, the Sony Cyber-shot RX10 II might make more sense than the G3 X on paper. But how a camera feels is extremely important. I've enjoyed using the G3 X and I'm going to continue to do so."

Note the qualifier. We didn't suggest everyone would be happier with a different camera. We suggested that if you don't need the extra zoom, you might benefit from what some other competitors offer.

How is that us trying to 'talk them out of what they really want'?

Furthermore, Barney was quite explicit in stating what his opinion, vs. what's objective. If anything, Barney was quite positive about his feelings of and experience with the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 02:27 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daryl Cheshire: I just got one, big learning curve.
On the first day, I'd take a photo, zoom and then take another photo but I'd be zooming in the previous photo on preview. D'oh!
So I disabled the preview and things are better but no chimping. No biggie really.

Yeah, much better would be to press the center back button to zoom in to the image, especially as that's how you zoom out, and I prefer to have both zoom in/out on the same button (a la Canon/Nikon DSLRs).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

Gary Dean Mercer Clark: The red skin tones don't look natural. Using wide angle lenses for portraits doesn't produce the pleasant perspective that normal to telephoto range lenses provide. Can't believe these are the real life examples you chose to represent this lens/camera combination.

"i see that I struck a nerve, Good."

You're saying you like picking fights? Please don't do that on our site; we prefer a positive environment.

"Opinions are like holes in the ground--Everyone has one."

I'm glad you admit your opinion is just that, *your* opinion.

Meanwhile, Sigma itself markets this lens as a portrait lens, and as Der Steppenwolf alludes to, there are *entire* branches of photography that use wide angles for portraits; namely, photojournalism, environmental portraiture, etc. And F2 on this lens means it's *particularly* good for wide portraits, by creating some foreground/background separation.

Therefore, I shot this lens not only in its intended manner, but also in a manner that I *personally like*, & photography is about personal vision, isn't it? Wide fast primes give me an intimate feeling of [walking next to your subject](http://bit.ly/1gCCJ49), give [dimensionality to my portraits](http://bit.ly/1JBC8qe), or a [dramatic perspective](http://bit.ly/1Kn7YK9).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 00:13 UTC
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

light_bulb: Thanks for the review Damian.
However what you have written concerning highlight recovery/shadow lifting in post pretty much reminds me of my experience with the Pentax 645D and it would require further testing to demonstrate that this - at least at base ISO - is superior over a Nikon D8X0 or Canon 5DS/R.
Moreover there are not that many fast lenses for medium format and MF sensors are usually smaller than the respective film formats which results in not that shallow DOF than one might expect.
Generally larger sensors have been somewhat overrated taking into account that sensor development is focused on small sensors and high pixel densities which results in a trickle up of technical progress to larger sensors which eliminates some of their size-related advantages.
Thus the air for medium format has become somewhat thinner.

DR and shadow recoverability is a good bit better than the 5DS/R (which has a significant amount of read noise, which limits DR), but only a tad bit better than the D810. If we can get one of these bad boys back in again, we can add it to our exposure latitude and ISO invariance widgets, so you can compare for yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
On Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

TomHudsonVisual: "Incredible dynamic range" is definitively not new to medium format. The IQ 180 has been pushing 14 stops for four years. The P65+ was producing 13 stops back in 2008.

The CCDs have an impressive amount of room in highlights as well as some in the shadows. In fact, on the IQ180 it typically made sense to expose for the shadows and pull the highlights back in post.

Yes, exactly, b/c it's not just the bit depth of the ADC, it's actually the full-well capacity divided by read noise, with the bit-depth of the ADC only placing an upper limit on the DR.

Curious: where do you get the 11.5 EV DR for the D810? Our understanding is that (engineering) DR is significantly higher.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I would like to see this compared to the Sony A7s. I would not be surprised to see the Sony be much better.

We don't know as yet, and it's generally hard to get this sort of information. It's possible that the a7R II still uses the full sensor in full-frame 4K but pixel-bins. But maybe not. We'll have to look at side-by-side 4K footage in low light, but even then it's difficult to distinguish small differences in noise performance b/c the you can't quite get Raw output.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 22:01 UTC
On Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X article (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

kodakrome: Is DPR trying to suggest that it's possible to put a 600mm F4 lens on this camera? The whole point of this camera is to have a longer zoom, so why criticize it for F5.6? These reviews would be much better if you would just give us the facts, and stop with all the brand bias.

No, that's not what we're suggesting.

It's also not brand bias to point out the objective truth that the lens is 1 to 2 EV slower than other cameras at some of the shorter focal lengths. That's helpful information for someone to know: that there's a sacrifice to be made for the long reach.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 21:56 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Storm: did you have to post-process all your sample images??? that is wrong on so many levels. especially for a (honest) product review.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea, as many of the images in the sample gallery are SOOC JPEGs.

Furthermore, there's nothing 'wrong' with post-processing images in a review - if anything, we probably do so *less* than most other sites out there. Also, you do realize that straight-out-of-camera JPEGs also depends on camera settings - and I can't imagine you're suggesting we should shoot every camera in 'Auto' or Green mode, are you? If not, then it's just as legitimate to post-process photos as it is to change camera settings and exposure in-camera.

Realistically, many, many photographers post-process their images, and for a good number of the types of scenes shot in this review, we *had* to shoot in a particular manner and post-process to get a usable image.

Of course, if this were a $100 point-and-shoot, we might have actually shot it in complete auto, as that's how the intended target user base would use it. Not so for this camera!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 21:34 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Holy smokes, that's expensive. Does it really need to be a thousand dollars to make a decent profit?

The price is double or triple what other nice compacts cost, so is the image quality two or three times as good?

I'm a semi-pro photographer, and L-glass + full frame has me spoiled.

But, of course, it produces quite a bulge in my shirt pocket. 😏

I use my iPhone for a lot of fun shots, but it's limited in most situations.

I don't know how much it's worth to get the size so small compared to the cost (with the Sony).

A thousand bucks. Wow.

"but if you want REAL images with REAL high IQ, DSLRs do not have any alternatives."

As you yourself alluded to, this is simply no longer true with the advent of APS-C and full-frame mirrorless cameras. Some of which can actually perform better than DSLRs in certain aspects, like AF accuracy for one.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 21:14 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: @ Rishi
So, does the A7 II (not the R model) have shutter blur (shutter-induced, aka shutter shock) in slow shutter speeds (up to 1/250") or not? Is it as good (or bad, if you like) as A7? If you use electronic first curtain does it have any disadvantage?

It means that I like to always leave a little wiggle room for an out in case I'm wrong :)

Let me try rephrasing: I've never personally noticed *any* image quality cost in my own side-by-side comparisons.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples article (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

wandiba56: As of now I know no camera that can produce colours as striking as Fuji’s...Bar none, Fuji gives the best colours one can ever imagine. And I have used far more expensive, much more popular and higher megapixel capturing devices yet I dare say they all come short to meet the exquisiteness of Fuji colours...Well done!!

I have a strong feeling these shots were not taken by Rishi...

Really! What gave it away?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 21:04 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I would like to see this compared to the Sony A7s. I would not be surprised to see the Sony be much better.

Btw, some cameras do hardware-level pixel binning (requires an extra transistor in each pixel IIRC); this then leads to a group of pixels added together and then read out, which then decreases read noise, since you can read one whole group of pixels instead of each individual one at a time. This method leads to less read noise than reading, say, all 36MP and then downsampling that image to 12MP, as the former still had 36 million read noise events, which is 3x more than the 12 million read noise events the a7S would've had. While this is reduced somewhat when you downsample the 36MP image to 12MP, the extra read noise events' contributions aren't totally nullified by the resampling.

In fact, I wonder if this is one of the main reasons the a7R performs slightly worse in image quality than the a7S even when downsampled at the highest ISOs. We know one reason is the lower upstream read noise of the a7S b/c of dual-gain architecture, but the other could be those extra read noise events?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: I would like to see this compared to the Sony A7s. I would not be surprised to see the Sony be much better.

Yes, as someone else here has stated, the biggest reason the a7s has such good low light video is b/c it doesn't like skip - it uses every pixel on the sensor for the video. And since noise is largely linked to sensor size, it performs better than a similar full-frame sensor that reads less of its pixels (which is effectively like having a smaller total sensor surface area available for reading).

If the a7R II really does do full sensor readout for the a7R II, I doubt it'll be worse than the a7S for low light video. It may even be better.

And in fact, I hope it is, so this megapixel myth (or is the opposite of the megapixel myth?) can finally desist.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 09:29 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Holy smokes, that's expensive. Does it really need to be a thousand dollars to make a decent profit?

The price is double or triple what other nice compacts cost, so is the image quality two or three times as good?

I'm a semi-pro photographer, and L-glass + full frame has me spoiled.

But, of course, it produces quite a bulge in my shirt pocket. 😏

I use my iPhone for a lot of fun shots, but it's limited in most situations.

I don't know how much it's worth to get the size so small compared to the cost (with the Sony).

A thousand bucks. Wow.

"These cameras are pulling people away from DSLR photography. Think about that for awhile."

Agreed, and this is a particularly important point. Some of the features that went into making the RX100 IV a pleasure to shoot portraits, moving subjects, and high DR scenes have also made their way into the a7R II, and been pumped full of steroids b/c of on-sensor PDAF and a full-frame sensor. Which then makes it so much easier to shoot certain types of photography on it compared to a DSLR that it frankly feels like cheating. Nail focus on a moving face at f/1.4 with no AF accuracy issues and no AF calibration? No problem. And one might even then say it's ironic that the company that so many still call a 'consumer electronics company' is the one solving real photographic problems. To be fair, everyone is, but Sony is making concerted efforts on so many fronts, as they must to break into a crowded market.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 07:39 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: - Did Sony just do the impossible?
- Yeap, they did it, they forgot the touch-screen. :)

Haha, agree. I do wish it had a touch screen.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 07:34 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

EcoPix: So will my existing AF adapter work and AF better on this than a NEX-7 or other previous Sony mirrorless? (Using Canon 16-35 f4, 50mm 1.4 and 100-400 lenses).

Also, is there a Nikon Af adapter yet?

Good instructive and constructive article, Rishi, but without detracting from the creativity of your images, my reaction is that the HDR is taken too far to look natural in the tulips and the rider shots. Just a bit more contrast would fix it. Just my opinion!

NEX-6 and NEX-7 cameras almost gave Sony a bad name in AF, which is why it's almost ironic that they're kind of leading the world of mirrorless AF at this point (Samsung is a major player here too w/ the NX1). Please don't let the older NEX cameras even remotely be indicative to you of current generation Sony mirrorless AF.

No Nikon adapter yet AFAIK.

Thanks, and no worries, we all have our opinions, and I like how you worded your criticism: constructively. :)

I wouldn't mind a little more contrast in them either, & I'll probably go back to them at some point and try to add in a little more contrast without clipping important tones. It's very difficult to do in these sorts of images without the yellow/orange tones starting to 'run into one another' causing odd artifacts and what looks like posterization. That's always the tricky part - avoiding that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 07:34 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: @ Rishi
So, does the A7 II (not the R model) have shutter blur (shutter-induced, aka shutter shock) in slow shutter speeds (up to 1/250") or not? Is it as good (or bad, if you like) as A7? If you use electronic first curtain does it have any disadvantage?

No, the a7 and a7 II and a7S all have electronic first curtains, that come at little to no image quality cost, save for the ability to sync flashes properly.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 07:31 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

1Dx4me: lossy RAW file? get outta here, Sony. i don't care how good your cameras are!

Exactly. We didn't even bother mentioning it for the RX100 IV, b/c one doesn't quite use the RX100 IV like one would use the a7R II.

Btw, RX100 sensor's ADCs are 12-bit to begin with, so there's no point in having 14-bit on that camera.

And, yes, we just wish Sony would get as much out of their sensors as Nikon does. E.g. I was hoping for ISO 64 on the a7R II - that's still an advantage the D810 has over the a7R II.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 06:32 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV First Impressions Review preview (1381 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Holy smokes, that's expensive. Does it really need to be a thousand dollars to make a decent profit?

The price is double or triple what other nice compacts cost, so is the image quality two or three times as good?

I'm a semi-pro photographer, and L-glass + full frame has me spoiled.

But, of course, it produces quite a bulge in my shirt pocket. 😏

I use my iPhone for a lot of fun shots, but it's limited in most situations.

I don't know how much it's worth to get the size so small compared to the cost (with the Sony).

A thousand bucks. Wow.

You want to talk about expensive, let's talk about Leica.

Yeah the RX100 IV is expensive, but considering what it offers, it's peerless.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 05:15 UTC
Total: 2529, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »