Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4683, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

virtualreality: DPreview staff:
Surprised to see that the AF sports tests were conducted at an outdoors location, iso 200 f/5.6 whereas Sony tests were conducted indoors with poor lighting, iso 1600 f/2.8!
Yes, that's a 5 stop bias for Panasonic...

As I say, the ***test*** element of both the reviews are the based on the same thing. There's no bias in the testing.

In addition to the testing, are (sports-based) illustrations of two different points. The text does it best to make clear what points are being illustrated (one is a validation of the bike test, one is an extension beyond the bike test)

If you insist on looking at the examples of two totally different things and demand that they be the same, then it would make it impossible for us to use any non-studio examples (since we can't shoot the same sports for every camera and it wouldn't make sense to).

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

virtualreality: DPreview staff:
Surprised to see that the AF sports tests were conducted at an outdoors location, iso 200 f/5.6 whereas Sony tests were conducted indoors with poor lighting, iso 1600 f/2.8!
Yes, that's a 5 stop bias for Panasonic...

The (different) sporting examples were being used to illustrate two different things, in the different reviews.

The testing component of the reviews (the bike test) was conducted in broadly similar circumstances. Though with some difference in the availability of lenses.

In the Sony review, the sports component was being used to show that we got similar results to those we got in the bike test. In the Panasonic, they were playing a different role: showing how the camera copes with a more complex, challenging situation than the bike test.

We're fully aware they represent very different challenges and aren't trying to draw comparable conclusions from such different experiences.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 22:21 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Dopaminer: There`s always something absurd in these tests. 5DSR with the 85 1.8?
Put some recent L glass on there, obviously.

And the Fuji`s 50mp raw is 112mb? Double the Canon`s ?

Since the 85mm F1.8 is happily resolving a similar degree of detail to the other 50MP cameras here, what benefit do you hope to gain from us using the 85mm F1.2L (stopped-down to F5.6)?

The Fujifilm is in uncompressed mode. It can also shoot losslessly compressed, which would be nearer the size of the Canon Raw files.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

eno2: From a video with one of the Panasonic reps: The - settings on the auto focus parameters will make the AF more responsive while + settings will make it less responsive. Have you taken this into account?

Speaking to Panasonic is currently doing the opposite of clarifying the situation, so we're going to conduct some more testing as soon as it stops raining (which looks like June, based on the winter we've been having).

As soon as we're in a position to clarify things, we will.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 19:36 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruekon: Thank you for this article and the effort spent to make the comparisons and answer lots of comments!

Take Nikon 1 for example: it ships with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. People come to the conclusion that picture quality doesn't catch up with larger sensor cameras. Which surprise when considering that the lens is equivalent to 27-81 f/9.5-15. Don't even people at Nikon know about this and rather tend to stop the Nikon 1 instead?

If we're going to be pedantic about semantics (not something I'm necessarily against), then yes, 'F2' cannot be equivalent to 'F4.' However, a specific F2 lens on a specified system *can* be equivalent to another lens that's F4 on another system.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:44 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: So, I take it that Canon's Dual Pixel CMOS AF is better. Correct?

It depends what you're trying to achieve. Dual Pixel AF tends to be very decisive and accurate but, depending on the camera, not very fast (EOS 80D tops-out at 3.6 fps in live view, for instance).

'Better' depends on the use-case.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

eno2: From a video with one of the Panasonic reps: The - settings on the auto focus parameters will make the AF more responsive while + settings will make it less responsive. Have you taken this into account?

That video appears to contradict what we were told when we were briefed on the camera and how the camera describes its behavior (the +ve values are listed as 'Responsive').

We tested a range of 'AF Sensitivity' settings and the results seem to suggest that +ve values work better for our subject (there isn't a definitive 'best for subject tracking' setting, since these settings exist to allow you to tailor the tracking behavior to suit your subject).

We have approached Panasonic to check this apparent contradiction, though.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 17:30 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2405 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruekon: Thank you for this article and the effort spent to make the comparisons and answer lots of comments!

Take Nikon 1 for example: it ships with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. People come to the conclusion that picture quality doesn't catch up with larger sensor cameras. Which surprise when considering that the lens is equivalent to 27-81 f/9.5-15. Don't even people at Nikon know about this and rather tend to stop the Nikon 1 instead?

F# = FL / Aperture diameter

*e*F# = *e*FL / Aperture diameter

Nothing about that suggests that f/2 is equivalent to f/4. You cannot make a statement about equivalence without context. F2 **on one system** can be equivalent to F4 **on another system**, but that's no more or less true (or more or less ambiguous) than equivalent focal lengths. The majority of people are comfortable with the ideal that, in one context, 23mm can be equivalent to 35mm, so they don't repeatedly ignore the context and say it's confusing.

And yes, the shorter focal length absolutely plays a role, just as resizing/magnification does, if you view all formats at the same size. But it's a multi-dimensional puzzle [focal length, aperture diameter, sensor size, shooting distance, output size, etc] so you have to decide which you're going to treat at fixed and which you're going to move, otherwise no one can make sense of anything.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 00:06 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: It's nice to see how excited you are for the GFX 50s, but it only makes your lack of curiosity about the Pentax 645D/645Z cameras even harder to understand.

It's been 7 years since Pentax broke the mold by announcing an affordable medium format digital camera in the 645D, and three years since the 645Z was announced, and we still have yet to see a review from DPR.

Sadly, having tried in the past, that option isn't practical.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Too much DPR love for this camera. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Amazon has it already on stock while the Hasselblad X1D has to be bought somewhere else.

It's a camera that we're interested in and that, according to the site metrics I've looked at, that our audience is interested in.

It has nothing to do with Amazon's stock level. It's not information I have access to, it's not something that we even consider. We're still hoping to get hold of an X1D.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:22 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: It's nice to see how excited you are for the GFX 50s, but it only makes your lack of curiosity about the Pentax 645D/645Z cameras even harder to understand.

It's been 7 years since Pentax broke the mold by announcing an affordable medium format digital camera in the 645D, and three years since the 645Z was announced, and we still have yet to see a review from DPR.

@moTmeN - We do not **ever** make deals with manufacturers about what we can and cannot say and show in our reviews. (Preview materials based on pre-production models might mean not being allowed to post samples or Raw samples, but we don't review anything with strings attached).

To those of you wondering about the 645D and Z. In both instances we had extensive discussions with Pentax about getting hold of reviewable cameras. Their scarcity meant that we were never able to borrow one for long enough to review. We also found it very difficult to find appropriate lenses to shoot our test scene (Neither Pentax nor our local rental house had them). We tried to publish coverage whenever we had access (putting the camera in the hands of studio photographers, etc), but the availability of cameras, lenses and reviewers meant it was never possible to review those cameras in a timely manner. But I have made countless phone calls and emails trying.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 17:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Noogy: While viewing and comparing noise levels with 5DMIV, DPReview - I noticed a light square "gray area" that seems superimposed on the 5DMIV's sample, particularly noticeable from the white gentleman's nose and spreads to the left side of his face and farther away (I am talking about the gentleman on the lower left portion of your studio scene). It looks like a very light "mask" imposed on the image. You may have to re-process or re-shoot.

Is it just happening for certain ISO or lighting combinations? I can't see the effect you're talking about.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 01:01 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: These Full Frame cameras are absolutely incredible and almost killing the MF market/need. The image quality of the 5DSR & a7rII & D810 paired with a sharp lens like a Sigma 35/50/85 or a Canon 35mm L or an Otus are just incredible MF replacements given the Dramatic differdnce in speed and usability and size and lens availability...

If I were getting paied for landscapes I'd get a 5DsR + 11-24mm f/4 L. Portraits, A 50mm F/1.4 ART. Sports: A 1DX + Canon 100-400mm L IS II or A 150-600mm. Such great variety of lenses and cameras in the high resolution FF section.

Favorable Exponynt - It entirely depends on how you want to shoot. You may well be able to shoot with the same depth-of-field if you want to.

That's exactly the point of the idea of equivalence (whether that be in terms of focal length or f-number). If the lenses exist to allow you to choose equivalent focal lengths and equivalent f-numbers, then you can shoot images with matching perspective, depth-of-field, diffraction and noise characteristics (with some variance for sensor performance and specific lens characteristics).

Formats themselves don't have too many differentiating properties. It's the net effect of the format and the available lenses.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: The Fuji clearly pulls ahead of the FF marketleaders. Maybe I can get a used one at some point.

It may be a longer shutter speed but it's also a smaller f-number, so the same net exposure, so there's no noise benefit from the exposure itself.

Now, whether you could or would want to use those exposures (or match them with the Canon), is another matter and one that it's impossible for us to predict/model with this scene.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

PedroMZ: When you look at the images taken with the Olympus 2MP bridge camera on last week's throw- back Thursday ,I reckon that 20MP is more than enough. I doubt many people on this site print above A3 so what is the point of 36MP. The MFTs prime lenses are pretty fast and rarely do you need to go above 800ISO. The added advantage is that at wide apertures you still get a decent depth of field.

PedroMZ - Having a smaller sensor doesn't in itself give you more depth-of-field. If you stop-down a lens on a larger sensor you can get the same depth-of-field and, sensor performance differences aside, the same noise performance if you use the same shutter speed (regardless of the apparent f-number difference).

The only point at which you get more depth-of-field is if you've stopped down further than is possible on the larger sensor camera (which is usually well into diffraction-limited territory).

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

dkyl: Has the lighting changed?
Red and gold paintbrush on both upper left and lower right side.
Canon/Pentax pair appear the same but different to the Fuji/Sony pair.

You'll have to be specific about which cameras you mean. The lights haven't changed but I remember at least one of the paint brushes falling off and needing to be re-attached, so it might be catching the light slightly differently.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (887 comments in total)
In reply to:

captura: Nice article, but are those marijuana bushes that Richard is peeking through?

Since it was shot in a public park, I'd certainly hope not.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: I would also think that embracing and promoting IBIS as a fundamental feature of their DSLR's would have been part of the Olympus 4/3 legacy worth mentioning. Especially when we see how IBIS has caught on today across the various manufacturers.

It was one of the big reasons my first DSLR was an e-520, and why my first APS-C camera was a Pentax.

Konica Minolta beat Olympus to the introduction of IBIS and its use continues in the latest Sony's, so credit has to go elsewhere on that one, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

RolliPoli: I still remember all the reviews of the e330 that asked: 'Why would anyone want this 'Live View' feature anyway?'
Olympus has been a great innovator, though it's features such as 'Live View' have been marketed most successfully by other companies.
Another example of Olympus over the horizon thinking would be the E10 and E20 DSLRs (in fact the first 'Live View' DSLRs) that were mirrorless designs; the mirrorless DSLR trail that Olympus cut was then followed to market success by Sony.

'Mirrorless DSLR' is an oxymoron: the 'R' in DSLR refers to the mirror that is explicitly excluded from mirrorless ILCs.

Sony's SLTs, for instance, have semi-transparent mirrors providing light to the AF module.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Why was telecentric lens design abandoned with MFT? Was it because sensors had evolved by that point with much shallower pixel wells, microlenses etc. such that it was no longer needed, was it because the distortions induced by non-telecentric lenses could be cleaned up in software, or was it because the mirrorless design somehow made it unnecessary?

BSI sensors should help reduce the advantage of (rather than *need* for) telecentric designs.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 02:02 UTC
Total: 4683, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »