Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4423, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2016 (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

ronniemac: Rather than present the consensus or even compromise position, I would prefer to know what all the different reviewers selected as their personal picks. Some reviewers I can relate to, others have differing interests, so I would only really be interested in the choices of reviewers whose opinions I value.

To put my cards on the table, I am primarily interested in Barnaby Britton's and Chris Williams' lists, as well, of course, as a little commentary on their choices.

Maybe next year?

How about our ['Gear of the Year' series of articles](https://www.dpreview.com/tag/gear-of-the-year-2016)?

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: There are several things here that don't make sense:

"Internal recording will be limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 IPB encoding at up to 150Mbps...At lower frame rates, the camera can capture 10-bit, 4:2:2 footage internally"

OK, if the first statement applies only the maximum 4K frame rates for internal recording, what's the bitrate for the second statement?

And why, oh why, do camera manufacturers continue to inexplicably reduce the bitrate with the resolution (or frame rate)? Look at this: "4K 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 400Mbps, and 1080/60p 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 200Mbps"

Why can't we record 1080p/60 at 400 Mbps?

Then this: "The summer firmware update promises some very big improvements, including DCI/UHD 4K 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 400Mbps, and 1080/60p 4:2:2 10-bit recording at 200Mbps, both using All-Intra compression."

So does that mean INTERNAL recording at these rates? If not, the "all-intra" comment doesn't make sense; that'd be determined by the external recorder, not camera.

Francis Sawyer, sorry if my explanation is a little unclear, I'm hoping the table at the top of page 6 makes it clearer.

At launch, the camera will shoot:

60/50/58p UHD 4K at 4:2:0 8-bit internally (at up to 150Mbps IPB)
Lower frame rate UHD 4K at 4:2:2 10-bit (at up to 150Mbps IPB)

After the summer firmware update, the camera will gain up to 400Mbps All-I 10-bit 4:2:2 at frame rates up to 29.97p.

If you want better than 8-bit 4:2:0 at those higher frame rates, you'll need to use an external recorder and, to get the best results, *only* record externally.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 00:53 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2194 comments in total)
In reply to:

Concept: Sorry if I missed it in the comments/Q&A, but in several places of your fantastic review you mentioned the autofocus would only perform really well with a subset of Fujinon lenses. Can you help me understand which lenses these would be (or how to figure it out for myself)?

I'm a casual enthusiast who's looking to upgrade my D5200, and trying to choose between the Fuji X-T2 and Sony a6500 (as many probably are), and one of my main concerns with the Fuji would be this autofocus performance. (I only started considering X-T2 since 3 days ago, after rave reviews from a friend.) I'd like to be able to ascertain which lenses I'd need to get to make sure the system works well together.

Thanks!!

There are around 21 Fujifilm lenses for the X mount system so it's impossible for me to test every lens to the point of publishing a list that would be definitive. (And I don't want to publish an 'opinion' list that risks being taken as being definitive, even if I say it isn't).

Also, to be clear, it's not a case of 'these lenses work' and 'these ones don't,' It's a scale.

**Generally** the zooms (which are more likely to have lightweight internal focus elements **and** large linear motors) are the fastest. The 35mm F2 WR is also pretty quick and I'd expect the 23mm F2 WR to be, too (but I've not had enough time shooting with it to promise).

It's mainly the early primes and the F1.4s where Fujifilm expressly prioritised image quality over AF speed that will hold the AF speed back. Even these differ in speed, though, so you might find, say, the 23mm F1.4 is fast enough for you, whereas the 56mm F1.2 requires you to work around its slower focus.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

I can't, from memory, remember if this is true for the RX100 IV.

(To check, you'd need to shoot a Raw file in standard mode, ISO 125 and then another Raw in SLog2 with exactly the same shutter speed and aperture. If the two files clip at the same point in the scene, then they're both based on the same minimal amplification.)

However, let's assume for now that it is.

In which case, if you shoot SLog2 and use 'zebra' to warn you of 95% exposure, and use that to set your exposure, then you're likely to be using minimal amplification but essentially using a tone curve that brightens the mid tones of the image by 2.7EV without clipping highlights (rather than shooting a 2.7EV underexposed image and brightening it later).

The point is that as soon as you start trying to over-ride the camera's default rendering intent, ISO is rendered essentially irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:17 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

I'll try.

An ISO Invariant (or near-to-invariant) sensor adds so little noise to the image that there's no difference in noise between shooting with little amplification (and brightening, later) or applying amplification at the point of shooting. There is a difference in highlight capture, because amplification pushes some captured highlights to clipping. The key thing is to keep the underlying amplification to a minimum.

However, the quoted 'ISO' figure doesn't directly tell you how much hardware amplification is being applied, it tells you about the combined effect of the amplification **and** the tone curve.

Just because minimum amplification + standard tone curve = ISO 125 doesn't mean that minimum amplification + a different tone curve will also count as 125.

Minimum available ISO jumping to 800 could simply mean that minimum amplification + SLog2 = ISO 800 (the flatter tone curve means you need less exposure to produce middle grey from a specific illumination level)

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 22:08 UTC
On article Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2014) (32 comments in total)
In reply to:

gene2: You do us a disservice by not telling weather these camera will work seamlessly with Photoshop.. we have to buy the camera and then find out that they will not work seamlessly with Photoshop and all that money spent when it will not work..

What do you mean by 'work seamlessly with Photoshop'?

All of these cameras shoot JPEGs and all of them are supported by Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop Lightroom. What additional distinction is it we're missing?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 22:01 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1579 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnTheKeenAmateur: Regarding the implied suggestion to apply Picture Profile with S-Log2 gamma;

I tried this, 'cos I was interested in the assertion that doing so would "prompt your camera to use the exposures you'd expect from ISO 1600, but with low levels of amplification behind the scenes (in fact it could almost be made for this way of working)."

However, I found one major limitation - in that applying this Picture Profile caused the minimum ISO to be set at ISO-800 ... which prevents the aim of setting lowest possible ISO (base ISO is 125 for this camera) in order to exploit the sensors ISO-Invariance.

Am I misunderstanding something here ?

Regards, John M

You are misunderstanding something (but it's understandable why you might).

['ISO' as used by cameras](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/) is based on the brightness of the final JPEG image. This means the tone curve ends up playing a role in defining what 'correct' exposure is, which is one of the factors defining what ISO you're using.

When you say that 'base ISO' is 125, what you're saying is that using the sensor's lowest level of amplification *and applying the default tone curve* is ISO 125. Use this same minimal amplification and a much flatter tone curve and that same hardware behaviour would be considered a different ISO.

As such, just as we see with [some cameras' dynamic range modes](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1294642686/), using a different tone curve means using a different exposure to give the desired image brightness and is therefore considered a different ISO.

In short: the minimum ISO available may (or may not be) the camera's 'base' ISO.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:00 UTC
In reply to:

tony field: you say the ISO standards allows any combination hardware and software (tone curve) amplification, so long as the scene illumination and exposure give you the expected JPEG brightness. This means that there's no fixed relationship between exposure, hardware amplification and final image brightness.

Could you elaborate a bit on this .... I find this surprisingly a broad interpretation. Of course I do not have the ISO document. What part of the output image needs to comply with the standard such as saturation, 18% grey etc??

See if [this article helps](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity).

It's a little old but the ISO definitions reported by CIPA members essentially just require the illumination + shutter speed + aperture value to put middle grey in the correct* place using the standard tone curve in an sRGB JPEG.

*What's considered 'correct' varies, depending on the exact section of the standard used, but the key point is that they just relate input to JPEG output, with no fixed assumption on what happens in terms of amplification and tone curve, in between.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
On article Close-up: Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: At last now Panasonic learned from Sony that the way to go is down-sampling vs cropping the sensor, especially when the goal is to get better low-light performance. I am still convinced that the 24M Sony APS-C sensor down-sampled would be better if Sony implemented 10 bit and 4.2.2, but honestly that is the territory for FS7. In that context the GH5 with its better codec may be as clean as the A6500. Fuji is another player but it requires a $2000 external recorder for ultimate quality. On the other hand we have the A7Sii that actually took over the professional market. GH5 should have been made with the same sensor as the A6500, and with the GH4 codecs and tools, that would have been the killer. With the FZ2000 I am now both a Sony and Panasonic fan, I'll pick the best when time arrives. With these cameras X-T2, A6500, GH5, I hope the prices of the original A7S are falling, and I might grab one: I'd need a low-light king.

Miki - I don't think it's a case of Panasonic learning from Sony, more a question of technology advancing enough to make it possible. The GH4 produced its 4K footage from a crop of the sensor because that generation of sensor and processor couldn't read out the whole chip, process and downsample the result fast enough to produce usable video.

You can see that Sony is pushing up against the limits of this with the a6300 and 6500: the chip readout on a sensor that large is still slow enough to cause significant rolling shutter. Panasonic, working with a smaller sensor, is able to read and process the full width of the sensor without this being such a problem.

Also, external recorders aren't necessarily $2k: I recorded some FLog footage from the X-T2 using a $900 recorder. Your point about it requiring extra expense is fair but it's not quite as much as you might think.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

ratusca: Could you please tell me the focus method used in the bike test?

C-AF and 3D tracking, default tracking parameters.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 09:15 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

DonnaMolinari: How can I download this review in PDF Format for NIKON D500? Is it possible?

Too many elements of the review are dynamic (the test scene, AF rollovers and video clips), which meams it wouldn't really work as a pdf, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 09:14 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2092 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve_tEkGuY: Where is the 5D Mk4 is the video comparison tool. I would like to know how well it compares to other 4K cameras. Any reason why this is not available. Will it be added some time ? I can compare the 80D against the A6300 in FHD and so on but no 5D MK 4.

You should now find them in the video still comparison tool in any review.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 00:18 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1589 comments in total)
In reply to:

Intermittentoverexposure: So it's basically impossible for a Canon body to get less than a silver award on DP. They basically cover the fact that this camera is inferior to every other MILC system camera, then give it a silver. LOL.

It sounds like you've not read the review. Yes, it's behind the best of the opposition in some key respects, but it's also the easiest camera to shoot video with that we've ever encountered.

As a camera for someone who's interested in trying their hand at video it's a better choice than most. The excellent touch controls and dependable video AF are the main things that allowed it to get a silver award.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2016 (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

belle100: Right after the feature article of "Gear of the Year 2016 - Barney's choice: Nikon D500", I am sure there is some hidden hypnotic messages written on voters' mind. Surely there is some unfair advantages on Nikon.

Was my Gear of the Year write-up of the X-T2 not as persuasive?

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
On article Have Your Say: Best Gear of 2016 (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

welshwizard: Is this competition sponsored by Sony?

Surprised that Pentax's finest didn't make the shortlist, for Pentax users it is a new concept, virtual for nearly 15 year, now real.

Magnificent thought the D500 is (I know I have one but hand on heart I am a Pentax fanboy) it's the camera Nikon should've bought out years ago...rather than the D7*00 half effort

This list is made up of the two highest-placed products from each of the original voting categories. The K-1 was included in one of those categories [but came 4th](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6617332134/have-your-say-best-enthusiast-professional-ilc-of-2016) in the vote, so didn't make it through.

The options in this poll were decided by DPReview's readers, not the staff.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 18:31 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1589 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: What is the shutter rating? (It does have a shutter right?)

Most camera makers only specify shutter longevity for their high-end models.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 20:14 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1589 comments in total)
In reply to:

scastle: I would love to see a document describing how percentage points are assigned. From the writeup I would not have concluded that it would receive this rating.

Like [this one](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained) you mean?

Sorry, it's supposed to appear in every review above the scoring chart but sometimes gets overlooked. I've added it back in, now.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 19:59 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2341 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrahamHO: An aperture number for a lens is obtained by dividing the diameter of the lens opening into the focal length. So for example a 100 mm focal length lens with a 50 mm diameter lens opening will be 100 divided by 50 = f2. This is basic optics and is NOT dependant on sensor size. So that lens will still be f2 regardless of the sensor size. It is exactly the same as post cropping a FF image to APSC size. The resulting photo does NOT get darker.
The sensor size does NOT affect the size of the aperture. Only the APPARENT depth of field changes. ( That is the zone of the subject that APPEARS to be in sharp focus )

The behaviour of different focal lengths on depth of field would be an article unto itself.

But this article already explains and shows how it plays out across different formats. If you choose two lenses on two systems that have the same angle of view, and shoot them from the same position with the same aperture diameter, you'll get the same depth-of-field, assuming you view the images at the same size.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2092 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve_tEkGuY: Where is the 5D Mk4 is the video comparison tool. I would like to know how well it compares to other 4K cameras. Any reason why this is not available. Will it be added some time ? I can compare the 80D against the A6300 in FHD and so on but no 5D MK 4.

I'll add it to the list of cameras to add. We were more concerned by the crop and the rolling shutter to worry too much about the absolute resolution being captured but it should be in there for comparison purposed.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

José Ramos: Diffraction after f5.6?! So, if I'm a landscape photographer and want decent depth of field, meaning something like f/11-f/13, I will get a considerably less sharp image?!

This lens isn't exhibiting any more diffraction than any other lens of the same aperture diameter. The difference is that usually you don't notice it because the lens isn't sharp enough to be able to perceive it: it's still sharpening up as you stop down, so diffraction isn't the limiting factor.

On this lens, it's so sharp at wide apertures that the effect of diffraction is visible *in the measurements*. From a final image point of view, all you'll see is that this lens is incredibly sharp.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 18:42 UTC
Total: 4423, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »