Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4831, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On a photo in the Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D Sample Gallery sample gallery (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

medon78: Do you have a windows seat and run up to the roof to get the shot?

Sadly our office faces the other direction, but if we see a nice-looking sunset, we'll run across to the other side of the building or the roof deck.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:20 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: Even if both the Sony RX1R II and the Fujifilm X100F have 35mm (35mm equivalent for the Fujifilm) lenses, it is difficult to compare an APSC sensor with a FF sensor... Obviously the RX1R II camera is much more expensive, but if you want to do very serious (or professional) phoography, this camera is the only option... The RX1R II has the best existing FF sensor... It also has a central shutter (no vibrations when taking your photo), and should be declared Winner.

I agree, it's a difficult call to make.

Yes, a good full frame sensor will significantly outperform an APS-C one. The difference will usually be in the realms of 1.3EV and, in this case, maybe a bit more, since the RX1R II is BSI, whereas the X100F's chip is FSI. We wouldn't for a moment suggest the Fujifilm's IQ is better than the Sony's.

Should we, then, automatically say: 'it wins, regardless of cost or shooting experience'? I'd say no.

For me, the X100F is a more polished, more engaging and *much* more affordable camera. This, along with not having to worry about the battery every thirty seconds, is enough for the Fujifilm to edge it. However, we did call out that the RX1R II's IQ is better, in our conclusion.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: The Studio Test scene does not allow selection of the RX1r II. I don't remember DPR doing the test though.

Bear in mind the possibility that shooting a flat target, comparatively close-up may not give a perfect representation of real-world behaviour (before you consider how important sharp corners are for the kinds of photos you'd shoot with this camera).

Personally I think a 28mm equiv camera is a dismal alternative to a 35mm equiv one, and vice versa. As such, I'd compare the GR with the Leica Q and the Sony with the X100F.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 19:30 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

TN Args: Worth noting that, as of the day before this Roundup was published, the Sigma dp Quattro cameras are no longer restricted to Sigma's own raw processor. There is now a raw DNG file option that can be read directly by Lightroom (without needing camera support by Adobe), or any raw processor that supports Linear DNG, for example the free, multi-platform RawTherapee.

You could possibly update the last paragraph of page 6 (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundups-fixed-prime-lens-cameras/6) to reflect this, as well as the Image File format section of the Comparison page (by adding "RAW (12 bit uncompressed, DNG)")

Now fixed. Sorry about that.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:50 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: Slight typo on page 8: "The Q's 28mm equivalent F1.7 image-stabilized lens is incredibly sharp...". Just the one surplus word in there!

Fixed. Sorry about that. We spend so much of our time thinking about these models as 28mm equiv and 35mm equivs, it's easy to overlook that some of them are equivalent to a 28mm on full frame by dint of actually being 28mm lenses in front of full frame sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

SRT201: The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!

IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.

THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.

It's me who should apologise: I didn't spot that at all. I've corrected it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:45 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim seekers: My brother owns a Sony RX1R II and Fuji X100T and the Colours from that Sony are the best I have ever seen, I have always loved Fuji X100 series Colours but they don't come close to the RX1R ii, The images it produces have like a 3D pop to them with a beautiful dreamy and creamy background, it's hard to explain until you see it and skin tones are amazing and I would even have it over the Leica Q, people complain about battery like, just buy a few ... problem solved, I own a Leica X2 and Sony RX100 Mk1 but that RX1R II has the Best IQ , Punch and Colour Tones I have evrr seen from a camera and I am not a huge fan of sony colours but the colour output from the RX1R II is different due to that razor sharp zeiss lens.

AF has also sped up to a greater degree than I thought possible, while still using the same lens design. My *guess* is that this is due to the higher system voltage that the new battery brings, but I could be wrong on that.

The X100F hasn't suddenly become a sports camera, but it's much nicer to use than previous generations.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (749 comments in total)
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: Any significant benefits over my refurbed Fuji X3 for $250?

You mean X100T?

Hard to say. The 'F' is a *much* better camera, in terms of IQ and responsiveness. However, that's a big price difference...

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:18 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

SRT201: The article mentions the Quattro's Foveon imager and totally glosses over the HUGE difference this makes. Most Sigma owners bought these cameras after realizing that no other camera we have used produces images like this. Images that are tack sharp right down to the pixel level. That's detail that simply doesn't emerge from any Bayer type camera. Looking at a Quattro shot is like visiting the scene again. A family member once commented "How come the picture doesn't get blurry when I zoom in?" THAT's the Sigma difference that counts!

IMO, these are not general purpose cameras. They are utterly amazing when used within their limitations. Of course I have other general purpose cameras. My Sony a6000 is a much better camera for everyday use but it doesn't come close to the utterly stunning detail produced in Quattro shots.

THIS is why we Sigma owners accept the other limitations. It's worth the extra effort for results you can't get elsewhere.

I've corrected the text.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 18:15 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: The Studio Test scene does not allow selection of the RX1r II. I don't remember DPR doing the test though.

Retry now. I think it should be fixed.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:43 UTC
On article 2017 Roundups: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

davev8: DPR say>>>>For those who want to zoom with their feet, here are the fixed-lens cameras we think are worth a look:<<<<
i cannot believe DPR say that ..it is impossible to zoom with your feet

We're aware that 'zooming with your feet' isn't the same as zooming (since perspective changes).

However, it is a phrase that is used to describe working around the limitations of having a fixed focal length.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:37 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (749 comments in total)
In reply to:

martindpr: Did they solve the lens softness problem wide open?

As mentioned in the review, no, it's the same lens and hence has the same characteristics.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:12 UTC
In reply to:

Azathothh: Bokeh junkies will now all move to MF. Better rewrite that article, DPR!

I'm pretty sure the article made clear that the availability of faster lenses would change some of its conclusions.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 00:21 UTC
On article Action-packed: Sony a6500 review (1154 comments in total)
In reply to:

FOTONOTO: About Gamma Display Assist, can this function be used when playing back? Can it be used with still pictures?

It can be used for preview only (stills or movie), not playback.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 22:56 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (1157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: "Physics predicts this: for two sensors of similar technology, it's sensor size that matters..." Not sure this is true. If I understand this right, noise may be the same in the same size sensor, but signal strength from larger pixels (as compared to the smaller pixels of the A7rII), should mean the SNR is better for the A9. But it could be that expanded other activity on this sensor (memory, focus etc.) generates more noise, so interested to see actual results. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Yes, though, as I say, the [a7S's benefit over the a7R](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4613822764/high-iso-compared-sony-a7s-vs-a7r-vs-canon-eos-5d-iii/2) only really exists at ISO settings above 51,200. And it's likely to have a smaller advantage over the a7R II, since that camera has a BSI sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 22:44 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (1157 comments in total)
In reply to:

Average User: "Physics predicts this: for two sensors of similar technology, it's sensor size that matters..." Not sure this is true. If I understand this right, noise may be the same in the same size sensor, but signal strength from larger pixels (as compared to the smaller pixels of the A7rII), should mean the SNR is better for the A9. But it could be that expanded other activity on this sensor (memory, focus etc.) generates more noise, so interested to see actual results. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

It all depends on whether you look at the SNR of each pixel or the overall image.

Larger pixels of the same technology will have better SNR characteristics (for the same exposure, they'll receive more light).

However, if you compare two images at the same size made with sensors of the same size, there'll be little to no difference. Exposure deals in light per unit area so, even though each large pixel gets more light, this can be countered by rescaling the small pixels to match. Each small pixel got less light but when combined by resizing, you end up back at the same result.

The difference being that when you've got lots of light, the small pixels will give you more resolution. In light-limited circumstances, you'll get a very similar result.

I say similar because there is a small difference (perhaps because fewer pixels means fewer read-out events). This very small difference becomes significant at ultra-high ISOs where this noise has been amplified many times.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (512 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: More articles to be expected:
Tomorrow: How to get your home ready for your new Sony A9
Day after tomorrow: Introducing you new A9 to the rest of the family
Later: Tips for when your dogs do not get along with your new A9

Employment law prevents us using subterranean mammals in content production roles.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (512 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gary Martin: Holding out for the A13.

Because you want to take the 'A' road, the OK road to Shoeburyness?

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 21:10 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (512 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chuckmet: When can we expect to see reliability and durability comparisons between top camera makers. All I ever see is tech. And price comparisons which is important but not as important as reliability in my opinion.

The worst case scenario is that you develop a test with limited real-world applicability and just publish your findings.

Let's say Camera A fails after 10 hours and Camera B fails after 20. Great, Camera B is twice as durable.

But wait, six months later, lots of people report Camera B fails all the time. You buy a second copy of Camera B, it still survives for 20 hours. (perhaps the test isn't simulating the real-world condition in which it fails).

You re-test another copy of Camera A. This copy survives 30 hours of testing.

What reliable piece of data have we learned from destroying four cameras? Not much. The one solid data point is from the large sample of users actually using it.

As such, LensRentals is just about the only place I can think of that will have any insight into reliability/durability, since they have lots of copies being used by lots of people.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (512 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chuckmet: When can we expect to see reliability and durability comparisons between top camera makers. All I ever see is tech. And price comparisons which is important but not as important as reliability in my opinion.

entoman - There are at least three significant problems with durability testing:

1) You need to buy every camera because no one is going to lend us cameras to test to destruction. This is made significantly more problematic by:

2) In a complex system with multiple potential failure mechanisms, there'll be a distribution (Poisson?) of failures. Two cameras of the same type may fail at very different times and potentially through different mechanisms. So you need to test a large sample of units to find a pattern.

3) Your tests must simulate real-world stresses if they're not to give meaningless results. Only dedicated waterproof cameras (usually compacts) are rated as being submersible, so your proposed 5 minute dunking would achieve nothing except that it's easy to destroy a camera if you want to.

And that's before you get to the sheer cost of this endeavour. Is the magazine you mentioned still in business?

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 17:40 UTC
Total: 4831, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »