Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3923, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Sony a7R II versus a7 II: Eight key differences (397 comments in total)
In reply to:

William Krusche: There used to be a time when we had to buy expensive magazines to keep up with the newest reviews. Now these reviews are free on sites like Dpreview. If Dpreview does indeed receive some extra 'advertising money' for posting articles like this one, then so they should. If amateurs like me don't need to go out and pay for overpriced magazines any more which were, by the way jam-packed with advertising, then you won't hear me complain.

The post is not, in any way, supported or paid for by any manufacturer. It's merely an article format we're experimenting with.

We often see 'Which camera should I buy' threads on the forum and so wanted to see if we could help shed some light on specific choices. We did Fujifilm X-T2 vs X-Pro2 a couple of weeks back, a7 II vs a7R II this week and we have various other combinations (not always from the same brand) that we're working on.

Sorry if you're not finding them useful, but they are in response to what we thought was a reader demand, not any concerns about marketing or sales on the part of camera makers.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 20:57 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ken Croft: Adobe Camera Raw may not get the best out of each individual camera. So is it just for convenience that you settle on the same raw converter for all cameras. It may seem that you are creating a level playing field but would it not be fairer to each camera to get the very best possible performance figures.

It's not a question of 'trusting' ACR, it's a question of showing what you get on a normalized basis with a tool that's central to a lot of people's workflows.

There are a couple of reasons we don't use the manufacturers' bundled software. In the past, many pieces of bundled software would essentially just mimic or exactly reproduce the camera's JPEGs - meaning that we would test the same thing twice and still not get to see what's going on 'behind the scenes.'

Also, much of the software bundled with cameras is dreadful. If you can only get the best results by using software that's slow, buggy or just really difficult to learn, then should we mark the camera down for forcing that upon you?

The reason we make the Raw files available is so that you can download them and see if you can get better results from your preferred converter. But for the most part, we assume the JPEGs are the manufacturers' idea of what's 'best' and that ACR shows a warts-and-all look at the underlying files.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheDarmok74: It certainly looks like dpr go to great lengths when it comes to the test scene.
And yet, how can things like the E-P5 test scene happen?
Just look at it, compare the scene to that taken with the E-M5 e.g.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-pen-e-p5/15

Probably shutter shock and if it is I have two questions:
how did you not reshoot this after the FW-fix? And how could you give a camera an award that couldn't take sharp photos a lot of the time?
For me the E-P5 was such a disappointment and with it I questioned the dpr tests.

As I say, I did try to make the problem clear in the review, which originally ended:

*However, its inability to correct image shake at what should be usable shutter speeds means we don't feel able to unreservedly recommend the E-P5. We're hoping an improvement can be made to the camera's stabilization system but, as it stands, there's too much risk of your best shots being undermined - something that's unacceptable at this level. As such, we can't give the E-P5 as high an award as it would otherwise receive.*

But if the result is that you spent your money on a camera that left you disappointed, then it means I didn't spell it out clearly enough, for which I apologise. And I do think it's fair criticism to question the Silver award.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 19:39 UTC
On article Nikon D7200 Review (643 comments in total)
In reply to:

tarunkr: While you've guessed the sensor in D7200 is an updated version of Toshiba one, here in the following review it's showing that it's a Sony sensor like that of D5500!
http://www.lightandmatter.org/2015/equipment-reviews/nikon-d5500-vs-d7200-which-should-you-buy/
It is a bit confusing.

We're still not in a position to be certain, either way. Some pieces of information (Nikon's product photos, some of DxO's measurements), suggest it's a Toshiba, other people are convinced it's a Sony. Either could be correct.

The question is: does it matter?

Our review tries to show you want the performance looks like, in comparison to other cameras and sensors. It doesn't have the banding that affected the D7100 and it shows excellent DR and high ISO performance. We think that's more important than Nikon's supply chain choices.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 18:04 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheDarmok74: It certainly looks like dpr go to great lengths when it comes to the test scene.
And yet, how can things like the E-P5 test scene happen?
Just look at it, compare the scene to that taken with the E-M5 e.g.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-pen-e-p5/15

Probably shutter shock and if it is I have two questions:
how did you not reshoot this after the FW-fix? And how could you give a camera an award that couldn't take sharp photos a lot of the time?
For me the E-P5 was such a disappointment and with it I questioned the dpr tests.

I'm afraid I can't remember whether we'd been briefed that the '0 second' anti shock setting was going to be added to the E-P5 when we reviewed it, so I can't be sure what the logic was behind giving it a Silver award.

I tried to spell out that shutter shock was a problem for the camera and that it was serious enough to change our overall rating but I'm sorry that I didn't spell it out strongly enough to prevent you being disappointed.

During busy period with new cameras arriving, it can be difficult to find the time to go back and re-test, check, process and upload an existing camera (especially when a key part of the review hinges on something shown with the existing images). We'll look at how we handled that particular situation to assess whether we should have dealt with it differently.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:55 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nephi: Do you guys plan on redoing the Canon 5DSR test scene? The images were taken with an older ACR profile that resulted in higher than normal contrast.

We'll certainly look at the current profile and see if there's been a significant change.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Squire: @Richard, are you considering a moving studio scene for a similar rigorous test of video quality?

I see you shoot video on the static scene already, which is great for pixel peeping the theoretical best image quality in video, but I figure some animation in the scene would allow us to evaluate how the codec holds up to compression artifacts in complex scenes, lots of movement and low contrast parts - All of which can suffer a lot more when the codec is dealing with variation between frames.

Absolutely. The current test scene is only really useful for understanding the way the sensor is being sampled. We certainly want to be able to test and show more than that, it a controlled, repeatable manner.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:16 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

surlezi: @DPR staff
How is lens vignetting handled ?
What is done to correct accross the frame sharpness issues of the lenses ?

The 50mm and 85mm primes we tend to use exhibit very high cross-field uniformity and very little in the way of vignetting. All of our resolution targets are clustered towards the middle of the frame so that compacts are disadvantaged.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:14 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

fPrime: I'm not opposed to the "new" studio test scene, but year(s) after launch it still has no older cameras in it's database... only cameras released in the last four years. Although it may be a surprise to the DPR editors, there still a lot of people who still shoot with a D700 or D3s. It'd be great to be able to compare these classics against the D5 or D810 on the comparator, wouldn't it? Similar examples could be found for Canon, Leica, Sony, Pentax, etc. Adding a handful of classic cameras to the comparator would reconnect it with the large user base still enjoying older tech.

It's something we originally hoped to do (and we had a list of benchmark cameras we hoped to test). However, getting hold of cameras known to be in good condition, years after their release was harder than we expected.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: To me the best image test is a group shot with real human faces with hair, and distant trees, grass and flowers.

Sadly that's difficult to achieve all year 'round. Cameras reviewed during the summer would look much better than those shot during the winter (a criticism we've faced about our sample galleries).

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

curiosifly: "Raw images are shot using set combinations of shutter speeds and apertures to allow the assessment of sensor performance on a common basis (so at any given ISO, all cameras will receive the same amount of light)."
Does this mean that if the actual sensitivity is different from different manufactures at the same ISO, the brightness of the scene should look different because they all have the same exposure? Fuji is said to overrate their ISO. But its image brightness in raw looks the same as other manufactures at the same ISO. Why is that?

All cameras will show the same brightness because we adjust the white balance and brightness back to a common point (it's very hard to visually compare images that are different brightnesses).

However, since they're all given the same amount of light, this would reveal any differences in performance between sensors, regardless of how the manufacturer calibrates or rates its sensitivity.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 17:03 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (105 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ken Croft: Adobe Camera Raw may not get the best out of each individual camera. So is it just for convenience that you settle on the same raw converter for all cameras. It may seem that you are creating a level playing field but would it not be fairer to each camera to get the very best possible performance figures.

The question is: what is the 'best' possible performance? What do we do in a situation where a processor is only available on PC or only on Mac? How to we get any consistency to the amount of noise reduction being applied?

Adobe Camera Raw isn't necessarily the best converter but, between ACR and Lightroom, it's the most-used processing engine. Adobe is also consistently very good at providing us with support soon after cameras are announced.

We are trying to work out whether it would be possible to add another converter into the scene but it's a huge amount of work and it presents several major obstacles to a coherent workflow, so I can't make any promises on that front.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2016 at 16:59 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bassman2003: Thanks DPR for being honest about the camera in this write up. I can not believe they released a camera with video being a noteworthy feature without the ability to use manual WB. I can deal with auto focus and iris but never auto WB!

The ability to select a manual white balance has now been added. You need to go to stills mode to set one of the three manual settings but these can now be accessed when shooting video.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 21:52 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M5 II Review (867 comments in total)
In reply to:

dtravisphoto: When I use the M5-II in high res mode, I only find a jpeg on the memory card. I can't seem to get it to save a RAW file. What am I missing?

I seem to remember (and I could be wrong on this), that the E-M5 II keeps separate Raw/JPEG settings for single images and pixel shift images, so if you switch from one mode to the other, you'll need to re-check whether you have Raw engaged.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2487 comments in total)
In reply to:

samir sinha: @DPR it is surprising that you did not consider the Sony a6300 to figure in the drop-down list of comparable cameras for the Fuji X Pro-2 or vise versa. Is this a simple miss-out or the omission deliberate, considering both the cameras are so similar in nature ?

The sensors are similar but that's only one aspect of a camera. The feature set, and price of the X-Pro2 puts it in a different category from the a6300 (though you can check a box to allow you to look at them both, so long as you're aware it's not a like-for-like comparison).

Anyone who wants any of the a6300's video or autofocus capabilities would be very poorly served by an X-Pro2 and anyone wanting the more direct, dials and hybrid viewfinder of the X-Pro2 would hate the a6300, so I doubt many people will be trying to choose between the two.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 17:22 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2197 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ktrphoto: Perspective is determined ENTIRELY by the distance from the subject and orientation to it. Neither focal length nor any other lens characteristic has anything to do with it.

Why do people that should know better keep perpetuating misconceptions.

That's the point the article is trying to make. Since it's reasonable to assume that you'd shoot a 100mm lens or a 100mm equivalent lens from the same distance, you'd get the same perspective.

Too often, I see people say that "the lens on that compact is actually a 36mm lens, so you get different perspective compared with a real 100mm lens," which isn't true.

My point wasn't about why you get the same perspective (which isn't caused by the lens, *per se*), but that you do, because the matching fields of view mean that you use them in the same way.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 17:00 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: After reading comments on X-T2 I leant 1DX II is a toy camera for the iPhone crowd. A proper professional camera wouldn't have touchscreen nor GPS.

I think you might have done some extrapolating, there.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 19:03 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

OSDphoto: The D500 scored 91%, and the 1DX Mark-II scored 89% so it did not improve at all on the 1D Mark-IV which also scored 89%. So I guess it's time to sell off all my Canon stuff and get a D500.

@Hellish - it's not without its flaws, certainly, but the alternative is that all compact cameras score around 12 because a 1D X II scores 89.

The OP's sarcasm suggests they know perfectly well that we're not saying the D500 is 'better' than the D5.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 00:10 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

OSDphoto: The D500 scored 91%, and the 1DX Mark-II scored 89% so it did not improve at all on the 1D Mark-IV which also scored 89%. So I guess it's time to sell off all my Canon stuff and get a D500.

To quote the text directly above the scoring widget:

"Scoring is relative **only** to the other cameras in the same category."

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:44 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: In the high ISO comparison, the 1DXII image is sharpened at +25, while the 1DX is at 0.

No problem - we'd much rather risk the occasional false positive than end up leaving errors upon the site.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:52 UTC
Total: 3923, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »