Barney Britton

Barney Britton

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Works as a Editor
Has a website at www.dpreview.com
Joined on Nov 2, 2009
About me:

I'm in charge of the editorial content of dpreview. I joined dpreview when it was based in London in November 2009, after several years as a print journalist in the UK specialist photographic press. I moved from London to Seattle, USA, a year later and I've been here ever since.

Comments

Total: 4026, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Martin JC: "Canon Japan unveils a few silly gear-themed gifts ..." says DPReview the company owned by Amazon :-)

?

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

nzav: I gave up Leica M bodies because my ability to focus with the rangefinder had reached a point where my Nikon images were consistently sharper then the Leica shots. When they were properly focused, they were hard to tell which camera produced them.

Mechanical rangefinders are less accurate. The rangefinder relies on a cam on the back of the lens, and it works admirably for the most part. The fact is, all lenses have a focus shift at different apertures. In other words, if the lens is perfectly focused with the rangefinder and the aperture is changed, the focus point will shift.

This issue is present with all lenses whether rangefinder or DSLR. Some high-end (pro) camera bodies have the option to tweak the AF to compensate for some of this, but they also have the issue of using a separate focus plane from the actual sensor plane. A mirrorless camera (such as the X-Pro2) uses the actual image sensor to do the focusing and is therefore less vulnerable to focus shift issues.

"Leica M lenses are optically better than anything from Nikon, or Canon"

Are they...? I mean, there's some great Leica glass out there, don't get me wrong. But I'm pretty sure that this isn't actually true. It's sentiment.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Barney you have a Leica obsession. Leica marketing has brainwashed you. You like attention from strangers. Attention is a drug to the mind.

I do not enjoy attention from strangers - believe me.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

MLPhoto88: Geee. The camera to buy from 2017 is the most part of the most expensive lens system. Way to dig deep & find the hidden gem DPR...

You know this article is the first in a series, right? Where DPR staff pick their (individual) favorite gear?

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

Veselin Gramatikov: Sponsored

Oh really? That's news to me. I look forward to the check.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Lightroom Auto WB does a great job of fixing the picture of the lady in the jacket, which is way off.

It was taken during our wildfire summer, just around sunset. So you're way off when you say the color is 'way off' ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: This is all very nice. Nevertheless, Leica could include some state of the art technology into this camera for the money. At least a tilting screen in 2017.
Yes, I fully aware that for most DP review staff people having an ISO and shutter dial on a camera is enough to give gold medals.
Actually, I love the classic form factor tremendously, too, but I'd prefer to have all current high level modern photography features. too.

A tilting screen I don't care about in a camera like this, but it would be nice to have an electronic level and a self-cleaning sensor.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I am surprised that Barney Britton says the M10 can turn out excellent results, but truly accurate focusing and composition can be extremely challenging – even for those with long experience of shooting with rangefinders.

I do not aspire to cameras in the price range but once, probably in the 1960s, I examined an M3 in a store that let me handle it. Unlike any camera I have owned before and since, and there have been many of them, when I turned the lens focus with the lever on it, I did not have to go past the focus point and back again. The optics are so precise that I had no doubts, even though I had never tried this camera before. Truly wonderful.

I am getting to the point that not being able to take "it" with me would prompt me to splash out on an M10. To hell with the price of camera and lenses. The only thing stopping me is that I specialise in landscapes, like very, very wide lenses. If there was an Albalda finder I could use with the Tri-Elmar I would get one like a shot.

"If I had the Leica, I would do exactly the same"

And more often than not, if you were shooting at or close to your widest aperture, you'd find that your subject wasn't as sharp as you expected.

Accurate off-center focus at wide apertures with a rangefinder, especially with a digital rangefinder, and especially with lenses that display even moderate curvature of field, is a crap-shoot for logical and obvious reasons. Older Tessar designs have their own challenges, typically being calibrated for accuracy wide-open at a single focus distance, with the exact point of focus shifting fore/aft of that when working wide open. All of these issues can be mitigated to some extent by long experience with a specific camera/lens combination, but without wanting to devalue your experience of picking up an M3 in a camera shop 50 years ago, I can assure you that it's not a simple matter (I wish it was).

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I am surprised that Barney Britton says the M10 can turn out excellent results, but truly accurate focusing and composition can be extremely challenging – even for those with long experience of shooting with rangefinders.

I do not aspire to cameras in the price range but once, probably in the 1960s, I examined an M3 in a store that let me handle it. Unlike any camera I have owned before and since, and there have been many of them, when I turned the lens focus with the lever on it, I did not have to go past the focus point and back again. The optics are so precise that I had no doubts, even though I had never tried this camera before. Truly wonderful.

I am getting to the point that not being able to take "it" with me would prompt me to splash out on an M10. To hell with the price of camera and lenses. The only thing stopping me is that I specialise in landscapes, like very, very wide lenses. If there was an Albalda finder I could use with the Tri-Elmar I would get one like a shot.

"Unlike any camera I have owned before and since, and there have been many of them, when I turned the lens focus with the lever on it, I did not have to go past the focus point and back again. The optics are so precise that I had no doubts, even though I had never tried this camera before. Truly wonderful."

Which is great when your subject is dead-center in the frame...

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: What's ironic is that as I write this, Dpreview has a picture of the new Panasonic G9 that has been splattered with water.

Did that one survive?

I assume so. Even un-sealed cameras tend to be able to survive moderate splashing with fresh water.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (776 comments in total)
In reply to:

dpfan32: I have the original EOS M and I barely see an improvement here. This is not a sports camera so speed is not too relevant for me, I have a DSLR for this. The EOS M5 is far too expensive.
I think I'll stick with my EOS M or upgrade to a small Sony mirorrless for landscapes with a manual wide angle lens, but again it has to be at least a A7 FullFrame to see reasonable improvements. I already had the A5100 and A6000 which were at pixel lever a bit better but not enough to convice me to change the system and both
pencake lenses hat serious problems thats why I returned both. Canon STM lenses have lovely quality, don't have this extreme problems and are cheap.

Better AF, better image quality, simpler manual control, touch-screen... that's just off the top of my head.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
On article Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 sample gallery (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

digital-freak: $6500 ??????????? I can get the same affect with a 50mm 1.8 and a dab of Vaseline

You cannot.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 00:11 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (776 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: You just had a Sony SD card here hanging around, right?

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x0~articles/9381830882/DSC_8125.acr_edit_1.jpeg

Also, the blue background of the fist photo is disturbingly non-Canon (and it is not).

Sometimes, a memory card is just a memory card.

And this is one of those times.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
On article Canon EOS M100 review (776 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: You just had a Sony SD card here hanging around, right?

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x0~articles/9381830882/DSC_8125.acr_edit_1.jpeg

Also, the blue background of the fist photo is disturbingly non-Canon (and it is not).

?

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

Lord Lucan: F.A.O. Barney Britton
On behalf of everyone here who participated in comments section,may I ask you to ask Leica to answer vital questions?
1), How did they ariive to price this lens so high?
2), Can you ask them to breakdown the production cost? Any precious metal?
3), Can you refer this procuct to consumer agencies to find out why such a price?
Above questions are for the benefit of all photographic gear users and potential users?

The cost of the 'new' Thambar is actually pretty close to its original cost, I'm told, once currency values are adjusted. That's not to say that it's at all *reasonable* by the standards of modern optics and current expectations around pricing, but it's worth bearing in mind.

And just like in the 1930s, if you really want a Thambar, and you can afford it, then you have the option. If you don't, or you can't, then there are countless alternatives available.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

BacktotheFuji: "In person, the new lens is a small, but beautifully well-made prime"

Um, granted I'm not there in person, but it doesn't look particularly small to me :D

It looks small when you've come straight from the Zeiss booth!

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 20:43 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: I know all the mirrorless guys will jump on me for saying this, but that lens looks huge on the Sony, and is surely going to be massively front-heavy and uncomfortable to hold for any period if fitted to a tiny little Olympus!

A lens and camera combination being front heavy and *feeling* front heavy are two different things. I hope most people know what we mean when we use that term.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

Internet Enzyme: I was hoping I would actually get to see the images taken by the lens...

There are samples floating around the web and we should be getting one into the office soon to shoot with.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

Charles2: ethereal (sp - slide 4) (Yes, delete this comment after correcting)

Thanks! Spellcheck passed that one...

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 17:44 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: "for our own amusement we figured works out to $325...."
Very insolent attitude toward the most important camera company of the 20th century.
Think of it this way, I'd wager that if Oskar hadn't invented the miniature camera, instead of a posh office in Seattle you'd be slaving away 1,000 feet down in a Northumberland colliery because there would be no DSLRs for you to review—everything would still be shot on sheet film.

"if Oskar hadn't invented the miniature camera, instead of a posh office in Seattle you'd be slaving away 1,000 feet down in a Northumberland colliery"

I don't think I'd cut it as a miner, honestly. I'm too sensitive. And insolent, apparently.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 17:44 UTC
Total: 4026, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »