Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4396, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hachu21: if I'm not wrong, the G7X mkII is able to take 1080 60P clips. Not limited to 30P like in your comparative table.

Quite right. I'll fix that immediately.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 21:51 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Better than Sony RX100M5 is the million dollar question?

No. That's the $300 cheaper answer.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 21:49 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

olivemoonstudio: Did the Panasonic G7 just up and leave town?

We only include the models we believe to be current. The arrival of the G85 (known as the G8 in some markets), suggests it's been replaced.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:54 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Remo Pierri: what about Sony Alpha a6000?

Its MSRP puts it in [the next category up](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-500-900/11).

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:52 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

NCB: Think you need a thorough edit of this review. On the opening page you don't mention Nikon J5, but if you click on Nikon D3300 that's what you get. Further on, it's a toss-up as to whether you get D3400 or D3300. Needs sorting.

Surprised you didn't mention jpeg quality in the plus points re the D3300/D3400. It's good, to very good, probably better than the Canon T6, although my feeling is that it isn't as good as the previous generation of Nikons, like the D3100. Also surprised that the Nikons didn't get a big plus for actually having a viewfinder (it's not huge, but it's certainly big enough to be very usable), unlike the mirrorless opposition.

Sorry about that. Updating these roundups involved pushing a lot of pages around and, even though I updated the links, it appears I got them all wrong. It should now be fixed.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:50 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: After watching "Finding Vivian Maier" for the second time last night and seeing a show of her photos here in my town, I will never buy another camera unless the LCD tilts up to allow me to shoot from waist level, preferably in a square format. I recommend that DPR adopt the same criteria.
Also, according to evidence presented in the documentary you can't be a real photographer unless you own an extensive collection of awesome hats—perhaps you could name a hats and chapeaux editor.

I'm not sure we can adopt a 'must be waist-level shootable' bar, since it doesn't apply for all types of shooting. But a hat/chapeaux editor...

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:46 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sranang Boi: Whose bright idea was it to leave out the EVF?

Historically, when manufacturers used to offer variants of the same model, one with and one without the viewfinder, most customers bought the cheaper one (ie without the viewfinder).

Of course that was when compact cameras were a mass market product. There's a chance that enthusiast photographers willing to spend [$699](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-powershot-g7-x-mark-ii-review/2) on this camera would be willing to spend [say, $799](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/inching-forward-canon-powershot-g5-x-review-posted/2) for a variant with a viewfinder. But, given Sony, Panasonic and Canon have all decided to offer non-viewfinder models in their enthusiast compact lineups, it suggests all three companies believe there's a market for such a model.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:45 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

zakaria: Ricoh GRII my pocket camera cheaper and has a biger sensor!

Yeah, rubbish at 72mm equiv, though.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 20:40 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steven Satya: Should i buy nikon D3300 with 50mm lens or cheap lens for bokeh. Or i buy kit lens from nikon D3300??

I wouldn't, personally, recommend a 50mm (75mm equiv on the D3300) as your sole lens. The DX 35mm F1.8 might be a better choice for that.

However, the kit zoom tends to be so cheap when bundled with the camera and covers such a useful range of focal lengths, that I'd suggest buying that to start with. You can always sell it to fund a 35mm or a 50mm at a later date.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 19:19 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: Have you noticed how poor the image quality is at the edges - especially the right edge?

Also, a 1"-type sensor is very deceiving as it's not even close to 1 inch in any direction, and is much smaller than even a 4/3 sensor - which explains its poor high-ISO performance.

1"-**type** is the formal name of this class of sensor, just as Four Thirds sensors are considered 4/3"-type, on the same naming system.

Yes, it's a ridiculous way of naming sensor sizes but it's a long-standing industry standard that we can't just overturn it without an easily understood alternative.

There's a line in the image quality page about the lens inconsistency: it's something we see on all of these cameras. Small, complex lenses in front of high resolution sensors end up highlighting the challenges of manufacturability.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:22 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bombastic: The obvious comparison would be the LX100 for upgrade enthusiasts. As an owner, I can't say I'm overly impressed.

Perhaps I've missed it. The LX7 had a built in ND filter. It was removed in the LX100... Does the LX10 include one?

No, I'm afraid not.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:18 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (385 comments in total)
In reply to:

eno2: I find the JPG engine much, much better than Sony's but you still complain about it!

Well then you can ignore all our assessments about the JPEG engine. We provide samples as well as our perspective specifically so that you can draw your own conclusions. Also, I should make clear that although Sony's JPEGs have got very good in terms of sharpening and noise reduction, they're still not our favourites in terms of colour and we're not saying they're great in every respect.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:17 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2178 comments in total)
In reply to:

kididdoc1: perhaps, I am one of many with this question, but I would like to know, dpreview staff and camera users in general, please tell me : which is better and why, Fuji's XPro2 or XT2? Forget cosmetics and price etc for just a moment, just in terms of quality of photos, the output, which is the best camera ?

They have the same sensor and processor, so there's no image quality difference between the two.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2016 at 03:23 UTC
In reply to:

PRohmer: Two questions:
1. What is wrong with Canon?
2. Where can I see M5's focus points spread?
Thank you.

I don't understand the context of your first point but can answer your second question. The M5 can focus anywhere in a ~64% region of the image: 80% of the width of the frame, 80% of the height. I'll add an image on Monday.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 18:10 UTC
On article Woof! Sony a6500 sample images are here (365 comments in total)
In reply to:

Brianshih TW: A6500 4K video in same press event from videomaker, compared to A6300/GH4/A7SII. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWRlDhVVChI

If there had been any improvement in rolling shutter or thermal management, I suspect Sony would have been crowing about it. The fact that no claims were made strongly points to its performance being similar to the a6300's in both respects.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 02:07 UTC
In reply to:

Petroglyph: Nikon D750 = 1800$ => in round up. Pentax K1 = 1900$ => not in round up.

Nikon D750 would not use for pro landscape work.

Pentax K1 probably one of the best pro landscape cameras around.

?

Where do we say otherwise?

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2016 at 00:30 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2326 comments in total)
In reply to:

wwick: Because the information on this site is always so excellent – and I assume my grasp of “equivalence” is pretty good – I was surprised to find myself confused. I don’t get how “total amount of light” on large versus small sensors is supposed to figure into the topic at hand. My guess is that it’s meant to be a non-technical way of introducing the concept of the inverse square law. If so, the graphic accompanying that discussion does not fully meet the criteria. It seems to me the relevant concept could be stated like this:

A Full Frame camera with an Equivalent FL set to an Equivalent DOF of a Micro Four Thirds camera would need 4 times more light than the smaller sensor. This would necessitate an increase in shutter speed, ISO, or the light level of the subject itself.

As to the consequences of increasing shutter speed or ISO with large versus small sensors, I’ll defer to you guys, but in terms of the basic optics, I think the article got a little more entangled than was necessary.

Ultimately I think the root cause is the same in both cases. It's just that, with digital, the original pixel structure can be resampled when you change size, unlike film grain, which you can just print larger or smaller,

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Chris59: How is it that the Olympus, a 20 megapixel camera , has a larger image than the Samsung NX1 which is a 28 megapixel camera? DPR has something very, very wrong!

Great. Glad we got to the bottom of that one.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 20:49 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2326 comments in total)
In reply to:

wwick: Because the information on this site is always so excellent – and I assume my grasp of “equivalence” is pretty good – I was surprised to find myself confused. I don’t get how “total amount of light” on large versus small sensors is supposed to figure into the topic at hand. My guess is that it’s meant to be a non-technical way of introducing the concept of the inverse square law. If so, the graphic accompanying that discussion does not fully meet the criteria. It seems to me the relevant concept could be stated like this:

A Full Frame camera with an Equivalent FL set to an Equivalent DOF of a Micro Four Thirds camera would need 4 times more light than the smaller sensor. This would necessitate an increase in shutter speed, ISO, or the light level of the subject itself.

As to the consequences of increasing shutter speed or ISO with large versus small sensors, I’ll defer to you guys, but in terms of the basic optics, I think the article got a little more entangled than was necessary.

My point would be that total light (which takes sensor size into account) is the primary determinant of noise.

(It actually works pretty much irrespective of pixel count, but it's easiest to think about with the same pixel count).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 20:48 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2326 comments in total)
In reply to:

wwick: Because the information on this site is always so excellent – and I assume my grasp of “equivalence” is pretty good – I was surprised to find myself confused. I don’t get how “total amount of light” on large versus small sensors is supposed to figure into the topic at hand. My guess is that it’s meant to be a non-technical way of introducing the concept of the inverse square law. If so, the graphic accompanying that discussion does not fully meet the criteria. It seems to me the relevant concept could be stated like this:

A Full Frame camera with an Equivalent FL set to an Equivalent DOF of a Micro Four Thirds camera would need 4 times more light than the smaller sensor. This would necessitate an increase in shutter speed, ISO, or the light level of the subject itself.

As to the consequences of increasing shutter speed or ISO with large versus small sensors, I’ll defer to you guys, but in terms of the basic optics, I think the article got a little more entangled than was necessary.

It's important because it makes clear that the amount of light is what gives you the same amount of noise (because, in most tones and for most regular photography, shot noise from the amount of light is the main cause of noise).

The point being that, yes, if you want your JPEG to be the same brightness, you'll need to increase the ISO setting, but that this in and of itself isn't adding noise (which is a widely held misunderstanding).

If you're in a situation where you can increase the shutter speed, then you'll be able to produce a cleaner image with the FF camera, because you'll be giving it more light.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 20:11 UTC
Total: 4396, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »