Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 6068, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: Richard, methinks you doth protest too much.

Because here you are, insisting on some kind of editorial impartiality, just below a "what camera should I buy" call-to-action with links straight to amazon, surrounded by frame of user-tracking adtech, sticking calls-to-action everywhere I go on the web should I make a fateful click, here.

This whole website is structured straight out of ad-tech marketing 101. The reviews are all multi-page calls to Amazon sales links. And the forums? That's a massive, crowd-sourced Google search footprint of sales enthusiasm you didn't have to buy.

And Amazon plays this exact model with other product categories, too--let's all wave to your marketing cousins "reviewing" books over at Goodreads.com.

Don't read me wrong: none of this is intrinsically a "bad" thing. But it's marketing, not journalism. You're a camera salesperson, not a reporter. (And it's OK to be a camera salesperson.) Your credibility rides on acknowledging THAT, not insisting otherwise.

I did try to address it, but let me focus more on that point.

I'm frankly amazed that you might consider our structure to be a masterpiece of anything. I mean no disrespect to our developers, but I suspect anyone with experience of 'adtech' as you call it (that's a new term to me), would disagree. I think you give us too much credit.

My point is also that including 'buy here' affiliate links at the bottom of the page has been a feature of the site for much longer than it's been Amazon owned. They've been there the decade plus that I've worked here. I just assumed everyone else ignored them, too.

Whether it's the only way the site could be funded, I've no idea. It's the way most gear sites are funded (confirmed by a quick glance at Imaging Resource, for instance). From what I've heard other people in the industry say, it's not a very effective way of supporting a business anymore. Again, I don't know the figures: traffic is the metric I'm familiar with.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 22:04 UTC
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: Richard, methinks you doth protest too much.

Because here you are, insisting on some kind of editorial impartiality, just below a "what camera should I buy" call-to-action with links straight to amazon, surrounded by frame of user-tracking adtech, sticking calls-to-action everywhere I go on the web should I make a fateful click, here.

This whole website is structured straight out of ad-tech marketing 101. The reviews are all multi-page calls to Amazon sales links. And the forums? That's a massive, crowd-sourced Google search footprint of sales enthusiasm you didn't have to buy.

And Amazon plays this exact model with other product categories, too--let's all wave to your marketing cousins "reviewing" books over at Goodreads.com.

Don't read me wrong: none of this is intrinsically a "bad" thing. But it's marketing, not journalism. You're a camera salesperson, not a reporter. (And it's OK to be a camera salesperson.) Your credibility rides on acknowledging THAT, not insisting otherwise.

Obviously our business and our industry benefits if people buy cameras, but that doesn't mean we're part of the camera makers' marketing efforts, because we also do our best to puncture their hyperbole.

We're not a bunch of ex-marketing students, drilled to hit targets, we're a bunch of camera geeks and photographers trying to produce things we think you'll want to read and watch. That's the job.

I'm not saying we always get everything right, I'm not saying that we're innocents doing this for the love of the job and the good of the people. But I, for one, would not be interested in working for the marketing outlet you suggest we should become.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: Richard, methinks you doth protest too much.

Because here you are, insisting on some kind of editorial impartiality, just below a "what camera should I buy" call-to-action with links straight to amazon, surrounded by frame of user-tracking adtech, sticking calls-to-action everywhere I go on the web should I make a fateful click, here.

This whole website is structured straight out of ad-tech marketing 101. The reviews are all multi-page calls to Amazon sales links. And the forums? That's a massive, crowd-sourced Google search footprint of sales enthusiasm you didn't have to buy.

And Amazon plays this exact model with other product categories, too--let's all wave to your marketing cousins "reviewing" books over at Goodreads.com.

Don't read me wrong: none of this is intrinsically a "bad" thing. But it's marketing, not journalism. You're a camera salesperson, not a reporter. (And it's OK to be a camera salesperson.) Your credibility rides on acknowledging THAT, not insisting otherwise.

DPReview (like most camera websites) has always been funded by advertising and click-through links. We make no claims to being a non-profit, and the costs have to be paid for somehow. This was just as true when DPReview was Phil and Jo as it is now. Obviously since Amazon bought the company, most of the click-through links have been to them.

However, that's the funding model of most editorial magazines, newspapers and websites. Ultimately advertisers will only advertise if we have readers, so it makes much more sense for us to focus on the readers and their needs and interests. If we focused on the advertisers' interests, we'd lose everything.

So the 'Call to action' at the top of the page isn't the result of Amazon telling us to do it, by the way. It's not even because we want people to buy cameras. It's because a significant chunk of our readers have (repeatedly) told us "you don't tell me which camera I should buy," which is a major shortcoming in a review site.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

MiraShootsNikon: Richard, methinks you doth protest too much.

Because here you are, insisting on some kind of editorial impartiality, just below a "what camera should I buy" call-to-action with links straight to amazon, surrounded by frame of user-tracking adtech, sticking calls-to-action everywhere I go on the web should I make a fateful click, here.

This whole website is structured straight out of ad-tech marketing 101. The reviews are all multi-page calls to Amazon sales links. And the forums? That's a massive, crowd-sourced Google search footprint of sales enthusiasm you didn't have to buy.

And Amazon plays this exact model with other product categories, too--let's all wave to your marketing cousins "reviewing" books over at Goodreads.com.

Don't read me wrong: none of this is intrinsically a "bad" thing. But it's marketing, not journalism. You're a camera salesperson, not a reporter. (And it's OK to be a camera salesperson.) Your credibility rides on acknowledging THAT, not insisting otherwise.

MireShootsNikon - I think you have a rather narrow view of what constitutes journalism and an over-broad idea of what counts as marketing.

You're quite right, we're not investigative journalists. The industry is almost wholly based in Japan and a culture of secrecy prevents anyone cultivating sources effectively. Sadly (from the perspective of this former news reporter), the internet doesn't value you calling to try to get an inside perspective: other sites report a launch, YouTube people make their video and the story is dead by the time you've been told 'we haven't got anything else to say.'

However, our job isn't sales promotion. We don't see Amazon sales figures and they're not a metric that's included in measuring the business' success. As an editorial team we're solely assessed on traffic: encouraging people to read and to return. The prime motivation from which is to produce more content people want to read.

...

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

Gerardjan: It makes me wonder a little bit though. Sony, as you say, is a lot in DP news because they etc etc. The Leica CL, a unique Leica (APSC ) item, still no review. Already asked some time ago DPR staff when we may see/expect such a review. No answer till today. I'll try again, when dear team....?

Gerardjan - We would like to review the Leica CL but haven't been able to borrow a production copy so far. We are in discussions with them.

RMGoodLight - We do [review Sigma cameras](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h), when we can.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

Geerlings: I... get it. But I don't totally buy it.

Other companies have created very interesting or innovative products and get almost no press about it. Foveon sensors, Live Bulb on Olympus cameras, etc.

When Sony includes IBIS on a camera we get an article "Sony first to add sensor-based stabilization to a Full Frame". It doesn't matter if 100 cameras did it before on smaller formats, or did it better - once Sony does it, a way to make it news is found.

Eye-Fi AF or whatever it's called? Innovative... only, y'know, in the 90s, and by Canon, on film cameras.

I have nothing against Sony. They're fine cameras, and the only mirrorless FF at the moment which can't really be overstated. But I don't get why a huge deal is made of their 'innovation', rather than focusing on what is actually alluring about them, or on the advances of other brands.

FWIW, I always saw Olympus as far and away the most innovative. If I didn't mind the small sensor I'd be all over Oly!

However, while we may not have got everything right, we have a long history of covering Foveon in depth. [Original X3 tech](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3454566828/), [15 x 3MP / Merrill](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7886047725/) and [Quattro](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h/3)

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

Geerlings: I... get it. But I don't totally buy it.

Other companies have created very interesting or innovative products and get almost no press about it. Foveon sensors, Live Bulb on Olympus cameras, etc.

When Sony includes IBIS on a camera we get an article "Sony first to add sensor-based stabilization to a Full Frame". It doesn't matter if 100 cameras did it before on smaller formats, or did it better - once Sony does it, a way to make it news is found.

Eye-Fi AF or whatever it's called? Innovative... only, y'know, in the 90s, and by Canon, on film cameras.

I have nothing against Sony. They're fine cameras, and the only mirrorless FF at the moment which can't really be overstated. But I don't get why a huge deal is made of their 'innovation', rather than focusing on what is actually alluring about them, or on the advances of other brands.

FWIW, I always saw Olympus as far and away the most innovative. If I didn't mind the small sensor I'd be all over Oly!

I can't find the "Sony first to add..." story you're talking about (though that could be our search function's fault). However, given that stabilization is more difficult with greater mass, I'd argue that bringing an existing tech to a different scale *is* interesting, even if it's not hugely innovative.

Also, no, Canon did not do in the 1990s what Sony is doing now. Canon made a system that tried to use the AF point the *photographer* was looking at, Sony has made a mode that automatically finds and focuses on the eye of the *subject*. Olympus actually beat them to it but it wasn't as effective as Sony's version.

I was pretty surprised, when writing this article, how few innovations I could attribute to Olympus (they were beaten to live view, in-body stabilisation and pixel shift high res modes, for instance).

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

Nick8: dpr, what about doing some lens reviews, for a change? It is more than one year since the last one.

We should have some good news on that front pretty soon.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

Kandid: Look guys - lets wise up to the whole mirrorless thing.......

The ENTIRE camera industry (including Canon, Nikon and DPR) wants you (us) to buy into 'mirrorless is the next big thing'...The problem is that many are not sold on the idea - same lens, same sensor, small tv to look at rather than the real world......

Why'd they want us to buy in? Lots of sales for everybody (look at the history of step change ie auto focus and digital - and lots of clicks for DPR). Problem is 'the dog don't really like the bone' so the market leaders are cautious and the aspirants (Sony) have no choice..

None of the manufacturers are stupid - they are just starting from a different place.....

Alternatively, we don't have a position on which you should buy. However, we are quite excited about there now being a *choice*.

And, as the article says, there's more to write about as technologies develop. "Canon builds entirely competent entry-level DSLR, but with more pixels" isn't much of a headline, even if it results in a very good camera.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 18:34 UTC
In reply to:

Marc Rodstein: You state that the mirrorless camera was introduced by Panasonic which I believe is incorrect. The Canon Pellix mirrorless camera was introduced in 1965.

I'm pretty sure the Pellix had a reflex mirror. Not a moving one, but nothing in the term DSLR says it needs one.

I'm also not entertaining the idea that rangefinders are mirrorless (since you usually need a mirror to get the viewfinder to work). Regardless, though, Mirrorless (as a contraction of Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) wasn't really used prior to Panasonic's G1. Shout-out to Pentax for showing the concept, some years earlier, of course.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I recently switched from Sony to Fuji.

The FF factor is exaggerated. I can't see any massive difference in print quality Fuji compared to Sony. I do prefer Fuji files SOOC.

I am absolutely loving my Fuji move. They have got me interested in photography again. The XT2 and XH-1 are giving me fun like I used to have with my Nikon FM2 when I learned the basics all those years ago.

D logH - Ultimately, as you say, the relationships are solid, so long as you don't overstate the impact of those relationships (eg: sensor performance and lens performance will make a difference). But from our perspective it's too useful a comparison tool to reject, simply because some people try to misrepresent it.

I'd argue that brands comparing lenses for one sensor size with those of equivalent focal length from another, and then highlighting how small and light they are (while skirting round the unspoken differences) are just as guilty of this.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2018 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

rationalist: I just made some experiments with my Fuji X–T2. Looking at the raw files in Capture One there is only a very slight difference in the highlights between DR100 and DR400, more noticeable in the histogram. Differences in the Jpegs are much more prominent. I therefore assume much more is done in the tone curve during jpeg conversion. At DR400, however, there is visible noise in the image which can be expected at ISO800. DR expansion done manually gives much better results. So whats the point of this function?

You're more than welcome.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 23:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1582 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: It gets 86% score, and receives a silver award. DPR should do away with award system and stick to score system only. It would halve the complaints.

Except reviews, by definition, include subjective elements. They're not analytics test reports. Equally, a camera isn't an objectively measurable device, since ergonomics and experience play a central role.

Our score/award system intentionally tries to provide some separation. Our reviews explain how and why we chose the award, so that you can decide to what degree you agree or disagree with the subjective elements.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 23:16 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1582 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Great, great camera, yet the price, considering the release of the Full-frame Sony A7 III, is a bit high.

And yes, equivalence only tells you about potential for image quality. The specific lens characteristics and the specific sensor performance will affect how much of that potential you can get.

As you say, the BSI 1" chips did a good job of catching up with some of the sensors a size bigger. However, you're also right to recognise that this may only 'in some respects.' But unless one sensor maker drops significantly behind, the differences are usually smaller than the differences between sensor sizes ie: 1" - (1EV) - 4/3" - (2/3EV) - APS-C - (1 1/3EV) - FF - (2/3EV) - 44x33 .

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 00:13 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1582 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Great, great camera, yet the price, considering the release of the Full-frame Sony A7 III, is a bit high.

Exactly. Equivalence doesn't say you *need* to use fast/'pro' lenses on APS-C. It says you need to use fast/'pro' lenses on APS-C *if* you need to match the performance of full frame.

As you say, if you don't want/need shallower DOF and are comfortable with the noise levels you get, there's no reason that you *have* to match the performance of something else (and accept the size/weight/cost of doing so).

But it does mean, for instance, that you could buy an APS-C camera and then a fast portrait lens, if portraits are the main time you want shallow DOF (ie: it lets you understand when and how to gain most of FF capability, without having to spend FF money on every lens, or carry FF weight with you, all the time).

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I recently switched from Sony to Fuji.

The FF factor is exaggerated. I can't see any massive difference in print quality Fuji compared to Sony. I do prefer Fuji files SOOC.

I am absolutely loving my Fuji move. They have got me interested in photography again. The XT2 and XH-1 are giving me fun like I used to have with my Nikon FM2 when I learned the basics all those years ago.

Perhaps, but ultimately it's a neutral tool. It describes where camera capabilities diverge and where they're the same. It can't say what's right for anyone, since it doesn't know what balance of price/size/image quality makes sense for each individual.

In which case, how is it perceived as being a stick to beat people with?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 21:29 UTC
In reply to:

Daft Punk: I recently switched from Sony to Fuji.

The FF factor is exaggerated. I can't see any massive difference in print quality Fuji compared to Sony. I do prefer Fuji files SOOC.

I am absolutely loving my Fuji move. They have got me interested in photography again. The XT2 and XH-1 are giving me fun like I used to have with my Nikon FM2 when I learned the basics all those years ago.

No, but as a review site, it's very useful for us to be able to know how two cameras with different sensor sizes might be expected to compare, so that we can assess whether one is over- or under-performing.

Similarly, as you say, it's a useful pedagogical tool. Especially for helping people understand the trade-offs they're making, with whatever decision they're trying to make (and cutting through nonsense marketing claims). And, as I say, making clear where there is little or no advantage to buying a larger sensor.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 19:35 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1095 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jikada: "It’s not about the mirror (or lack of it) " I beg to differ! It is all about that. The small size of the Sony revolutionized my photogrphic life. literally. The nikon is gigantic and no one would take that one with you in a hip pouch as I do with my 7r3. Both can do the same pro work but the Sony opens literally a world of possibilities through its size which the Nikon cannot. I find this comparison silly.

A lot of Sony's lenses are bigger and heavier than their DSLR peers (obviously there are extreme examples in both directions). So without being able to predict which lenses people will want to use, I can't make that generalisation, even though it's perfectly true for your needs.

It's certainly true that there are some combinations that allow the a7R III + lens to be smaller, but it's not universally the case.

Ultimately, though, I was trying to make a higher level point: that if you try to consider every possible use-case, the main differences aren't about the mirror (or lack of it), they're about subtle strengths and weaknesses elsewhere, which are at best tangential to the mirroredness of the camera. ie, you can no longer simply say 'DSLRs are better for autofocus' or 'mirrorless are always smaller,' for lots of use-cases, the differences are more subtle than that.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 18:37 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1582 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Great, great camera, yet the price, considering the release of the Full-frame Sony A7 III, is a bit high.

Sensor performance is something of a red herring, by the way. Most modern sensors perform fairly similarly (with the latest small sensors usually getting the newest technology, so performing slightly better *per sq mm*). However, the size differences between most common sensor types are much larger than the difference that technology changes tend to yield. So often last-gen large sensors can to produce better images than the latest tech small sensors, it's just that the difference is smaller than size alone would lead you to expect.

But, broadly speaking, large sensors have less-efficient pixels, not more.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 18:31 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-H1 Review (1582 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Great, great camera, yet the price, considering the release of the Full-frame Sony A7 III, is a bit high.

And yes, with the larger physical aperture for any given F-number, comes shallower depth-of-field. Which is a double-edged sword.

There may be a limit to how little depth-of-field you can tolerate. Of course, in these situations you could simply stop down until you're using the same aperture diameter as the smaller sensor camera, and get essentially the same result. However you lose much of the benefit of a larger sensor once you have to stop it down into the realm that a smaller sensor camera can match.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 18:27 UTC
Total: 6068, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »