Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3830, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: After reading comments on X-T2 I leant 1DX II is a toy camera for the iPhone crowd. A proper professional camera wouldn't have touchscreen nor GPS.

I think you might have done some extrapolating, there.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 19:03 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

OSDphoto: The D500 scored 91%, and the 1DX Mark-II scored 89% so it did not improve at all on the 1D Mark-IV which also scored 89%. So I guess it's time to sell off all my Canon stuff and get a D500.

@Hellish - it's not without its flaws, certainly, but the alternative is that all compact cameras score around 12 because a 1D X II scores 89.

The OP's sarcasm suggests they know perfectly well that we're not saying the D500 is 'better' than the D5.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 00:10 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

OSDphoto: The D500 scored 91%, and the 1DX Mark-II scored 89% so it did not improve at all on the 1D Mark-IV which also scored 89%. So I guess it's time to sell off all my Canon stuff and get a D500.

To quote the text directly above the scoring widget:

"Scoring is relative **only** to the other cameras in the same category."

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:44 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: In the high ISO comparison, the 1DXII image is sharpened at +25, while the 1DX is at 0.

No problem - we'd much rather risk the occasional false positive than end up leaving errors upon the site.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:52 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2481 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jazz1: Just got an X-Pro 2 in hand. No one carries Fujifilm products in my area, or at least none of the nicer cameras in the line. So I've never actually handled one.

I am pleasantly surprised with how it handles. I know I'm being a bit premature here as I've not yet seen the output or put it through any testing.

However, the handling suits me fine. I feel like I'm 22 years old again and just getting into film cameras. The optical viewfinder doesn't throw me at all, but I'm glad the camera viewfinder has an electronic option.

I don't know how well my longer lenses will work, as I know many reviews cautioned against using longer lenses on this particular camera. I'll keep my XT-10 around until I can afford the higher end X-T2. Together I'm sure I'll be ready for anything. So, so long to my Sony friends on the forums, and I hope to be active on the Fujifilm threads.

It's not that longer lenses don't work, just that the optical viewfinder's usefulness is reduced, so you're likely to switch to the EVF.

Personally I like both the OVF and EVF but I don't like the inconsistent experience of swapping between them, so prefer to work with primes on the Pro2. I also find the grip of the X-TX models a better match for longer, heavier glass. This is preference, though, not a technical restriction.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 20:34 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: In the high ISO comparison, the 1DXII image is sharpened at +25, while the 1DX is at 0.

I've just downloaded the Raw files, processed using our standard settings and applied our standard sharpening. Overlaying these with the downloadable JPEGs, there's no sharpening difference.

If you use EXIFTool to look at sharpening *amount*, you'll see that both were set to 0, so the sharpening detail slider becomes irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 20:27 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: In the high ISO comparison, the 1DXII image is sharpened at +25, while the 1DX is at 0.

Do you mean the Raw images in our test scene?

If so, please let me know which ones (Daylight or Low Light) and at which ISOs, that way I can investigate more quickly.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 18:59 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: I may have missed it but I did not see anything about:

1) The laundry list of things that will slow down the FPS (2 entire pages in the manual dedicated to scenarios where you won't get advertised FPS)

2) The AF is only -3.0EV sensitive at the center point in single shot mode, where few people use it. It drops to -2.0 for tracking scenarios, which is half as sensitive as the competition in the middle and one third as sensitive on all other points.

3) 1DX batteries do not allow for advertised FPS - you cannot re-use your old 1DX batteries without crippling the camera

Those are important pieces of info for perspective buyers IMHO. Otherwise great review.

The point about frame rates and batteries was in the 3D view of the camera. I've now copied the text and image into the main body of the page, just for consistency with existing reviews.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 18:57 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mikael Risedal: a camera with increased DR
well done Canon

What makes you think it's 'at the expense of?'

Canon appears to have increased low ISO DR by reducing downstream read noise and I can't think of any way that this would have an impact on high ISO DR. (Hence the 1D X II is better in *both* respects than the 1D X was).

As I understand it, it's the high-speed readout demands that might limit high ISO performance, which is a totally different balancing act.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 18:09 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

tex: I feel like this is actually a "pro" camera (I am not a Canon guy, btw...), in the sense that it would be a very capable machine in the hands of events and action photography pros who already know what they are doing. Which means that understanding how to properly use the machine, its AF, burst rate, etc., and dialing it in for one's own shooting style/parameters, would be a "well, of course" sort of thing. So, having to dial that in shouldn't be seen as a negative, IMO. This as opposed to other outstanding cameras, and now we have many of them, that have a broader appeal to pros and "prosumers" and dedicated amateurs. This doesn't seem to me to be the sort of device that amateurs would ever want or need, and few prosumers. One tip off to that is the file size, big enough for its true purposes, not so large as to be overkill, and right sized for throughput speed.

If all professional cameras required extensive setup then we'd agree with you. However, the Nikon D5 seems to perform well across a range of shooting situations without requiring the same degree of configuration.

In fairness the use-case based presets make it much easier to set up than the 1D III and IV.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 17:50 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Better dynamic range +1
Look at those significant Cons. DPReview is usually frank in that column, but then the points don't reflect it. Make it 87, please. Silver-Plus.

The scoring is based on something like 40 parameters of image quality and performance. We can't just *make it* 87. Compare it with the D5 and you'll see that although they score the same overall percentage, they do so in very different ways, based on their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Equally, a lot of the cons are video related, not because the video is bad but because the video is *so good* that the areas in which it falls short are all the more frustrating.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

Carl Mucks: The resolution seems to be fine on 4k, no moire. It's too short really to notice much. The only noticeable thing is that the dynamic range looks very poor, completely black shadows and completely wiped out highlights. Need to wait for more substantive reviews before buying.

The current firmware that people have access to does not let you adjust the highlight and shadow response in video mode (though I'm told it will do before the camera ships).

And I meant highlights and shadows to -2, in terms of flattening. The +ve values make the curve more abrupt (I actually find the new -2 to +4 naming system to be even more confusing than the existing Soft to Hard scale).

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2016 at 19:57 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

When I get a moment, I'll go through and make sure it's mentioned in all our recent reviews.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Part of the challenge is that it's difficult to frame it. There's no reason to think Fujifilm is doing anything that's incompatible with the ISO standard because as soon as you dig into it, you discover that 'ISO XXX' doesn't actually mean very much. It certainly doesn't mean what you'd expect it to, if you come from a background of shooting film.

We usually try to mention the 1/2 to 2/3EV difference in the amount of exposure needed to achieve a certain brightness in our reviews but I'm not sure we've remembered to do so every single time.

The JPEG aspect of our studio test is based on the assumption that most JPEG shooters will either follow the camera's meter or assess exposure based on JPEG brightness, so it makes more sense to present JPEGs at the same brightness (while also stating the exposures required to get there), rather than including each camera with different image brightnesses.

As I say, the Raw shots are shot differently to ensure they are directly comparable.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 19:14 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

cxsparc - our Raw images, from which we draw our conclusions about noise performance and to which we point our readers are all shot using the same shutter speed and apertures as the competition, so are directly comparable.

I'm not saying anything about the brightness differences of between 1/2 and 2/3EV that we see in Fujifilm. However, this Raw tag has nothing to do with it and the difference is accounted for in the Raw images we present.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 19:59 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

masher76: I find the reported variation in image quality / uniformity of the G7X II and other 1" compacts (and probably others) concerning and it strikes me there is wide acceptance of camera manufacturing quality issues. I would expect all the constituent camera components a produced to tight tolerances so where is the variability creeping in? - assume it must be in the assembly. I would say it is not good enough. As a prospective purchaser I am now minded to undertake a series of pixel peeping tests to ensure any camera purchased is a 'good one' rather than 'ok in parts'.

Mike FL - could be. Or it could be that it's easier to mould a well-chosen engineering polymer into the complex shapes required than it is to fabricate the same shape in metal (I don't know, in this instance, but it's not necessarily safe to assume).

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 19:43 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (270 comments in total)
In reply to:

masher76: I find the reported variation in image quality / uniformity of the G7X II and other 1" compacts (and probably others) concerning and it strikes me there is wide acceptance of camera manufacturing quality issues. I would expect all the constituent camera components a produced to tight tolerances so where is the variability creeping in? - assume it must be in the assembly. I would say it is not good enough. As a prospective purchaser I am now minded to undertake a series of pixel peeping tests to ensure any camera purchased is a 'good one' rather than 'ok in parts'.

No manufacturing process can make every lens perfect. [Roger Cicala wrote an excellent piece on the subject](https://www.dpreview.com/news/5426741353/).

So you have two choices:

Accept that and send back a camera or lens if you believe it's underperforming to an unacceptable degree.

Or

Pay the additional money it costs to reduce those tolerances and fine-adjust every product such that the overall variance is reduced.

Ultimately, a complex, fast, mass-produced zoom lens in a sub-$1000 camera is always going to have more variance than, say, a multiple thousand dollar manual focus prime lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 19:19 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Mike FL - The X-Pro2 looks good even when you compare it on an equal footing to other sensors, so no, that's not why reviewers think Fujifilm noise is low.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

And, to be clear, the Raw images in our test scene are shot at the same exposures for all cameras, then manually brightened to a fixed brightness, meaning that you are seeing all cameras on an equal basis, even if that's not what the metering and JPEG engine would give you.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 18:26 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

cxsparc: And STILL, Fuji "cheats" with ISO. Comparing the XT2 to the Sony A6000, same aperture, Fuji uses half a stop longer exposure. Same thing for other cameras.
This of course helps in maintaining the myth of low noise for the X-sensor, but for me it looks just plain dishonest.
I really wonder why they keep doing that, and stick to their ISO"200" base sensitivity? Other companies add ISO50 to allow lower DOF through wide apertures, Fuji rather adds a 1/8000 shutter to the camera instead of going to ISO100.

Cheats is the wrong word. Fujifilm isn't doing anything that contradicts the ISO standard, so let's get that out of the way.

That tag '0x9650' just tells the Raw processor (or JPEG engine) how much of the brightness of the image needs to be supplied by digital, rather than analogue amplification. This has been allowed in ISO values for ten years now and it used by (off the top of my head), Canon, Olympus, Ricoh and Fujifilm at the very least. It's a way of capturing more highlight information for the JPEGs and would actually *increase* apparent noise.

It's the reason why nobody should ever expect JPEG ISO values and Raw ISO values (as reported by DxO) to correspond. They don't have to and aren't supposed to.

The fact that, despite this instruction, you still get images that are between 1/3 and 2/3EV darker than you'd expect is another matter.

For more information [try reading this](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/).

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 18:24 UTC
Total: 3830, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »