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: 6595, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-T3 Review (2433 comments in total)
In reply to:

Causio: It's been noticed many times how in the dpreview tests here, the noise looks better in low light shots rather than normal light. The X-T3 seems to benefit particularly from this, becoming equal if not better than X-T2 and even 5D mk III (whereas it's worse in normal light). The normal light images have ridiculous speeds (1/2500s at iso 6400? How often is that required?) and I wonder if that's one reason of this difference. On the other side, low light have very low speed (iso 3200 = 1/10s). At least in my case, if I need high iso for higher speed I never need to go faster than 1/500s. All in all, I wonder if it makes sense to use the same light for all ISO values at all.

That's exactly *why* we shoot the scene twice, in two very different lighting conditions.

I chose to re-process the daylight scene because it's easier to get a consistent result in Capture One than with the heavy colour cast of the low light images. If you think the low light scene will show a significantly different result, all the Raws are available for you to download and check for yourself.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2018 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

raminm: 56mm F1.4 to 112mm on m43 F2.8 and to 84mm F2.1on APSC sounds like a weird aperture equivalency formula to me!

The aperture terminology should follow a standard that is ought to be independent of the sensor size. It's actually easy to test this on the Sony E mount: mount the lens on a APSC camera such as A6500 and on a full frame one such as A7 iii or A7r iii and takes shots at a given aperture such as f1.4. Does the captured picture is darker on A6500 than on A7 iii? What I recall from my personal experience using other APSC and FF lenses on APSC and FF cameras (A7r ii and A6000) on a few occasions, it should not yield to any exposure difference. So where does Mr. Butler get the idea of aperture effective equivalency from?!

The exposure model is useful, It does what it promises to do and I'm not suggesting it's wrong or that it should be replaced.

However, the effect of focusing solely on light per unit area, without also considering the whole-image impact (which is what the concept of 'enlargement' did, in the film era), can leave some concepts rather fuzzy.

Most people recognise that a larger sensor gives them shallower depth-of-field when trying to take the same photo, because they're shooting equivalent focal lengths but haven't considered the effect of aperture diameter (**not f-number**). This leads to the misconception that smaller formats have more depth-of-field.

Secondly, most people recognise that larger formats tend to give cleaner images. If you focus on light per square unit area and ignore the larger capture area, it's easy to think that there must be something better, at a technological level, in large sensors (eq larger pixels). But this is rarely the case. It's mostly down to area.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

raminm: 56mm F1.4 to 112mm on m43 F2.8 and to 84mm F2.1on APSC sounds like a weird aperture equivalency formula to me!

The aperture terminology should follow a standard that is ought to be independent of the sensor size. It's actually easy to test this on the Sony E mount: mount the lens on a APSC camera such as A6500 and on a full frame one such as A7 iii or A7r iii and takes shots at a given aperture such as f1.4. Does the captured picture is darker on A6500 than on A7 iii? What I recall from my personal experience using other APSC and FF lenses on APSC and FF cameras (A7r ii and A6000) on a few occasions, it should not yield to any exposure difference. So where does Mr. Butler get the idea of aperture effective equivalency from?!

Take your FF-lens-on-APS-C example.

Just as we'd expect from the exposure model, an F1.4 lens projects the same light per unit area, regardless of what size sensor we put it on. It'd show a different field of view, making it impossible to directly compare the pictures (the central crop of the FF image will look the same as the APS-C image, but was can't ignore the rest of the image)

So, for instance [see these examples, with downloadable Raws](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/), I've shot our studio scene with a full frame camera and an 85mm lens at F5.6, then shot it in crop mode using a 50mm lens at F5.6, then an APS-C camera with the same pixel size at F5.6 (all at the same shutter speeds for each ISO setting).

Just as the exposure model tells us, the noise levels look the same if we look at the pixel level. However, compare all the images at the same size and the full frame image looks cleaner, because every element of the image is made up from 2.25x more light.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

raminm: 56mm F1.4 to 112mm on m43 F2.8 and to 84mm F2.1on APSC sounds like a weird aperture equivalency formula to me!

The aperture terminology should follow a standard that is ought to be independent of the sensor size. It's actually easy to test this on the Sony E mount: mount the lens on a APSC camera such as A6500 and on a full frame one such as A7 iii or A7r iii and takes shots at a given aperture such as f1.4. Does the captured picture is darker on A6500 than on A7 iii? What I recall from my personal experience using other APSC and FF lenses on APSC and FF cameras (A7r ii and A6000) on a few occasions, it should not yield to any exposure difference. So where does Mr. Butler get the idea of aperture effective equivalency from?!

In our example (which assumes the same pixel sizes - it needn't but it makes it easier to visualise per-unit-area exposure), the exposure, light 'density' and pixel performance is similar.

However, every object in the scene is projected over 2.25x the area. As soon as you print, display or view the images at the same size, the image with the larger sensor looks better, because 2.25x more light was captured to represent every object in the scene. More light means more signal, which means better signal-to-noise ratio (lower apparent noise). SO every part of the scene is represented more cleanly.

Unless you always display/print/view your APS-C images 1/2.25th the size of your full frame ones, then considering the whole image is important.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

raminm: 56mm F1.4 to 112mm on m43 F2.8 and to 84mm F2.1on APSC sounds like a weird aperture equivalency formula to me!

The aperture terminology should follow a standard that is ought to be independent of the sensor size. It's actually easy to test this on the Sony E mount: mount the lens on a APSC camera such as A6500 and on a full frame one such as A7 iii or A7r iii and takes shots at a given aperture such as f1.4. Does the captured picture is darker on A6500 than on A7 iii? What I recall from my personal experience using other APSC and FF lenses on APSC and FF cameras (A7r ii and A6000) on a few occasions, it should not yield to any exposure difference. So where does Mr. Butler get the idea of aperture effective equivalency from?!

I appreciate you taking time to read the article and comments first.

Again, though, you're reverting to the exposure model and arguing that it's internally consistent. But that's not something that's being disputed. F1.4 is F1.4 and projects essentially the same amount of light per square mm, irrespective of format. That's not in any doubt.

However, I disagree with your statement "it is the exposure (the density of the light received or the amount of light per unit area) that matters." It's *a* perspective but not the sole one (I'm not saying it's not important, but i question whether it's the only thing that matters).

You say that a full frame lens/sensor combination captures 2.25x the light but does so over 2.25x the area. This is true. And, sure enough, each square mm of the sensor gets the same amount of light as a smaller sensor. (If they have the same pixel size, then the noise performance will be very similar at the pixel level.

But think about the entire image...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 17:51 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 Review (2433 comments in total)
In reply to:

makofoto: When is DpReview going to reprocess their Studio IQ RAW tests ?

At the risk of answering a question with another question:

What have you heard that leads you to think we'd get a different outcome?

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2018 at 00:56 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-T3 review (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

bdbender4: I am glad that this is a great camera. But personally, I think the point of APS-C mirrorless is to be able to have good cameras and lenses that are smaller and lighter than 35mm "full frame". Fuji's top of the line stuff is large and heavy for APS-C.

(Sadly, speaking from experience as a frustrated ex-Fuji-user, their smaller and less expensive bodies get the real "back of the bus" treatment regarding Fuji's already somewhat marginal firmware fixes.)

So my problem with this camera is size, weight, and price, which you did mention. I note that you used the 16-55 lens throughout. With that lens, this camera is about the same size and weight and price as, for example, the Nikon Z6 with 24-70.

PS. Chris, it's "zeeee", not "zed", just a reminder! Tsk, tsk.

Even Nikon [backed-down on that one](https://twitter.com/dpreview/status/1034593553110855680).

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 17:50 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Fujifilm X-T3 review (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

BIOGONS: Has someone tried if the "Strange Purple Flare/Grid Artifact" saw in the XT-2 appears in the XT-3?

I intentionally took this shot (and another handful at slightly different angles to check), and I can't see any.

[![X-T3 Flare](https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x250~sample_galleries/5370103067/4607288091.jpg)](https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/5370103067/4607288091.jpg)

There are a number of images [in our sample gallery](https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5370103067/fujifilm-x-t3-sample-gallery) with flare that you can examine.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 17:49 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snegmar: I see people that keep comparing Nikon's and Canon's first mirrorless cameras to the original Sony A7; "Oh, it's just their [Canon's/Nikon's] first attempt. Sony's A7 wasn't perfect either when it came out".

Well, no it wasn't, but the A7 also came out for $1300 in 2013. Nikon's Z6 is around $3000 and this Canon mirrorless is $2300. If you're gonna upcharge because "it's their first attempt at mirrorless" and let the Canikon fanboys defend the price tag while comparing it to the A7 they should also be comparing the price and features. For the extra $1000 Canon is charging for their first mirrorless over Sony's A7 I would expect more, especially since Sony already paved the technological path for mirrorless.

Sorry, shouldn't have tried to type this while getting ready for work.

The correct numbers are $1700, which is equivalent to $1,832 in 2018 dollars.

So the numbers look like:

- (around $1830) Sony a7
- ($2300) Canon EOS R

- ($2000) Nikon Z6

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 17:38 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snegmar: I see people that keep comparing Nikon's and Canon's first mirrorless cameras to the original Sony A7; "Oh, it's just their [Canon's/Nikon's] first attempt. Sony's A7 wasn't perfect either when it came out".

Well, no it wasn't, but the A7 also came out for $1300 in 2013. Nikon's Z6 is around $3000 and this Canon mirrorless is $2300. If you're gonna upcharge because "it's their first attempt at mirrorless" and let the Canikon fanboys defend the price tag while comparing it to the A7 they should also be comparing the price and features. For the extra $1000 Canon is charging for their first mirrorless over Sony's A7 I would expect more, especially since Sony already paved the technological path for mirrorless.

The original a7 was launched at $1800, which would be equivalent to around $1940 in today's money.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 16:05 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

zkz5: "USB charging (only using optional Canon charger)"

Why does this require a proprietary charger? Up to 100 watts can be supplied over a standard type C port...

**Correction**: the EOS R *does* charge with some third-party USB C chargers.

There's either a protection feature or a bug that means the camera won't charge over USB if you've previously tried a non-compatible charger. I hope you can see how this might have undermined our attempts to test it.

We apologise for any confusion.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 00:47 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kabalyero: Looks like the start of a good thing for Canon users like me (I own a 6D and a 70D plus 4 EF and 2 EF-S mount lenses). However, one of the things I can't comprehend is the USB charging that they implemented. This is an operational feature that I think is very important as charging via USB from a Powerbank is equivalent to carrying several LP-E6/N batteries but is a lot more practical.

That said, I purchased a third party USB based dual LP-E6 charger which cost me around 35 USD...and this came with 2 cheapo batteries and can charge my Canon batteries as well (its similar to the Ravpower charger).

**Correction**: the EOS R *does* charge with some third-party USB C chargers.

There's either a protection feature or a bug that means the camera won't charge over USB if you've previously tried a non-compatible charger. I hope you can see how this might have undermined our attempts to test it.

We apologise for any confusion.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 00:44 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I think there's a lot to like about this camera and its forthcoming system, premium models, etc. But one thing. Seriously, in this day and age? ...

"The required adapter for USB charging will run you an additional $190"

WT[a]F?!! How much again?! To allow you to plug in 5v USB to recharge?!!

Brian

**Correction**: the EOS R *does* charge with some third-party USB C chargers.

There's either a protection feature or a bug that means the camera won't charge over USB if you've previously tried a non-compatible charger. I hope you can see how this might have undermined our attempts to test it.

We apologise for any confusion.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2018 at 00:44 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kim Knapp: Possible correction: The Sony A7Riii can charge off either of the the USB-c and micro-d inputs. Are you sure the A7iii can't charge from the C input?

My mistake. I tried charging our a7 III over USB C and it didn't seem to work, but I've just tried with a different adapter and it seems happier.

I've corrected the table.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 22:59 UTC
On article Sigma to take Foveon full frame and adopt L mount (419 comments in total)
In reply to:

HasselbladH460: Interesting news and advancements from Sigma.

Zero news and crickets at the trade shows from both Pentax and Olympus speaks volumes

Ricoh announced the GR III is on the way. They may not have announced any Pentax products but they weren't silent at the show.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 22:43 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Mark my words, this will be camera of the year!

davev8 may be proven correct (I certainly wouldn't bet against it).

Whether that tells us anything about the camera is another matter.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 21:31 UTC
On article Nikon Z7 Review (4435 comments in total)
In reply to:

Decooler: N.B. makers have made no claims stating neither banding nor noise at any ISO, and ISO invariance is a DPreview creation in any case! To get the best results expose correctly making allowances for the sensor tech available, with the general rule that underexposure ALWAYS increases noise, duh!!

They do not even guarantee they'll work after a year either only 12months in the EU with "Maybe" the 2 year EU electrical coverage if you ask nicely- so if you choose to buy something that costs as much as a new car with a 7 year warranty (ANY FF new now with its stadard zoom pro lenses costs this much now), better you examine your priorities- as you are buying into Leica territory until the "Chinese" replace all these guys (pending and due in a few short years, maybe....)

"Expose correctly" becomes a more complex problem, the more you think about it. However, you astutely qualify it with the important caveat "making allowances for the sensor tech available."

That's literally why we do this test and show the results: so that you know the limits of the sensor tech. The D850 can take the shot of the model with the sunset preserved, there are downsides to trying to work with the Z7 that way.

We're not saying this is a problem, *per se*, we're merely trying to test and demonstrate the sensor performance so that it can be understood.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 21:25 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Mark my words, this will be camera of the year!

By what measure?

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 20:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

KrisAK: Can you use an AC adapter (the kind with a dummy battery) to power the cam? I can’t tell if it’s got the gasket in the battery door that allows this.

It does have the little rubber tab to allow the cable for the dummy battery AC adapter.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 20:36 UTC
On article Canon EOS R first impressions review (1775 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Fat Fish: "1.83x crop". Wait, it's even worse than the 5DIV?

The Fat Fish: It's fractionally larger, but only fractionally. Around 20.6 x 11.6mm, vs approximately 19 x 10.6 for the oversized sensor on the GH5S.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2018 at 20:34 UTC
Total: 6595, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »