Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3818, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1225 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 (1225 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 (1225 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 (257 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 (257 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 (1225 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 (1225 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 (1225 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
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1225 comments in total)
In reply to:

tm1126: Very informative review. I'm delighted of getting one of these.

I only have a question that I couldn't find on the review. Has the XT2 an option to generate small raw stills?

It doesn't do 'small' Raw files but, like the X-Pro2, you can choose between uncompressed and losslessly compressed Raws, so that you can save card and hard-drive space.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

HenryDJP: Only time will tell after a few real reviews, but on paper the Fuji XT2 is nowhere near $600 more of a camera than the Sony A6300.

Doesn't that rather depend on an individual's preferences and value considerations?

There's more to a camera than spec + price.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:02 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: "but up until about 50mm the former has a slight equivalent aperture advantage"

I'm really not seeing that. It looks like the rx100 climbs to f8 as fast it can, versus a much more linear progression on the g7x.. Difference of opinion perhaps, but if I was to read this without seeing the chart, I would picture something completely different.

and with a faster lens over more of the range, you have the ability to stop down more.

I think you're reading too much into one word in a quick summary of a graph. The sentence highlights that the G7 X II is better, below 50mm equiv and the graph makes this difference apparent.

The difference increases to around 0.7EV before dropping back again. Perhaps 'slightly' slightly under-represents this, but I'm surprised that you think this one word invalidates the whole review.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 00:06 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alastair Norcross: A mostly fair review, but I find the complaints about JPEG image quality rather funny, and silly. Does the reviewer not know that JPEG noise reduction can be turned down or up in the camera? Or that sharpness levels can be controlled with multiple settings on no fewer than three parameters? The G7XII is an advanced compact camera. To complain about the default settings, when these can and should be varied considerably is pointless. Other than that, as I said, a pretty fair review. It's a really excellent compact camera, and an ideal everyday and travel companion.
I also find it strange that much attention at all is paid to JPEG image quality on an advanced camera such as the G7XII. If you buy this camera, you probably care about image quality. If you care about image quality, you probably shoot RAW. Given that the G7XII has very useful, and quite fast, in-camera RAW processing, there's really not much reason to shoot JPEG.

We're looking into the sharpening in more detail now, given the unusually high level of control the G7 X II gives.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 23:57 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: What??! Where is the thousands of posts on af testing and default jpg options?

I'm noticing a distinct lack of some notable posters in here. I thought clearly dpreview was wrong on this.. ;)

Looks good, and it's a shame that canon just can't seem to come up with a nice balance for jpegs.

After seeing all the horrendous garbage the reviewers went through recently, I swore I'd be nicer.

So many thanks for the review and findings at least canon is making some strides to compete. The Nikon DL cameras need to come out soon.

was the battery rating by actual use? because if it's by CIPA, those are usually overdone for cameras with flash, and a larger zoom range.

if i recall for cameras with flash, CIPA is 50% of the shots are taken with flash, power recycled every 10 shots, (off the top of my head I can't recall the AF - I think it was a full rack).

IMO .. CIPA needs two numbers one with flash cycling, one without.

also .. what's with ACR over emphasizing blue channel noise?

With regards CIPA figures, yes, the test methodology is a bit extreme, which is why you usually get more shots out of cameras than the CIPA number implies.

However, they seem to be a good predictor of how one camera will perform, relative to another (I often say they're analogous to fuel economy/gas mileage data in this respect).

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 23:53 UTC
On article The effect of pixel size on noise (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: Richard,

Way back when you were writing this article or "What is equivalence and why should I care? " I brought up the fact that FF image and crop image would look similar in terms of noise if both are viewed at same magnification.
I recall you asking me to point out which is from which camera. Also, I recall saying you went back to run some more shot and I thought that the result was adding "However, if you make the (I believe) reasonable assumption that most people won't insist on viewing or printing their images in proportion to the sensor size they were shot with, then it becomes relevant to try viewing the images at a common output size (16MP)." part.
If I am remembering falsely, please accept my deepest apologies.
Re: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58079759
Thank you.

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 23:47 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoRotterdam: A n addition I like to put forward to DPR for consideration: I am always curious about the durability of these cameras. How rugged or how sensitive to electronic problems are these cameras over time ?

They are fairly small with a lot of stuff crammed into them and still expensive.

You can only really assess durability by looking at large sample sizes (something we're not in a position to do).

If we imagine two cameras with a mean time to failure 10,000 hours, we'd be in a position where one camera might fail during our testing and another wouldn't. Yet if we concluded that one was more durable than the other, we'd be misleading our customers.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 21:56 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

JJ Rodin: On a integrated lens cam, why does it not make sense to have multiple studio images at diff focal length, 3 seems to be reasonable - wide, middle,full zoom.

Of course more work but a quick pic can not be that hard to do ?

Just a point that how can 'we' judge the zoom lens if not multiple studio shots to view ?

The standard studio scene isn't intended as a lens assessment.

Shooting the scene and processing all the images takes quite a lot of time. Re-programming it to accept and display multiple focal lengths, then having to shoot and process them all sounds like an unbearable amount of extra work.

We are working on better ways to look at lens performance but the studio scene isn't going to be it.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 21:43 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

larry: The review heavily dings the G7xii's lens, but the comparometer shows the canon is better across 75% of the frame. (Look at the RAW images!) And to quote them loosely, the canon has a 50% good/bad rate on lenses, but the sony is 25% good **75%** bad...

When did the outer 10% of the far corners become so photographically important?!

I compared (aka pixel-peeped at 200% zoom, over 5 weeks) the $700 G7xii to a 5Diii and 24-70ii, and I'm thrilled with the G7xii. The sony is not worth ~30% more!

We didn't just assess the lens based on the comparison tool, which only shows one focal length at a moderate focus distance.

Looking at a range of focal lengths, the Canon lens isn't quite as consistent at the RX100 III/IV lens (though both experience significant copy-to-copy variation as well as swings in performance across different focal lengths).

Overall the Canon gives you a more useful lens but at the cost of some consistency.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: The Lens is exactly the same as on the original G7X - and this lens was being soft, especially at the corners. Not any as good as the RX100 Mk. III or Mk. IV Iterations.

Anyway - no EVF, no buy...it's easy as that...and Canon doesn't have 1" 20 MP sensors, they're clearly from Sony...so....what does it make sense? It's cheaper then the Sony RX100 Series a bit...but the RX100 is the Original.

Anyway, congrats to Canon to stay somehow competitive - with a Sensor from the Competition. ;-)

.edit. i've found one "feature" that's way annoying here: i can't anymore compare the rating to other cameras - from this class, the pull-down menue is gone...sad, but true.

Sorry, we missed a step when we published the scores, so *we* could see the comparison but you couldn't. That should now be fixed.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:24 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photato: Me and others who care about video will be left wondering about the Video quality of this camera given that there is no Video Still sample of the Studio Scene.

Deliberate omission?

Omitted for reasons of time and space.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:18 UTC
On article Second Time Around: Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Review (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

shadowz: no comparison widget on conclusion page?
Am I missing something here?

That should now be fixed if you reload the page.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 17:17 UTC
Total: 3818, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »