Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3998, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

osan: I think Dpreview has a "thing" with new 18-150mm zoom lens. On a page which I can't precisely remember where, it was converted as 29-149mm equivalent and on this page it's listed as 15-150mm§. It's just a trivia but the staff must have worked under pressure to meet the deadline for publishing the preview ;)))

If you can find that error, I'll be happy to correct it.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

downwind4final: I like the IBIS and form. Add 4k and I'll start being interested.

It doesn't have IBIS.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: I know this is getting mostly compared to the Sonys but what about vs the 80D? I'm struggling with when I'd prefer an 80D over the M5 if I owned both. For huge tele lenses I assume you'd get a 7Dm2 not the 80D or M5 so we're talking <2kg.

From all we can tell, they're broadly the same hardware, but with the 80D having an optical viewfinder and traditional DSLR phase detection AF module for when using that viewfinder.

The M5 is considerably smaller, will offer a more consistent user experience (rather than operating very differently when switching fro OVF to LCD shooting), but at the cost of battery life and native lens choice.

We're looking forward to getting a final one, to see how it compares. The reason I linked back to our 80D vs a6300 article is because I think this will work like a slightly slicker version of the 80D in live view mode.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 19:09 UTC
In reply to:

Louis_Dobson: I'm not being a fanboy here, I just wondered why Olympus is so rarely mentioned here, since it seems to be the obvious competitor.

As for the camera, without trying it I have no view and without lenses no interest. I'm sure it's a sensible choice if you already have a load of Canon lenses and wish to go mirrorless.

On this occasion the Panasonic, with its more capable video stood out to me as a competitor that offered a different balance of features (specifically in terms of video) for a similar price. The E-M5 II didn't seem so distinct, but I agree I should mention it.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 18:50 UTC
On article Video: Canon EOS M5 hands-on (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

SidePod: so you already did the Studio Scene? how about makeing the results accessble? ;)

The camera we got to use was non-final, so we were able to shoot the video of using the camera, we weren't able to properly shoot the test scene.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

Suave: No 4k, no peaking, this is like a guide to self-inflicted wounds.

Because the pre-production version we saw didn't have peaking, so far as I know, so we initially reported it incorrectly.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

DongaMogudu: "And asking people to invest in a small camera with the expectation that they'll use larger EF and EF-S lenses doesn't sound like the easiest sell."
I guess, DPR forgot to tell that (small body with big lens) to Sony for all these years.

Yes, because we have definitely not mentioned a shortage of native E-mount lenses in any of our Don't reviews.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 07:00 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

AD in KC: Well dang! I'm using a SEMI-professional camera to earn a living. I'm going to be REALLY embarrassed if a DP guy sees me on a shoot using a SEMI-professional camera.

We do (and always have, to the best of my knowledge) use the term 'Semi Professional' to cover products that will be bought and used by both enthusiast and pro photographers.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 04:37 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

Blake Cook: Its is utterly absurd review this camera using Adobe RAW which cannot extract some of the data available to DPP. Specifically the additional DR available to dual pixel raw files. Adobe raw cannot get colours and contrast even close and has yet to get either close, since and including the 1Dx.

Then you're welcome to download the Raw files and draw your own conclusions.

Our reviews are always based on the use of industry-standard software but if you prefer DPP I'd encourage you to download the files and see if it works better with your workflow.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 00:54 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arun H: DPReview team. The ISO invariance page has the following sentence
"This is precisely the technique I used to shoot the galloping horse on the first page."

I think this is a carryover from the first impressions review and needs to be removed (as the picture you are referring to is the D810 shot included in that article).

Thanks. I've taken that out.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 00:51 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

Homam: Does Canon 5d Mark II have higher raw image quality than 5d Mark IV!?

There is definitely something wrong with DPreview's comparative table. Mark IV has higher resolution, better high iso performance, & higher dynamic range than both Mark II and Mark III and yet, as shown in the compare mode, it has lower image quality than both Mark II and Mark III!!!??

Not to mention it also has the highest sensor score of any canon camera to date on DXOmark...

Preposterous...

The scoring is based on the time at which is was reviewed. As sensors have improved, the expectations have risen. So, while the Mk 2 scored well for its time, that performance would no longer be considered so good. The Mk 4 may have scored slightly lower compared to its contemporaries but it's better than the Mk 2.

And the next generation scoring system will (eventually) fix this problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 21:01 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cheezr: Excellent and timely review, good job DPReviewers!

One niggle: "Optimization of AF settings takes practice and experience" , is this not a truism for any device? I just assume this for any of the cameras that you review.

No, the complexity of the system (three interacting parameters) and the degree to which you need to adjust them to fine-tune the behavior to your specific subject are unusually high.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 20:58 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (1914 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valeriu 64: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Gold, and Pentax K-1 only Silver .

As shown, Canon EOS 5D Mark IV it failed the test bike.

Why gold ?

Very strange.

It's not *that* strange, really.

The bike test isn't the sum total of our AF testing. Neither is it a pass/fail test.

There are several areas (the very effective live view AF, movie capabilities) where the 5D IV significantly out-performs the K-1.

The pros and cons of each are discussed in considerable depth in their reviews. If you're not even willign

For some types of photography the two cameras are similarly capable, at which point the K-1 is a great choice, not least because it's much more keenly priced than the Canon. However, the Canon is a more all-round capable camera.

The pros and cons of each are discussed in depth in the respective reviews. The conclusions summarise this and the final award is the least eloquent or nuanced expression of these differences.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Pooya Rastin: This shot noise thing which is used excessively in DPR is fundamentally flawed. Taking a picture is not like collecting raindrops. Raindrops fall in a route mostly parallel to each other. But Each spot in real life reflects or emits light in all the directions. Considert wo adjacent spots, spot A and spot B in a unoform object which we are taking a photograph of. spot A reflects billions of photons in a fraction of a second. Spot B reflects billions of photons in a fraction of a second. Spot A corresponds to pixel X in the sensor. Spot B corresponds to adjacent pixel Y in the sensor.
There is no way all the photons reflecting from spot A and entering the pixel X in the sensor in a time however small are in a substancially lower number than the number of all the photons coming from spot B and entering pixel Y.

The source of the randomness isn't the scattering of light, it's the randomness over time with which photons are emitted by the light source.

As I understand it, the scattering of the light (as well as their absorption of it) is part of the way they look the way they do. Objects that appear darker under bright light are scattering or absorbing more of the received light than bright, highly reflective surfaces. The scattered light never reaches your eye (or sensor) and that's one aspect of what you're trying to capture. At which point the photons *are* approximately like raindrops: you're only seeing the ones that travelled in a straight path from the subject to your eye/pixel.

As I say, the randomness that makes the biggest difference is the randomness of photons being emitted over time by the light source. This gives an SNR of N/Root N where N is the number of photons. Draw a graph of this relationship and see what happens as N falls (towards black/no photons).

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

ThorstenMUC: Nice, that Sigma is more aiming for the APS-C mirrorless market... maybe there will be an X-mount version of this lens soon.
Ok - Fujifilm's lens lineup for APS-C is a much harder competitor, than Sony's few dedicated APS-C lenses - but since the optics are already there and it would "only" mean to exchange the mechanical mount (easy) and the firmware (that'l be the main effort) I would expect it's a viable step.
Competition is always welcome.

Part of the problem may be that Sony made the details of its mount (presumably including the AF protocols) available to third parties. To the best of my knowledge, Fujifilm hasn't done this, so Sigma would need to reverse-engineer the AF system, which I can imagine is a significant investment.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2016 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

great Javier: Ha ha, this lens got the gold award, but in the "Latest reviews list" is a Silver!

Yeah, that's a bug that's being investigated. It's a Gold award.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: Nice job! Looking forward to more lens reviews like this. It would be even better if you include M43/Fuji lenses into the comparison.

We certainly hope to. We'll be reviewing this lens for Micro Four Thirds, soon.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2219 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hansel300: /// "ISO and its role in clarifying and confusing
This means that, a Four Thirds camera with a 50mm f/2 lens at ISO100 should produce a JPEG of the same brightness as a Full frame camera with a 100mm f/2 lens at ISO100 and, set to the same F-number and shutter speed, even though its smaller sensor means it is receiving 1/4 as much total light."///

No its not ! A camera with lens - regardless of focal length - at F2 and ISO 100 will have the same shutter speed be it FF or M4/3's, and produce a similarly bright JPEG. Total light ? You're just confusing the issue ! Was this article written by Tony Northrup ?

Even a FF lens is over projecting and has a larger image circle to keep, therefore a FF camera doesn't capture "Total Light" projected by the lens - you see how stupid my point is ? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL LIGHT. A lens is just projecting an image over a sensor. DPR is talking about curtains, the more I open my curtains more "Total Light" will enter.

Thinking in terms of total light is contrary to the way that exposure is usually thought of: that's why the article only suggests using equivalence to understand the different potential capabilities of different systems and formats.

But, if you are willing to think about the size of the area available to capture the light, rather than just the light per unit area, you'll see a direct relationship between this and the performance differences you see between formats.

And no, it's not helped by online videos saying that manufacturers' F-numbers are misleading. That's nonsense. But total light is a demonstrably valuable concept if you want to understand the way different formats relate to one another.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 17:18 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2219 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hansel300: /// "ISO and its role in clarifying and confusing
This means that, a Four Thirds camera with a 50mm f/2 lens at ISO100 should produce a JPEG of the same brightness as a Full frame camera with a 100mm f/2 lens at ISO100 and, set to the same F-number and shutter speed, even though its smaller sensor means it is receiving 1/4 as much total light."///

No its not ! A camera with lens - regardless of focal length - at F2 and ISO 100 will have the same shutter speed be it FF or M4/3's, and produce a similarly bright JPEG. Total light ? You're just confusing the issue ! Was this article written by Tony Northrup ?

Even a FF lens is over projecting and has a larger image circle to keep, therefore a FF camera doesn't capture "Total Light" projected by the lens - you see how stupid my point is ? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOTAL LIGHT. A lens is just projecting an image over a sensor. DPR is talking about curtains, the more I open my curtains more "Total Light" will enter.

F-numbers are useful specifically because any two lenses with the same F-number transmit (ignoring slight transmission losses), the same amount of light **per square mm**. And the ISO standard (or, at least that SOS bit) *by definition* means that the camera has to do whatever it takes to ensure that your JPEGs come out the correct brightness, regardless of whether you're using an iPhone or a Medium Format camera.

That's literally what the statement you quoted is saying.

A full frame F2 lens transmits the same light per sq mm, regardless of what sensor you stick it in front of. It doesn't spread the same amount of light out over a wider area - that's why you can mount that same lens on a smaller format and still get the same amount of light per sq mm.

However, the larger sensor captures more of the light being projected. This is why the field of view is wider and this is why your images end up less noisy.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 17:14 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2219 comments in total)
In reply to:

dsumanchy: ”F-numbers and ISO are sensor-size independent. "

Respectfully, I disagree. Here are the crop sensor equivalence formulas which you can verify yourself with a real world test:

FX focal length = crop factor * lens focal length
FX aperture = crop factor * lens aperture
FX ISO = iso * crop factor * crop factor

To verify these are true grab a Nikon FX lens, a DX body and an FX body (Bodies of the same sensor generation are required). For this example I'll use 40mm focal length:

On the DX Body Shoot @ 40mm, f2.8 ISO 800
On the FX Body Shoot @ 60mm, f4.2 ISO 1800

Now compare images in lightroom, aperture, bokeh, noise, and FOV will be nearly identical! So no, bokeh (aperture), as well as ISO (noise) are not the same on FX and DX and thus sensor size does indeed affect both....when normalized to 35mm (FX) standard, which is the point of this article: equivalence.

Before arguing, do the test yourself and be prepared to raise an eyebrow, just like I did when I first performed the test...

The problem with the ISO standard (or, rather, the three different measurements set out in the ISO standard that you're likely to encounter) is that people think they have an inherent understanding of what it means.

The SOS part of the standard, for instance, is essentially a clumsy pastiche of the film ISO standard. And it does dictate that images should 'look the same' in terms of midtone JPEG output brightness for a given exposure and light level.

However, just as an ISO 800 sheet of medium format film will look better when printed to a given size than a piece of ISO 800 35mm film at the same print size, it tells you nothing about noise characteristics.

This may not be what you want ISO to mean, but that's essentially what it means in current cameras.

And, because ISO (SOS) means *x* JPEG brightness for *y* exposure values and *z* illumination level, regardless of whether you use an iPhone or a Phase One, it obscures the effect of sensor size.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
Total: 3998, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »