Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 5294, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

spunksters: I don't agree with the assumption that 12-bit and 14-bit are insignificantly different. Consider for a moment that the extra 2 stops are 1/6th of a 12-bit camera's range. that's 16.67%... pretty close to 18%, which is the actual reflectance level of middle gray. In other words, depending on how an image is exposed, you may find that nearly the entire bottom half of a photograph's tonality is missing because of only 2 bits. Fortunately that's a rare scenario, but very provable.

As for my personal opinion, the noise floor MUST be accounted for but it is not properly exposed to be a range narrowing factor in this article. But, I won't be satisfied until we're delivering a whopping 18 stops of dynamic range cleanly. That matches my eyes, and I hope HDR displays and sensor improvements get us there.

The noise floor is accounted for when the article discusses the dynamic range of the sensor.

Bit depth of the Raw file defines its capacity for DR, but the sensor (including its noise contribution) defines the upper limit of DR capability.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 20:56 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (318 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: "The Mark IV uses the same 24-600mm equivalent, F2.4-4 zoom lens as its predecessor. As, no doubt, people will be highlighting in the comments, this is an equivalent aperture range of F6.5-10.9. This is not significantly less light than the F6.8-9.5 equivalent you'd get from an F4.5-6.3 tele zoom on an APS-C camera. On top of this, we've always been impressed with the quality of this lens, especially considering its long reach."

I can't believe that a DPR author is making the same mistake about equivalency that so many DPR readers make. The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure. The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size. For exposure purposes f4 is the same on a 1/2.5 sensor as it is on a FF sensor.

I've added a link to the article where it makes explicit that f-numbers are used for the 'exposure' way of looking at light and equivalent f-numbers are used for the 'total light' perspective.

From what I've seen, there are more comments worrying about people confusing equivalent apertures and the exposure model than there are from people who seem genuinely confused. It makes sense to include the link to avoid any confusion, though.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (318 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: "The Mark IV uses the same 24-600mm equivalent, F2.4-4 zoom lens as its predecessor. As, no doubt, people will be highlighting in the comments, this is an equivalent aperture range of F6.5-10.9. This is not significantly less light than the F6.8-9.5 equivalent you'd get from an F4.5-6.3 tele zoom on an APS-C camera. On top of this, we've always been impressed with the quality of this lens, especially considering its long reach."

I can't believe that a DPR author is making the same mistake about equivalency that so many DPR readers make. The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure. The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size. For exposure purposes f4 is the same on a 1/2.5 sensor as it is on a FF sensor.

I'm pretty sure it's not me who's making the mistake.

Your statement: "The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure," is a non sequitur and this is highlighted by your following sentence.

"The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size." Which nobody is contesting.

However, if the intensity per unit area is the same and the area is larger, then it follows that you have more light, despite no change in 'exposure.'

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: find someone familiar with pro sports shooting
who is familiar with sony menus *ha!* and Sony A9 sports-wannabe capabilities
send them (him? or her?) out to a pro football/soccer/baseball/basketball mid-season game ...

with this RX10 IV ... placed amidst pro-shooter peers using Canon 1DxMII and Nikon D5 shooter on the playing field perimeters ... and see the best that can be got from it ...
invite other pro-sport shooters
see if any will stumble, fumble, struggle, with it (menu!?) or not (PDAF?) ... (zoom?) etc
or produce impressive keeper (publishable) shots with "good enough" IQ for action

The RX10 IV is not a pro sports camera, so that would be a waste of time.

Also, you'd need someone to spend a lot of time with a new brand before they could give useful feedback. Pros are generally *very* familiar with their primary system, which means they have already learned the menus and the limitations of it.

This presents the risk of established knowledge being overlooked or taken for granted. The foibles of an unfamiliar system are easier to recognise than the ones you've become accustomed to working 'round.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: The music in the video makes it difficult to hear what the narrator is saying.

Sorry about that. We tested it on a couple of machines before we published and thought it sounded ok.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: "The addition of phase detection autofocus is pivotal to all of those features." - in all fairness, Nikon was using phase detection on its 1" cameras since 2011. So there is really nothing pivotal in this.

Here is from the latest Nikon model developed in 2014 and released in early 2015:

"The Nikon 1 J5 achieves a level of speed and accuracy not even a DSLR can match. Its cutting-edge autofocus system uses 105 phase-detect AF points to instantly identify and focus on your subject. Hold down the shutter button and turn each second of action into 20 tack-sharp, full-resolution photos. Fix your focus, and the Nikon 1 J5 can capture at a mind boggling 60 frames per second continuously."

I am not bashing Sony, it is a great camera, and I am particularly impressed with the lens speed. I have almost all N1 zoom lenses, but none of them are that fast. Just wanted to point that the rhetoric of the article sounds overblown and unfair comparing to reality.

The RX10 IV is the first *superzoom* with on-sensor phase detection, which is a technology that is particularly important for very long lenses and which makes all the camera's other features work (or work better).

Which fits the definition of pivotal: "of crucial importance in relation to the development or success of something else," rather well, I think.

Nowhere do we say that this is the first camera ever to have it (I think that was the Fujifilm F300exr), just that we think it's important to *this* camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 22:52 UTC
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I'm unimpressed guys. That dog video, which I imagine was to show off AF, had no change in depth from the sensor, thus showing nothing. 24 fps on my computer screen! I'm underwhelmed. I'm sure it's a neat camera but this isn't your best marketing work.

It's purely demonstrating 24 fps shooting, because we thought it was fun.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

Marko2: No mentioning of equivalent f/stop in this article, how come?

BBQue: f-numbers tell you about illumination per unit area ('exposure'), equivalent f-numbers tell you about light per whole image (which is a reasonable proxy for noise), depth-of-field and diffraction. Arguably equivalent f-numbers tell you more about image quality than actual f-numbers.

This isn't to say they're more *useful*, since there's an entire exposure system built around actual f-numbers, but it's false to dismiss equivalent f-numbers as solely relating to depth-of-field.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel C: What?! What has happened to this website? Where are the other video cameras announced recently on this photography site? Canon has some new ones...but I guess 273 PDAF points is revolutionary for Sony? Canon with its measly few million DPAF points.

We employed extra people to allow us to cover a broader range of topics. No reviews were harmed in the making of this news story.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 22:18 UTC
On article Sony a9 Full Review: Mirrorless Redefined (2747 comments in total)
In reply to:

kevin_r: No gallery filled with SAMPLE images?????? Am I missing something?

The [Samples Gallery](https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5484254968/sony-a9-samples-gallery/8779181325), you mean?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

seloo: "we'd find we totally forgot we weren't shooting with a high-end sports camera, only to occasionally be surprised when we took it away from our eye and realized it doesn't have pro-DSLR levels of direct settings control."

I would like what the reviewer is drinking.

CCD FTW: I'm literally reporting my experience and perception. On more than one occasion I pulled the camera away from my eye with the expectation of a physical control for features such as AF area mode or ISO (I forget which specific settings I was trying to change), only to remember, no, it's not *that* level of camera.

The thought that went through my head was: 'oh, no, that control doesn't exist.' It's not a comment on whether I could access the function via a custom button or the Fn menu (I probably could, it's pretty customizable), but that's not the experience I'm relaying.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

Marko2: No mentioning of equivalent f/stop in this article, how come?

StephanBG - That's [demonstrably not true](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0348363938/hands-on-with-the-sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv?slide=8).

Equivalence doesn't tell you whether one thing is *better* than another, it just describes the potential capability of any camera + lens on a common basis. As such, we use it wherever comparison between sensor sizes is relevant.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Looks really good! Sure beats lugging around a $12,000 600mm f/4.

T3 - F6.3 lenses on full frame will allow shallower depth-of-field and more total light (light per unit area × sensor area), so still allow better image quality than the RX10 IV's lens, which is **equivalent to F10.88 on Full Frame**.

Marko2 is absolutely right to say that comparing this to an F4 lens is spurious. The fairest comparison is whatever the closest thing to a 600mm F11 lens is, that exists.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
On article Updated: Nikon D850 sample gallery (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

EskeRahn: Moderators:
Why do you have a comment segment if your remove non-hostile comments, and then close the discussion for further comments - without even having the guts to put a final "DPR staff" comment telling why?

We can see that of 162 comments (mentioned under "all") only 97 is visible... In the "Nikon Asia.... " thread

Some of the deleted comments were highly popular, This morning one of them had 65 votes.

DPReview is a photography website and *occasionally* that means having to remove comments when they veer into the realms of politics or other contentious topics that are tangential or unconnected to the story being discussed.

Time constraints mean is not realistic for us to stop and explain every deletion we make, since the very nature of explaining it can then prompt further off-topic discussion and detract from the original topic.

We try to avoid stifling conversation but we do ask that comments remain on-topic.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

Wickblau: I used to shoot falconer's bird shows with Canon 1 & 100-400 L IS.
400mm sometimes was a bit of too short and often I wished to have much less than 100mm. So that cam would be perfect for me.

Here I see falconer + (slow) bird and I wonder if it would be possible to show a series of birds in flight??
Question would be if the cam is quick enough to follow (is the zoom quick enough?) and keep in focus a faster bird (f.i. eagle, I wouldn't ask for a hawk) coming straight upon towards the photographer?

( .. and Bambi surely is a troll, I already noticed yesterday, just forget his posts ...)

Sadly the owl performed its last flight just before I arrived, so I just pictures of it sulking and refusing to fly back to its handler.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 02:10 UTC
In reply to:

Wout de Zeeuw: The bird in flight photo looks encouraging, more of this please! This camera is starting to look like an excellent bif camera!

Yeah. the bird made its last flight just as I arrived at that location. It then sulked spectacularly and refused to budge, presumably too full to be swayed by the promise of more food.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Looks really good! Sure beats lugging around a $12,000 600mm f/4.

A 600mm F11 on full frame would project the same total amount of light on an 864 square mm area as the RX10 IV's lens would project onto a 116 square mm area, if set to F4, over the same time period (assuming they're pointed at the same target).

In which case, with the same shutter speed, both cameras would be trying to make images from the same amount of light (hence the similar noise performance when the images are printed out or viewed at the same size).

Putting a faster lens on the full frame camera would allow you to get more light and hence better noise performance but, as you say, would quickly add bulk and cost. However, if F4 on the RX10 IV is 'enough light' for a given situation, then it's enough for F11 on full frame.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

Marko2: No mentioning of equivalent f/stop in this article, how come?

Also, because I'm just writing about what it's like to use. Since I'm not comparing it to anything, there's no need for equivalence.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 01:57 UTC
In reply to:

terryreid: Why not go with a a6500 APS-C sensor (which is three times as big as the 1" sensor) with a SEL18200LE lens where the total package weighs 32 oz vs 38 oz for the RX10 IV? Granted it you are paying $2,344 new instead of $1,700 and probably the same or less without tax for used. The image quality and options for really good glass like G Master and Zeiss lenses. Even with the 18-200 the IQ is going to be better in a slightly smaller package?

If you are not wanting a camera for shooting at 200mm and longer much of the time I fail to see the reasoning especially with so many more options with the a6500. With a sensor the lets in 15 times more light than a 1" I would think you could crop the 200 to 400mm and equal the RX10 IV which would solve 98% of my photo needs.

15x as much? That's an odd number to arrive at.

The 18-200mm is an F3.5 - 6.3 which, on APS-C, would be equivalent to a full frame 27 - 200mm F5.25 - F9.45.

The RX10 IV is equivalent to a 24-600mm F6.5 - 10.88

So at the wide end, the a6500 would be the equivalent of 0.6EV brighter (50% more light). At the long end, it would be 0.4EV brighter (32% more light).

Somewhat less than you suggest and nowhere near enough to make up for the cropping needed to take you from 300mm equiv at the long end of the 18-200, to the 600mm equiv offered by the RX.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

chris140472: As my MK3 does all I need I think I will give the MK4 a miss. Also £1799 is a lot to pay for it. If it had a bigger zoom range and more megapixels maybe I would consider. As it is I will stay with the MK3. If Sony ever do a 100 series camera with the 35mm equivalent of 16-35mm then I would be up for one of those. I would advise anyone thinking of upgrading to the MK4 to think long and hard do you need the extra features? Me no most people I would think no but a few it will be worth every £ or what ever to you. Just don't be taken in by all the marketing puff. Remember a lot of reviews are on a retainer to say nice things about cameras even if the camera sucks.

"Remember a lot of reviews are on a retainer to say nice things about cameras even if the camera sucks."

**DPReview isn't**. There is nothing to encourage us to say nice things.

I'm generally not a fan of superzooms and have not been a big fan of the RX10 series, thus far. The much-improved AF significantly extends the range of things the Mark IV can do, compared to the Mark III, but we'll look in more depth at whether *we* think it's worth it, once we've had time to test it properly.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
Total: 5294, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »