Richard Butler

Richard Butler

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United Kingdom Seattle, United Kingdom
Works as a Technical Editor
Joined on Nov 7, 2007
About me:

Richard graduated as a scientist but had a lot more fun writing and shooting for his university magazine. A number of years spent variously as a reporter, writer and editor on science and engineering titles combined his knowledge of science with his interest in images and words. But it was spotting the connections between emission spectra, white balance and all the nonsense he'd taught himself playing around in Photoshop that helped kindle an interest in digital photography. Searching for a camera led to him discovering DPReview and Richard was recruited by Phil Askey in 2007. He's been combining his love of photography, communication and attention to detail (pedantry?) ever since.

He has unusually strong opinions about lenses for the APS-C format.

Comments

Total: 6167, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D850 sensor confirmed as Sony-made (576 comments in total)
In reply to:

Royal Majesty: I could swear that in the early D850 hype it was claimed that the D850 sensor would be the first for Nikon that was truly 100% Nikon; as in designed AND manufactured in-house by Nikon.

Or was that the D5? I forget...

Anyhow, irrelevant from an IQ standpoint. But tremendously significant if Sony ever decides to stop making sensors for other companies. Then Nikon would be screwed. All of Nikon's good cameras have Sony sensors in them. While Nikon might offer some design input, all the technology heavy lifting, and manufacturing, is being done by Sony. Nikon had truly better start manufacturing their own sensors. Soon!

That sounds highly unlikely, unless I've missed some key information.

Sony Semiconductor doesn't make cameras and would struggle to find third-party clients if it gave preferential treatment to its sister business unit. They've always said they treat Sony Electronics as just another customer. All evidence seems to support this.

Equally, all Nikon's statements about the problems with the DLs related to processing, not sensors (though there was a shortage of sensors for a while when Sony wasn't able to produce 1"-type sensors, following an Earthquake).

The DLs were designed, developed and announced. They were far-enough advanced that test units of at least one of the models were in the hands of pros in Nikon's ambassador program, before the project was killed. It's unthinkable that the program would (or *could*) have got so far if there were any doubts at all about the ability to source sensors. After all, the prototypes will have already had to have had sensors in them.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2018 at 22:33 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1058 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Since FF brands seem to have stalled out at 50 MPs, maybe we need bigger sensors if only to get more MPs. Sony is soon releasing a 100 MP 44x33 sensor and a 150 MP 54x41 sensor. Let's see C+N+S cram those pixels onto a FF sensor.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't DPR run a past article claiming a MF sensor does not collect more light than a FF sensor? There's plenty of folks in the forums stating as such and I think they got it from your article. Maybe they are misquoting or misunderstanding the article or maybe I am not seeing the nuances of this characteristic.

No, the CMOS chips are all pretty recent. The distinction is that the Nikon somehow offers an ISO 64 mode, whereas most of its peers start at 100 (including the Sony a7 models and the cameras built around the 44 x 33mm 50MP sensor).

The fact that the mono version of the 100 MP back has a base ISO of 200 would lead you to assume that the Bayer version would be around ISO 100 (1EV is a reasonable amount of light loss for a colour filter array: something supported by some of the Leica models available with and without one). So the ISO 50 on the 100MP back is unusually low. Phase One quotes the same DR number for both, so that points towards a very strong CFA (probably to offer better colour accuracy at the cost of light sensitivity). Plus, perhaps, some odd rounding, to the nearest sensible ISO value.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2018 at 00:48 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1058 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Since FF brands seem to have stalled out at 50 MPs, maybe we need bigger sensors if only to get more MPs. Sony is soon releasing a 100 MP 44x33 sensor and a 150 MP 54x41 sensor. Let's see C+N+S cram those pixels onto a FF sensor.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't DPR run a past article claiming a MF sensor does not collect more light than a FF sensor? There's plenty of folks in the forums stating as such and I think they got it from your article. Maybe they are misquoting or misunderstanding the article or maybe I am not seeing the nuances of this characteristic.

So our argument that the D850's ISO 64 allows it to compete with the likes of the Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D and Fujifilm GFX 50S is based on them all using Sony CMOS sensors *and* the Nikon having a lower base ISO. (And us having shot the D810 and 645Z side-by-side).

Just to make the point that base ISO alone isn't terribly helpful, click the 'Download Tech Specs' link [at the bottom of this page](https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/IQ-Digital-Backs.aspx). Note that you can buy PhaseOne backs with 100MP CMOS sensors that have base ISOs of 35, 50 and 200, depending on whether you have the Trichromatic, regular or no colour filter array in front of the chip. In other words, the strength of the colour filter helps dictate base ISO (by lowering system efficiency), even though the overall DR is likely to be the same for each.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 19:55 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1058 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Since FF brands seem to have stalled out at 50 MPs, maybe we need bigger sensors if only to get more MPs. Sony is soon releasing a 100 MP 44x33 sensor and a 150 MP 54x41 sensor. Let's see C+N+S cram those pixels onto a FF sensor.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't DPR run a past article claiming a MF sensor does not collect more light than a FF sensor? There's plenty of folks in the forums stating as such and I think they got it from your article. Maybe they are misquoting or misunderstanding the article or maybe I am not seeing the nuances of this characteristic.

KWNJr - Two different things can result in a low base ISO: a high full well capacity (meaning it can tolerate a lot of light before clipping) or low efficiency (poor conversion rate of light into electrons), so a low base ISO doesn't tell you whether you'll get better results.

For instance, the older, CCD-based large-chip medium format cameras appear to be lower efficiency than the latest CMOS chips. When DxO last tested one, (the IQ180), it was still able to outperform the D850 but not by as much as its 2.5x larger sensor would lead you to expect. (There was around a 0.5EV mid-tone noise advantage, rather than the 1.36EV that the sensor size difference would imply - this is why we always use the caveat 'assuming comparable sensor tech' when discussing equivalence).

The newer, CMOS cameras, almost certainly based on Sony sensors, are likely to be much more competitive.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 19:51 UTC
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter v.d Werf: Ok, the price is the Netherlands is €1300 (so almost $1550!!)

Anticipating yet another questionable price increase I was really hoping for a wow-factor package to upgrade from my RX100 M3 (after an M1 and 2)

I mostly shot at f1.8 for higher shutter speeds with the RX100 during low light. 200mm I don't need, certainly not when it means a smaller aperture at the wide end.

During my last holiday I left my RX100 at home to try to see how I'd fare with my iPhone 8 for evening shots/video combined next to my dslr. Certainly for low light detail the iPhone can't keep up but overall experience was much better then expected.
I shot a lot of video and this new RX100 can't even match the iPhone in 4K video framerate or recording duration. Not that I shoot full 5minutes clips, but no risk of having to wait for a camera to cool off. Why not fix that for €1300? And note how Sony clearly left out any mention of 4K framerate specs from the press release, a clear sign they aren't proud of that..

€1300 inc VAT would be €1083 ($1253) before tax, so it is a little more expensive.

However, if you look at the way prices decline over time, in Europe, it'll end up looking more competitive. Prices are maintained much more strongly in the US, such that it'll probably still cost $1200 in a year's time over here, but is very unlikely to still sell for €1300 two months after hitting the shelves.

But that's purely a comment on the way prices differ across regions, not about whether this particular model is worth that much.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2018 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: Never heard of?

Announced in 2016, available since Jan 2017 this isn't exactly a new camera.

Even the author's heard of it :

" I can't help but feel I'd be okay with a more restrictive zoom range in front of a 1"-type sensor (along the lines of the Sealife DC2000, which I'm still hoping to test out in the future."

Carey Rose July 2017

I remember reading that, chuckling, and thinking "If only that guy worked for a camera review web site......

You have to wonder though: WHy all the love 18 months after the camera was released?

The Ricoh WG-50 is [covered in our latest buying guide](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-waterproof-cameras/8).

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2018 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: Why are the raw files so large? No compression? Or is 40MB reasonable for 20MP images? (Most cameras I've used have been ~1MB/MP, usually lossless compressed)

That would make sense. As I say, there's only 30MB of information in there to start off with.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 23:05 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI first impressions (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I like #23 there, nice shot Mr. Butler.

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 20:39 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery updated (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bob Jameson: Sony should just have increased the 4k shooting time to over 5 mins and added a mic output from the Rx100 V. That will sell more than this expensive camera that also produces worse indoor low light shots.

It's exceedingly unlikely that they're going to be able to improve on the five-minute limit in that size of camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: Why are the raw files so large? No compression? Or is 40MB reasonable for 20MP images? (Most cameras I've used have been ~1MB/MP, usually lossless compressed)

Ok, I've checked one of the files.

It's a 12-bit Raw file in a 16-bit container, so they're uncompressed 40MB files (20MP * 16 bits per pixel/8 bits per byte), but that only contain 30MB of information.

Or, to put it another way: 1/4 of the file is literally a waste of space.

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2018 at 18:37 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery updated (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bershatsky: This looks like professionally lit and staged images - probably by Sony during an event. Thus, it is not a real world test and not going to accurately demonstrate the qualities of normal usage.

Most of the gallery was shot by me walking along the Highline in New York, asking strangers if I can take their photo. No additional lighting.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2018 at 03:19 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery updated (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ixhu: The problem with the first sample gallery was the lack of photos taken with faster than F4 aperture. If I counted right, this second series contains 1 (one!) F3.5 photo. All the others are >=F4.0 again... What's the reason of this?

The lens hits F4.0 at 40mm equiv (and max of F3.5 above 32mm equiv), so it may well have been shot wide-open for more of the shots.

There's a chance I didn't shoot at wide-enough angle or that I nudged the clickless front dial, didn't notice due to the complete lack of physical feedback and then accidentally specified F4.0, rather than 'wide-open.'

I'll trawl back through my images, so I have access to proper file management software, and see if I shot anything wider-angle and wider-open.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 19:24 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery updated (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

chrisno: the second series look really rough in a well lit indoor environment, almost all of the photos are around ISO 2000. The old V does a much better job in this kind of situation

Absolutely: that's the cost of the slower maximum aperture.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 19:20 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

George1958: Seems there is no shortage of reportage on this “compact camera” , is it five or six sub reports? I have seen fewer numbers of reports much later on other gear ( non Sony that is). Just an observation.

Our coverage is primarily dictated by our availability (so can be more extensive away from busy launch periods) and our access to the product.

In this instance, we were handed a camera at the point of launch and were able to go out shooting immediately. That's inevitably going to result in more coverage than us being shipped a camera a month after launch.

It's not inconsistent with [our coverage of, say, the Fujifilm X100F](https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/compacts/fujifilm_x100f).

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 18:19 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI first impressions (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

StefanD: " But the thing that most struck me about the using RX100 VI was how often, when I showed my images to the strangers I'd just photographed, was how often I got a smile and a response along the lines of "that's a really good camera." "

It appears to me that they should have said "you're a really good photographer".

sbansban - The main reason I mentioned it was that more than one person commented in a surprised manner about the results from the camera. I didn't intend to suggest that this is a significant validation of the camera, beyond it implying that the results were better than the smartphone images they're used to seeing.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 17:23 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI sample gallery (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

4REEE: Not one shot at 100 to 200mm?!

Many cameras write two field in the EXIF: one with the actual focal length and another with it translated into 35mm equivalent terms. It appears the field our gallery is pulling is the actual focal length.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 15:50 UTC
On article Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom (758 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter v.d Werf: Ok, the price is the Netherlands is €1300 (so almost $1550!!)

Anticipating yet another questionable price increase I was really hoping for a wow-factor package to upgrade from my RX100 M3 (after an M1 and 2)

I mostly shot at f1.8 for higher shutter speeds with the RX100 during low light. 200mm I don't need, certainly not when it means a smaller aperture at the wide end.

During my last holiday I left my RX100 at home to try to see how I'd fare with my iPhone 8 for evening shots/video combined next to my dslr. Certainly for low light detail the iPhone can't keep up but overall experience was much better then expected.
I shot a lot of video and this new RX100 can't even match the iPhone in 4K video framerate or recording duration. Not that I shoot full 5minutes clips, but no risk of having to wait for a camera to cool off. Why not fix that for €1300? And note how Sony clearly left out any mention of 4K framerate specs from the press release, a clear sign they aren't proud of that..

Peter v.d Werf - Does the price you quoted include VAT? Don't forget that US prices tend not to include sales tax.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

vaughnnie: "A small, self-contained system solely aimed at a subset of photographers, rather than trying to be all things to all men."
REALLY?!? ... this is 2018, Mr. Butler. As a woman photographer, I was annoyed reading that . As it happens, I do have a Fujifilm with interchangeable lenses (as well as a Canon Mark II) ...guess I didn't need to read this article that was apparently for men only.

vaughnnie - I do apologise. I did think about this before using it but thought it was commonly enough recognised in that form (it's a quote from Corinthians, apparently), that it wouldn't be taken as being literally gendered. It seemed awkward to paraphrase to 'all things to all people.'

However, although I'd not *intended* to be taken as gendered, I appreciate that it could be. I'll try to be more careful.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 22:56 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI first impressions (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

StefanD: " But the thing that most struck me about the using RX100 VI was how often, when I showed my images to the strangers I'd just photographed, was how often I got a smile and a response along the lines of "that's a really good camera." "

It appears to me that they should have said "you're a really good photographer".

In fairness, I had started the conversation with people by saying "I'm trying to get some photos with this camera, which was launched this morning," so I ended up making the conversation camera-centric, rather than about my own photographic skills (or lack of them, according to the internet). ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 19:46 UTC
On SampleImage:0868520758 (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: How did you manage to get the vertical lines parallel ? Any particular in-camera processing ?

No. I held the camera as far above my head as I could, to minimise perspective distortion.

Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 18:30 UTC
Total: 6167, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »