Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3925, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkSpencer: I call BS on the M3 re: battery life. I just bought one and have over 450 shots without recharging. My only complaint is that using the built-in WIFI to transfer RAW to iOS FORCES a "downgrade" to JPEG. I use Lightroom Mobile, which now natively supports RAW, and I have to transfer the images using the crappy Apple camera connection kit.
But nothing - NOTHING - matches Canon for its colour. So yeah, I paid for the EF-M Adapter & mount my L-Series glass. Something none of the competitors can match, or even come close to.

I think you've misunderstood how CIPA testing works.

CIPA battery life figures are a number based on a standard test methodology. Canon themselves conducted these tests and came up with the number of 250 shots per charge, so it would be odd for them to low-ball the result.

However, just like government-standard gas mileage/fuel economy figures, they should not be taken as the number of miles or photos you're going to get, but how that model compares with another model.

If you got 450 shots out of a 250 shots-per-charge rated camera, then you could reasonably expect to get around 900 shots from a 500 shots-per-charge rated camera, roughly speaking.

Either way, I'm glad that you're enjoying the results you're getting. Color and tonality was one of the areas the M3 scored well in.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 01:33 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "Canon doesn't appear to be applying much, if any, geometric lens corrections to its JPEGs, which is unusual."

For an Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic or Sony ILCs maybe you accept to have geometrically corrected images by default, for a Canon or Nikon or Pentax, it is strictly an optional feature.

Call it the great divide...

I think the divide has more to do with DSLR vs Mirrorless than one brand vs another.

A DSLR lens *has to* correct any distortion optically so that the viewfinder shows you the result that you're going to get. Just about every mirrorless system (including Nikon and Leica) includes some lenses that include distortion correction as part of their design.

Digital distortion correction allows designers to correct (with little or no IQ cost) aspects of the lens that would otherwise require a trade-off, whether that's cost, size or a different aspect of the lens' image quality. It's a design choice, just one that's unavailable when designing for DSLRs. There are also mirrorless lenses that aren't designed this way.

But yes, when it's part of the lens design, it's non-optional, just as you can't pull out all the aspherical elements of your lens if the designer has decided to use them.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 01:27 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Achiron: This is a neat review, I don't mind the timing at all. Good to know how good or bad cameras are.

The thing I don't like is that you didn't address the battery life. The CIPA rating is not really accurate. I for example use E-PL7 that is rated with 300-350? I got more than one battery, and I had the pleasure of replacing battery mid-shoot (took like 10 seconds), but I can say that up to that moment it took maybe 500 raw files and more than an hour of 1080p video. IDK how CIPA do their calculations, but I can only assume it refers to shots with flash at 100%.

My question is, in real world use, how many shots does the battery last?

Sure, and cameras without a supplied flash would appear to be at a considerable advantage. But considering CIPA numbers and our experience during testing gives as much information as we can sensible provide without us becoming a battery test lab.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 23:06 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Achiron: This is a neat review, I don't mind the timing at all. Good to know how good or bad cameras are.

The thing I don't like is that you didn't address the battery life. The CIPA rating is not really accurate. I for example use E-PL7 that is rated with 300-350? I got more than one battery, and I had the pleasure of replacing battery mid-shoot (took like 10 seconds), but I can say that up to that moment it took maybe 500 raw files and more than an hour of 1080p video. IDK how CIPA do their calculations, but I can only assume it refers to shots with flash at 100%.

My question is, in real world use, how many shots does the battery last?

Just as fuel economy/gas mileage figures can't always reflect every user's experience, no one battery figure (whether tested by us or anyone else) is going to reflect every person's use case.

However, CIPA battery numbers are usually comparable between brands. So if you get 500 shots from a camera rated at, say, 350 shots per charge, you can be fairly confident of getting a proportionately large number based on anyone else's CIPA numbers.

'Real' battery life depends on each individual's use. The amount of information we'd gain by inventing our own testing protocol is minimal but the amount of time we'd have to take (plus re-testing if the battery is too new or old) is considerable.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 22:08 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike051051: DPR Guys;

I was wondering about your choice of lenses for the EOS M3 test shots, I realize the EF-M 22 f/2.0 is a really nice lens but it's not the best available in the Canon line that would fit on that mount. Utilizing the EF-M : EF lens adapter would have allowed use of something like the EF-S 60 f/2.8 or the EF 50 f/2.5 Compact Macro. But maybe the adapter was not available when you made those shots?

You made some comparisons to the excellent Sony A6300 so I looked at those studio shots and their exif says that you used the Zeiss Sonnar FE 55 f/1.8 ZA lens. Looking at M3 results at Imaging-Resource I see that they used the same lens on the Sony but the Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro on the M3. Seems that might be a better comparison in this case? Just asking.

I can't remember why we chose to stick with a native lens, rather than an adapted one (it may well have been lack of access to an adaptor). Historically, using mount adaptors has been something of a headache, so we may have just chosen to stick to what was natively available.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Yossarian1: Have posted Canon 80D 7FPS AF photos in the Canon forum if you are interested.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58197128

Personally, I have found the AF to be better than what DPReview has found.

thx11638 - we weren't *shocked* by the learning curve of the 1DX II - that's a complete misrepresentation of what we wrote. There's much less of a learning curve than with the 1D IV, that's for certain.

However, in all our testing, we found the 1D X II *required* more configuration than the D5 and that, once fine-tuned to a specific situation was less adaptable than the Nikon.

It's a matter of degrees, of course, and nothing we've written says that pros can't get great results out of it (because that's demonstrably the case). But repeated testing in a variety of shooting circumstances kept showing that same distinction.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
In reply to:

Yossarian1: While I only shoot stills, I am averaging around 1,500 shots between battery charges on the 80D.

I mainly have AF on and use image stability I often shoot in AI Servo with continuous shooting enabled. Battery charges would deliver lower results if I shot videos or used liveview more but its performance is considerably above the 960 per charge for my uses.

CIPA battery tests are pretty harsh but they're usually comparable between cameras, much as official fuel economy/gas mileage figures don't tell you the performance you'll get, but are comparable between models.

So if you're getting 1,500 shots from a 960 shot-per-charge camera, it's likely that you'll get roughly 625 from a 500 shot-per-charge model.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 19:24 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: I'm pretty sure that sensor has an AA filter

If it does have an AA filter, it's *extremely* weak - it would be odd to see that much false colour in the Siemens stars otherwise.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 19:14 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Two fascinating mysteries here.
1. Why Canon has not made a real effort with Mirrorless ?
2. Why the "Number 1" camera review site never made a Canon Mirrorless review until now ?

I can address point 2, in a roundabout way.

We decide which reviews we're going to work on, based on a number of factors. Interest from out readers is primary amongst these but availability of review samples and availability of reviewers also play a role. All three factors have worked against us reviewing EOS Ms in the past.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 19:11 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kona Mike: Why even bother reviewing this?

Announced by Canon on February 6, 2015
Became available in Europe and Asia in April 2015
For sale in U.S. in October 2015
Reviewed by DPR August 2016

There are rumors of a new one coming out this fall? Is this review possible push back, from Canon? No early access to new camera if no review for previous model??

We reviewed it because we've never had a chance to review an EOS M series camera before this model. We review cameras as and when we can. No manufacturer gets input into that decision.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 19:06 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

samtheman2014: Is there some way that the test shoots could actually show equal brightness, due to the flexibility in the ISO naming conventions some camera results are darker than others suggesting that they would need more exposure to attain the same end brightness as others in essence you are not comparing like with like . If you are comparing two camera this difference becomes important

If two cameras have different Raw sensitivities, and you use the same exposure settings under the same illumination then you have given them the same total amount of light. What they do with this light is exactly what you're trying to show.

A less inherently sensitive camera will clip highlights slightly later but will also accumulate less signal in the shadows (so exhibit more noise), and vice versa.

The processed versions of the Raw files are all manually processed to the same brightness based on one of the grey patches on the Gretag target. Any differences in brightness elsewhere in the scene will be down to differences in the tone curve Adobe is choosing for each camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 18:18 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Following this logic, if one camera focuses much faster but another has more dynamic range, a user who needs both might as well wait. And then there are the things DPR readers discuss but DPR seldom does, like whether the company is good to deal with in the event of repairs, customer service, backorders, etc. Finally, it probably wouldn't hurt to consider whether the manufacturer will be around, or in the camera business in a few years.

Those are good points. It's virtually impossible for us to know which companies are good or bad to deal with, especially when that's something that can vary dramatically over time and country-to-country.

And in terms of guessing who'll still be in the camera business, I must admit that I didn't recognise the excellent of the NX1 as a sign that Samsung was about to bail.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Pretty balanced article, but there are two points that I think could have been better.

Page 2: "In this instance, the a6300's finder is around 20% larger than that of the Canon. Its fast refresh means it's better able to help you follow the action than ever before."
This is my opinion not true at all. While fast refresh may make a6300 better than some other mirrorless cameras, how could it compete with the natively zero lag of an optical viewfinder? EVFs have some advantages over OVFs, but following action definitely isn't one of them.

Page 8: "While Canon's APS-C lineup isn't quite as comprehensive as its offerings for full frame, it's still pretty comprehensive, especially when you include those full frame lenses that remain useful on the smaller format."
I find this a bit of an underhanded way of saying that Canon has the most versatile native (EF, EF-S, TS-E) lens selection of any camera maker in the history of cameras. Nikon is the only one who comes even close.

- Henrik

I'm not clairvoyant enough to know whether 'No EVF will ever beat an OVF for tracking action' is true. I wouldn't rule it out getting *good enough*. If latency and mode switching time can be reduced far enough, it might one day be comparable to (or less significant than) mirror blackout time.

It's not there yet, but the latest generation of cameras is getting closer. However, I thought the statement I made in the article already implied 'but it's not there yet.' I'll see if I can find a way to make this implication clearer.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Pretty balanced article, but there are two points that I think could have been better.

Page 2: "In this instance, the a6300's finder is around 20% larger than that of the Canon. Its fast refresh means it's better able to help you follow the action than ever before."
This is my opinion not true at all. While fast refresh may make a6300 better than some other mirrorless cameras, how could it compete with the natively zero lag of an optical viewfinder? EVFs have some advantages over OVFs, but following action definitely isn't one of them.

Page 8: "While Canon's APS-C lineup isn't quite as comprehensive as its offerings for full frame, it's still pretty comprehensive, especially when you include those full frame lenses that remain useful on the smaller format."
I find this a bit of an underhanded way of saying that Canon has the most versatile native (EF, EF-S, TS-E) lens selection of any camera maker in the history of cameras. Nikon is the only one who comes even close.

- Henrik

With regards viewfinders, I'll admit it's true only in the sense that we've tested it and shown it to be true.

Like a couple of other mirrorless cameras, the a6300 can show live shots from the sensor (albeit only one or two), rather than replayed images, between captures. This is 'better than ever before' for an EVF.

It's still not as good as an optical system but the text doesn't claim it is. Instead it links to an article where we demonstrate, side-by-side, that it isn't.

With regards lenses, I'm not willing to repeat the true but not necessarily helpful marketing line about all EF lenses being 'fully compatible' with the EF-S mount. You can *use* them but they're not necessarily the lenses you'd want, once you've multiplied their focal lengths by 1.6.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 22:21 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

samtheman2014: Is there some way that the test shoots could actually show equal brightness, due to the flexibility in the ISO naming conventions some camera results are darker than others suggesting that they would need more exposure to attain the same end brightness as others in essence you are not comparing like with like . If you are comparing two camera this difference becomes important

The JPEG files are shot with whatever exposure is needed to give the correct brightness. This is what you'll get if you use the camera's meter, the histogram or you judge exposure 'by eye' from the image on the back of the camera.

The Raw files are shot so that all cameras get the same amount of light at each ISO setting and are then processed to give the same brightness. This means the results are directly comparable, regardless of what the camera would otherwise do.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 19:16 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: I see a couple of reviewers including the camera store in Canada have stated the xt2 is more accurate and quickier focusing in their head to head test with the Sony a6300. Richard have you had a chance to compare it to the a6300 yet? Also do you know if Fuji will be sending an update to the xpro2 to have the same focusing system? Thanks

Testable firmware does not exist at present for the X-T2, so I wouldn't put too much faith in any reviews you've read so far.

As it stands, the X-T2 is definitely a step forward for Fujifilm but I'll wait until I know it's final behaviour before putting it side-by-side against the Sony. It may be able to match the Sony for focus speed, depending on the choice of lens. I'd be more interested to see how the focus cases and tracking perform (that's where the performance difference is likely to be).

I believe Fujifilm has said that the X-Pro2 will get the X-T2's focus algorithms but not its level of subject-specific customisation.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: i owned the A6000 for quite some time, then i decided to update to the A6300 this year. mainly becasue of the 4K video... boy what a disappointment.

not that the quality is bad but i was visiting the USA this year (arizona, texas) and i had constantly overheating problems.
and i did not even shoot 30 min at once.
but filming a few minutes, stopping for 20 seconds, flliming again for a few minutes was enough to oveheat the A6300. i was very disappointed to be honest.

There are lots of types of video shooting that don't require half-hour chunks of video.

However, even with the latest firmware, the a6300 can overheat before 29:59, depending on the circumstances. I've never found it a limitation, personally, but it's worth being aware of.

Sadly the a6300's 1080 is not very good. The 4K is superb.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

moawkwrd: Still not sure what is meant by the phrase "through-the-viewfinder focus"...

As opposed to through the LCD? Are through-the-electronic-viewfinder focus and through-the-optical-viewfinder focus different things? Do you mean manual or auto focus?

It's just unnecessary to be that clunky with your phrasing.

"The EOS 80D's auto focus is generally good" would've worked fine.

It's a fair criticism if I've failed to make it clear enough.

If you use the viewfinder on an 80D, it will use its dedicated phase-detection AF module in the bottom of the camera to focus. If you switch to live view and use the rear LCD to autofocus, the mirror has to stay in the up position, so it has to use the phase-detection elements on the sensor to autofocus, which gives a very different performance.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

poppyjk: Several reviewers have mentioned the 80D advantage over the a6300 for videobloggers. The 80D fully articulating screen with live view AF functionality overrides the a6300 4K image quality and possible overheating shutdown for their self video posts.

Part of the reason I wrote this article was to illustrate that the differences between the cameras aren't just their respective specifications.

It's not true that 'the fully articulated screen with live view AF functionality overides the a6300 4K image quality.'

More accurately, it will be true for some people and the opposite will be true for others. I tried to detail the difference so that you could decide for yourselves.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Imagingfix: Nice side by side, but the only thing to take from this is the actual specs. Shooting experience, lens options, manual focus, adaptive lenses (capable on both) and physical size are all personal preference. If you really want it all, then buy both. I use mirrorless for its portability and use APS-C Canon for long lens work – using both system for occasional video. If I had to let one system go it would be hard to choose but would probably keep mirrorless and rent a DSLR when needed. Just me!

I tried to focus on the things that the spec sheets won't tell you. Yes, the preference between the two cameras is personal so I tried to explain how each behaves so that you can make an informed choice.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
Total: 3925, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »