Richard Butler

Richard Butler

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Works as a Technical Editor
Joined on Nov 7, 2007
About me:

Richard graduated as a scientist but had a lot more fun writing and shooting for his university magazine. A number of years spent variously as a reporter, writer and editor on science and engineering titles combined his knowledge of science with his interest in images and words. But it was spotting the connections between emission spectra, white balance and all the nonsense he'd taught himself playing around in Photoshop that helped kindle an interest in digital photography. Searching for a camera led to him discovering DPReview and Richard was recruited by Phil Askey in 2007. He's been combining his love of photography, communication and attention to detail (pedantry?) ever since.

He has unusually strong opinions about lenses for the APS-C format.

Comments

Total: 6381, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: Maybe it’s the beta Adobe, but I downloaded the RAWs at 6400 ISO and converted them to 16 bit PNG with RawTherapee, and the XT3 looks excellent! Here at DP Review’s comparison tool, they don’t look any better than XT2, not really worse, just different depending on which part of the scene is compared.

Tical - Fair enough, I'm not a RawTherapee user myself. Most Raw editing software I've ever used applies some level of NR by default, so I was trying to eliminate that as a possibility.

ManManAce - That's exactly why we supply the Raws: so that people can try them in different software or in their usual workflows.

As I said in an answer elsewhere on this story: we will re-check the ACR output before drawing our final conclusions.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

moimoi: Thanks to the posters who are confirming (using different raw conversion software(s)) that there may be something wrong with the current test for which raw were ran with Adobe. Any chance for dpreview to correct/postpone the final results?

Take-home messages:

(i) stay away from Adobe if you shoot Fuji Xtrans (I used C1 and very happy with the raw conversion my the X100T)

(ii) never trust a beta version, it is beta and there is a good reason for that.

We'll certainly check the ACR performance before finalising the review but I've not seen anything in the files or the comments that would set off alarm bells for me, in terms of this performance.

Bear in mind that we always minimise noise reduction in our test scene, so if you process them using any converter that applies a reasonable default level of NR, then the images will look better. But they'll also look better for all other cameras, too.

We will re-check before drawing our final conclusions, though.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2018 at 22:49 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

bleachfix: Xt3 look a bit sharper but I have a question about methodology. I believe adobe changed the default sharpening amount for Fuji cams from 25 to 40 since the xt2 was reviewed. This could explain the difference. Can DPreview tell us if this is the case?

We minimise the sharpening in ACR (since the default amount, whether it's called 25 or 40, is tailored to the camera), then apply a standard unsharp mask in Photoshop.

Although Adobe has changed the default profile, we still use the 'Adobe Standard' profile in order to maximise comparability.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2018 at 22:08 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ki Do: Hmmm, I don't know how you can judge anything from this. AFAIK there's no raw processor for the new body yet, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the "raws" are just the "jpegs".

Further, on a 4k monitor all I see is a tiny little image in the corner that isn't useful for anything: https://imgur.com/a/oFqfjRY

The images displayed are JPEGs created by processing the Raw files using Adobe Camera Raw, since you cannot show Raws without first processing them.

They're processed using our standard protocol (minimised noise reduction and sharpening, then with a standard amount of sharpening applied).

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2018 at 22:05 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadManAce: Maybe it’s the beta Adobe, but I downloaded the RAWs at 6400 ISO and converted them to 16 bit PNG with RawTherapee, and the XT3 looks excellent! Here at DP Review’s comparison tool, they don’t look any better than XT2, not really worse, just different depending on which part of the scene is compared.

Bear in mind that our standard protocol is to minimise all noise reduction, to get a clearer idea of the underlying performance. if RawTherapee is applying any NR, they'll immediately look better.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2018 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

Blackdog68: $2k for the 8-16?? I just don't understand this lens. So, at list prices, you could buy an A7III with a 12-24 F4, and it would be smaller, lighter, and cost about the same ($3700 vs $3500) as an XT3 with the 8-16? And the Sony has IBIS?
I just don't understand what Fuji is doing now. They need to be cheaper and smaller than the equivalent FF in order to survive and compete. Do what Nikon seems to be doing with its S lenses: make them optically excellent, but slower with consideration for size. Even the 10-24 F4 is too big.

Yes, and you can stretch that metaphor a little further: someone pointing out that a Ferrari can go 200mph doesn't make your daily-driver Ford (that will happily exceed the speed limit) any less useful.

But let's not pretend that opening up the aperture does more than just give shallow depth-of-field: it also lets in more light. So it's still relevant to compare maximum apertures even if you're not trying to achieve shallow depth-of-field.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2018 at 23:25 UTC
On a photo in the Nikon Z7 sample gallery sample gallery (8 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheGrammarFairy: Dude. Healing brush. Show some empathy.

That wouldn't be a straight-out-of-camera JPEG.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2018 at 21:04 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 First Impressions Review (1111 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimTN: But Adorama said the XT3 only takes videos 20 minutes long. This makes it quite useless for performance videos!

I wish someone had [detailed the time limits for the different 4K modes](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t3-first-impressions-review/2#times).

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2018 at 20:52 UTC
On article Panasonic DC-LX100 II First Impressions Review (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shahrooz51: The equivalent Aperture on G1XIII would be 3.6-5.6 because it's APS-C Sensor. Exactly the same as LX100 II.

The G1X III has a 15-45mm F2.8-5.6 lens.

Canon states that this is 24-72mm equivalent, which implies the normal 1.6x crop factor for Canon sensors.

This equivalent 24-72mm lens would therefore have an f/4.48-8.96 aperture range, as plotted on the graph on page 2.

By contrast, the Panasonic has a 10.9-34mm F1.7-2.8 lens, which would be a 2.2x crop factor to get the claimed 24-75mm range.

The hypothetical FF equivalent 24-75mm lens would be f/3.74-6.16.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2018 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: Everyone seems to be ignoring the Z6. That is the real star of the show for me. $2750 ($3450 with the ninja) for a full frame camera that can do 422 10 bit 4k, has IBIS, includes a decent 24-70 (lightweight for gimbal work) and can adapt all of the nikkor lenses is a steal. It also does full sensor readout so it should be incredible in low light, too.

AFAIK, Hollywood didn't have a camera with those specs until last year. I know that stats aren't always the best way to measure camera quality, but $3500 for a rig that you'd need $30k to replicate is a great deal.

If the reviews are decent I will definitely pick one up. It will be my backup/lightweight camera for stills and my main video camera.

The reason we're focused on the Z7 is that it's going to be the first model available, so that's the one we've shot with and got in the office.

As soon as the Z6 is ready, I think it'll get a lot more attention.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2018 at 21:41 UTC
On article Panasonic DC-LX100 II First Impressions Review (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

joecan: "The 1.34x crop means you effectively use a sensor region fractionally smaller than the 1"-type chip in Sony's RX100 V"

That is true, however when you do on Sonys 4K you will have a crop on the 1" sensors
So then is not anymore 1" . Am I right or I am wrong?
I use a sony RX 10 Mk II and at 4K I do have a 32 mm or so equivalent FL and not anymore 24mm. Plus the LCD screen goes darker - almost useless in bright sunny day.

The most recent RX100 and RX10 cameras use their full sensor width for 4K footage.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2018 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

NRBlack: "Illusion of customization" Looking at the manual one can see patterns. AE Lock cannot be assigned to certain buttons like the D-pad. I think it reasonable to assume that "photographers" will not want to move their hand on the grip, while their eye is in the viewfinder, so their thumb can get down to the D-pad. Buttons that low are not easily accessible. It seems Canon thinks this function is something one wants fingertip access to while in a shooting position. You can assign AE lock to all those fingertip buttons. Editorial decision. Yes. Reasonable? To each his/her own.

I believe this pattern shows with other "restricted" customization functions.

These posts are limited so I'll stop here. i.e. Exposure comp and threshold comment. Quickly the Canon has two dials. Where do you expect something to go? What do you give up fingertip access. Menus are quick, customizable, one touch away. Illusion? Hmmm.

This smells like trying hard to be negative.

I see you and I understand.

I based these comments on my experiences and on speaking to both Rishi and Chris Niccolls about theirs, after we'd all shot with the camera for a few days.

Each of us found things we wanted to assign to either the M-Fn Bar or the various buttons, only to find we couldn't.

It's not about looking for negatives, it's about multiple people finding it was limiting, when shooting with the camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2018 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Blackdog68: $2k for the 8-16?? I just don't understand this lens. So, at list prices, you could buy an A7III with a 12-24 F4, and it would be smaller, lighter, and cost about the same ($3700 vs $3500) as an XT3 with the 8-16? And the Sony has IBIS?
I just don't understand what Fuji is doing now. They need to be cheaper and smaller than the equivalent FF in order to survive and compete. Do what Nikon seems to be doing with its S lenses: make them optically excellent, but slower with consideration for size. Even the 10-24 F4 is too big.

Distortion and CA sound much more like lens science and chart territory, to me.*

Equivalence simply describes the parameters of the lens (in.addition to the actual focal length and f-number). It gives an idea of what photos you can take. For instance, your suggestion that you'd need an F2.8 lens for portraiture isn't useful without knowing the format (since a 90mm equiv F2.8 lens may or may not give you the results you want, depending on sensor format and your expectations).

*And if you think CA and distortion are important in terms of image quality, then it might help to explain why people design and shoot test charts to characterise them.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2018 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

Blackdog68: $2k for the 8-16?? I just don't understand this lens. So, at list prices, you could buy an A7III with a 12-24 F4, and it would be smaller, lighter, and cost about the same ($3700 vs $3500) as an XT3 with the 8-16? And the Sony has IBIS?
I just don't understand what Fuji is doing now. They need to be cheaper and smaller than the equivalent FF in order to survive and compete. Do what Nikon seems to be doing with its S lenses: make them optically excellent, but slower with consideration for size. Even the 10-24 F4 is too big.

Wouldn't it be easier to "find the glass that works for you" if there was a common basis on which to compare?

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2018 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

Blackdog68: $2k for the 8-16?? I just don't understand this lens. So, at list prices, you could buy an A7III with a 12-24 F4, and it would be smaller, lighter, and cost about the same ($3700 vs $3500) as an XT3 with the 8-16? And the Sony has IBIS?
I just don't understand what Fuji is doing now. They need to be cheaper and smaller than the equivalent FF in order to survive and compete. Do what Nikon seems to be doing with its S lenses: make them optically excellent, but slower with consideration for size. Even the 10-24 F4 is too big.

Anyone saying that you *have to* achieve FF equivalence is probably arguing in bad faith.

Equally, you cannot invalidate an entire system based on a single lens. The whole point is that different systems let you pick and choose the size/price/IQ balance you want to achieve. It doesn't undermine the Micro Four Thirds system to point out that the 25mm F1.2 is equivalent to a 50mm F2.4 on full frame: it means you can have the size and price advantages of some Micro Four Thirds bodies and lenses, then add full-frame-like capability if/when you need it, but without carrying around a full frame system the whole time.

Equivalence doesn't say what's best, or what's right for you, it just shows the trade-offs.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

Blackdog68: $2k for the 8-16?? I just don't understand this lens. So, at list prices, you could buy an A7III with a 12-24 F4, and it would be smaller, lighter, and cost about the same ($3700 vs $3500) as an XT3 with the 8-16? And the Sony has IBIS?
I just don't understand what Fuji is doing now. They need to be cheaper and smaller than the equivalent FF in order to survive and compete. Do what Nikon seems to be doing with its S lenses: make them optically excellent, but slower with consideration for size. Even the 10-24 F4 is too big.

I've recommended DrewRick's comment because it's probably the most insightful one here.

Equivalence doesn't favour any format, it just illustrates trade-offs every format makes. (Usually between size, price and IQ).

While it's legitimate to point out that this lens costs a similar amount to the Sony, that only tells you about this specific lens. And, as Great Bustard points out, you end up paying a similar amount and end up with a lens about the same size if you want equivalent capabilities.

But you don't always want equivalent capabilities. You may, for instance, want an APS-C sized body for walking around but choose to buy the 85mm F1.8 equivalent 56mm F1.2R APD to get 'full frame quality' when shooting portraits, for instance.

No one is saying that the aim is to replicate full frame capability in every lens (oddly enough, the easiest way to do that is to buy a full frame camera). However, equivalence shows where you can and can't get comparable results.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: at normal isos the equiv religion falls apart while the shutter speed advantage remains

And, since they're looking at the same view of the world, through the same sized hole, they get the same amount of light to make up their images if you expose them for the same amount of time.

If you shoot a 420mm lens at F4.2 on full frame and a 280mm lens at F2.8 for, say, 1/500th of a second, the same number of photons will hit both sensors.

The ISO setting recorded in the EXIF will be different, if you want JPEGs the same brightness, but both cameras will have had the opportunity to make the same image.

At which point, there is no shutter speed advantage to the APS-C lens being F2.8. (Equally, though, there is no IQ advantage to the full frame camera, unless you can open up the aperture beyond F4.2).

Yes, the specific sensors used will play a role in how well each camera uses the available light, but the differences tend to be smaller than the 2/3 to 5/3 EV differences between popular sensor formats.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: at normal isos the equiv religion falls apart while the shutter speed advantage remains

bgsPhoto - with a teleconverter the lens is a 280mm F2.8 but that is **not** equivalent to a 420mm F2.8 on full frame. F-numbers are what they are, but you can't quote a ratio that relates to focal length while also implying the focal length is changed.

A 280mm F2.8 lens has a 100mm aperture diameter. A 100mm aperture diameter would not be F2.8 in a 420mm lens. It'd be F4.2.

And, sure enough, if you find a 420mm for FF and set it to F4.2 it'll behave nearly identically to a 280mm F2.8 if you capture the light projected on the APS-C region.

Not just in terms of depth-of-field but also in terms of diffraction and, to a reasonable approximation, noise. Because both cameras are seeing the same view of the world through the same sized hole.

[This article](https://www.dpreview.com/learn/2799100497/) explains why and links to another article with real-world examples.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: at normal isos the equiv religion falls apart while the shutter speed advantage remains

Strictly speaking, equivalence tells you (minute transmission differences notwithstanding), how much light the camera gets to work with.

Yes, different sensors are able to make use of this light to different degrees. However, the differences between most modern sensors tend to be smaller than the differences between sensor sizes, so it's a useful place to start, especially if you're looking for a new camera.

More importantly, it doesn't try to tell you anything about lens quality or which balance of size/price/IQ is right for you, it simply quantifies the trade-offs being made in **all** formats.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: On the contrary, I found the M-Fn bar to be immediately useful, and I'd have called it downright awesome if it weren't for a small bug- I've customized it to swipe for fine tuning my Kelvin White Balance, and I've set the "tap" of the left and right sides to be 3000K and 5000K, respectively, since those are the two most common settings I use as a wedding photographer. The ability to have a "safety lock" on the pad is also welcome, though, for avoiding inadvertent cranking of the WB, even though such an accident wouldn't harm raw images.

Of course, with my luck, I wound up finding the one and only (???) bug in the EOS R's customization- When you tap back and forth a bunch between 3000K and 5000K, the WB sometimes switches from K to +/-, even though it's not programmed to, and then the swiping action becomes unavailable and I have to go into the Q menu and reset the WB to K again. Hopefully this will be fixed with a firmware update before final release.

That's not a series of functions I'd ever think to use, but it's good to hear that there are ways to make it useful.

I don't dislike the idea, but I just just haven't been able to work out what to use it for, for my own shooting. Interesting to hear you've encountered bugs, too.

Overall it sounds like we feel pretty similarly about the camera, thanks for posting you experiences.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2018 at 17:36 UTC
Total: 6381, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »