Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4512, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article First Look: Fujinon MK18-55mm T2.9 cine lens (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

VictorTrasvina: Perhaps Fuji might consider giving us an affordable S35 4K Video Camera? Like the GH5? And if you could already use your primes ?? Well :)

I don't think high-end video cameras tend to have IBIS and I'm pretty sure Fujifilm has said the X-mount wasn't designed with enough space to allow it (I could be misremembering this: it could be that they've not designed their lenses to have larger-than APS-C coverage), so I wouldn't bet too much money on that.

Not sure what crop factor you're referring to.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:59 UTC
On article First Look: Fujinon MK18-55mm T2.9 cine lens (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

VictorTrasvina: Perhaps Fuji might consider giving us an affordable S35 4K Video Camera? Like the GH5? And if you could already use your primes ?? Well :)

It's pure speculation, of course, but I doubt Fujifilm has developed the X-mount version of this lens solely with X-T2 owners in mind.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:10 UTC
On article First Look: Fujinon MK18-55mm T2.9 cine lens (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: I understand the motivation for producing this lens, but it's still it's ironic that in this era of evermore precise touch-to-focus and electronic Aperture controls that there is still such a high demand for ultra low-tech lens technology.

Kharan - it's certainly possible to make focus moves programmable: the Panasonic GH5 allows you to pre-define three focus distances and a tap on the screen prompts it to rack to whichever point you choose. There are five speed options for how rapidly in makes those changes, too.

However, that's one feature on one camera. This lens is designed for the way the majority of videographers expect (and have learned) to shoot, today. It may not be the most futuristic response, but it's far from anachronistic, just yet.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:09 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Review is much too short for a Leica camera, and the snarky "Conclusion" section, the bit about "if you have your heart set on a camera with a red dot on it" is kind of obnoxious.

Lan - that's useful feedback. I can't guarantee we'll go back to listing the full menu system (they take a long time to write and are not widely read), but there certainly will be reviews that have more extensive coverage of the controls.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: Review is much too short for a Leica camera, and the snarky "Conclusion" section, the bit about "if you have your heart set on a camera with a red dot on it" is kind of obnoxious.

We're trying to make *all* reviews shorter: it's not a brand-by-brand decision.

We want to present all our existing testing and experience in the most digestible way possible. I'd like to think the quality and depth of the review isn't measured in pages (it's easy to write lots, it's much harder to condense lots of findings into a manageable package).

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 20:04 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter von Reichenberg: Well...one would excpect little more, right? Especially from Leica with its price tag and reputation. OK, let's see if reddotted fanclub will buy enough of them. Instead of being a trendsetter Leica just hardly tries to compete to Sony...disappointing. On the other hand - whatta shame for CaNikon losing a chance to bring second full frame mirrorless after Sony. I don't see anything special in these pictures many other cameras can't do. For me the biggest WOW goes to Fuji GFX 50S.

That's a little unfair. The SL is a beautifully engineered camera (in line with the company's reputation), with an innovative interface (which is uncharacteristically trend-setting), very good autofocus and a pretty good sensor. In almost every respect it's the most technically impressive digital camera the company has ever made.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoMEETING: "this is the first non-rangefinder 35mm full-frame digital camera Leica has made, and the company's first full frame mirrorless camera in the modern sense."

Both is true for the Leica Q, not the Leica SL.

It's not a rangefinder or a mirrorless (interchangeable lens camera). I'm pretty sure we haven't implied otherwise.

And I'm *really* not going to get into a discussion about whether we should retrospectively apply the term 'mirrorless' to rangefinders.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 19:50 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoMEETING: "this is the first non-rangefinder 35mm full-frame digital camera Leica has made, and the company's first full frame mirrorless camera in the modern sense."

Both is true for the Leica Q, not the Leica SL.

Nobody called compact cameras 'mirrorless,' since there were no significant numbers of fixed lens DSLRs to distinguish them from. We started using the term mirrorless solely as a less clunky synonym for 'mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.' It's not precise, it's not ideal but I've not seen significant confusion being caused.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
On article Sense and Sensitivity (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: That was a good manner to not explain clearly what ISO means. Better, and simply, would be to say that ISO is the boost the software gives on the sensor to fit adequately aperture and shutter speed chosen in such a way as to result in an usable shot.

Such a table would be impossible. Industry body CIPA dictates that its members use either SOS or (for multi-area metering mode) REI, neither of which has a fixed amplification/brightness relationship.

All modern cameras that I know of are able to create their ISO settings using any combination of amplification and tone curve to produce the desired output brightness. For instance, Canon's Highlight Tone Priority mode uses one step less hardware amplification to produce each of its ISO settings, compared with standard mode.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 16:19 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoMEETING: "this is the first non-rangefinder 35mm full-frame digital camera Leica has made, and the company's first full frame mirrorless camera in the modern sense."

Both is true for the Leica Q, not the Leica SL.

We've always used 'Mirrorless' as shorthand for 'Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera,' so, while the Q doesn't have and mirrors, we wouldn't consider it to be mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Such great lenses with great prices. So bumped I can't use them on my 5DIV or anything other than the restrictive E mount.

They do state E-mount/short flange distance "enable the compact, lightweight design" so these lenses would be considerablly different if made for DSLRs, is the most likely case scenario.

Still. A bit sad. Fujinon Zooms for Still glass prices! and it's f/2.8 constant. Bummer.

The flange distance adjustment is for tiny calibration corrections to ensure the lens is perfectly focusing on the sensor plane. It's not going to correct for the >20mm difference between the E-mount flange-back distance and that of an SLR mount.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 09:11 UTC
On article First Look: Fujinon MK18-55mm T2.9 cine lens (55 comments in total)
In reply to:

bokesan: "The lens also includes precise distance marks." - I wonder what they do about the variance in E-mount flange distance. Up to 0.1mm difference seems to be in spec, and I've seen notably different infinity focus positions with the same lens on different a7 bodies. Shimming?

I think it's slide 10 that describes how the back of the lens can be adjusted, relative to the sensor, to ensure correct back focus.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2363 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnGl1: Thanks a lot Richard for all these explanations. However, il I read you well " two images, taken with equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, will have the same depth-of-field, the same amount of diffraction and very similar noise levels, when viewed at the same size" So, in this real life equivalent situation, which is a fair way to compare cameras, FF has no special advantage, contrary to what seems to be demonstrated in your article on the effect of sensor size. Of course, if you use the same f number for two cameras, say FF and micro 4/3, then it's obvious that the FF camera will gather much more light. Did I get the point ?

I see your point. The other article (which was only ever meant as an appendix to something else I wrote) is written assuming the same f-number, but I need to make that clearer, if the two are being placed side by side.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 22:23 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2363 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnGl1: Thanks a lot Richard for all these explanations. However, il I read you well " two images, taken with equivalent apertures and the same shutter speed, will have the same depth-of-field, the same amount of diffraction and very similar noise levels, when viewed at the same size" So, in this real life equivalent situation, which is a fair way to compare cameras, FF has no special advantage, contrary to what seems to be demonstrated in your article on the effect of sensor size. Of course, if you use the same f number for two cameras, say FF and micro 4/3, then it's obvious that the FF camera will gather much more light. Did I get the point ?

That's exactly right.

You're correct, no sensor size has any inherent advantage over another, until you're able to put a physically larger aperture in front of it to capture more light. (And using the same F-number on a larger sensor would be a physically larger aperture).

I'll try to clarify that point over on the other article.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Physics here is very simple. One pixel does not care how much light the whole sensor gets. All it cares about is what it personally gets to deal with its own signal/noise ratio.

Yes, you observe something that is real (there seems to be more noise on a smaller sensor with the same size pixels), but misinterpreting this result. The amount of noise is the same PER PIXEL, but since the resolution is less, there is less useful information PER PIXEL. Another words, the noise is not more, it is larger compared to the image itself, that is why the picture looks noisier. Not because there is less light on the sensor.

I'll read it again when I get a moment: you're the first person to mention that interpretation.

The statement: 'a smaller sensor will have access to less light, for a given exposure, than a large sensor' does not mean, nor does it imply that 'a small sensor *needs* more light for the same exposure.'

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 23:22 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Physics here is very simple. One pixel does not care how much light the whole sensor gets. All it cares about is what it personally gets to deal with its own signal/noise ratio.

Yes, you observe something that is real (there seems to be more noise on a smaller sensor with the same size pixels), but misinterpreting this result. The amount of noise is the same PER PIXEL, but since the resolution is less, there is less useful information PER PIXEL. Another words, the noise is not more, it is larger compared to the image itself, that is why the picture looks noisier. Not because there is less light on the sensor.

The whole article is talking about image-level analysis, that's precisely why it shows the pixel-level similarities before showing what happens when images are scaled to the same output size.

For the same field of view, f-number and shutter speed, all sensors receive the same light per-square-mm for the same duration. In which case, a larger sensor has access to more light, since it has more light-sensitive square mm.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Physics here is very simple. One pixel does not care how much light the whole sensor gets. All it cares about is what it personally gets to deal with its own signal/noise ratio.

Yes, you observe something that is real (there seems to be more noise on a smaller sensor with the same size pixels), but misinterpreting this result. The amount of noise is the same PER PIXEL, but since the resolution is less, there is less useful information PER PIXEL. Another words, the noise is not more, it is larger compared to the image itself, that is why the picture looks noisier. Not because there is less light on the sensor.

Can we agree that fewer pixels = less information?

If we can, then consider the medium of the information being captured (light).

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 20:15 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichardRE: What about a 4/3rds camera as in the Panasonic lx100 with 16mp sensor but only using 13 mp?

Larger pixels give better pixel-level results but if you look at the images from two cameras of the same sensor size and different pixel counts, and view them at the same print or screen size, the pixel size makes very little difference in terms of noise performance.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
On article Sense and Sensitivity (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ruy Penalva: That was a good manner to not explain clearly what ISO means. Better, and simply, would be to say that ISO is the boost the software gives on the sensor to fit adequately aperture and shutter speed chosen in such a way as to result in an usable shot.

In the JPEG context, ISO is the brightening applied by either hardware or software amplification to give the 'correct' image brightness (where 'correct' is as hard to pin down as it sounds).

In Raw, it's a measure of the light response of the sensor plus varying degrees of hardware amplification.

I may come back and refresh this (seven-and-a-half year old) piece.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2363 comments in total)
In reply to:

chri1sm1x: Was APS-C designed to have a crop factor that meant classic focal lengths became equivalent to other classics? 85mm when used on APS-C becomes [nigh on] 135mm, or is that just a coincidence?

That's a really good question. I don't know the answer, I'm afraid. It's something I've often thought about looking up.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 18:18 UTC
Total: 4512, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »