Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3924, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: "...Although the sticker price was the same as the Mark IV's, that $3500 would now be the equivalent of $4300 in today's money..."....
On the contrary R&D cost, promo etc etc should make this baby cost less than $2.000.

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 00:46 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: Thought it came out at $3300 not $3500. Then the 5D2 was $2700, then 5D3 $3500.

Imaging Resource said $3500 when they reviewed it. DPReview was UK-based at the time, so didn't have US MSRPs.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 00:45 UTC
On article Canon EOS 5D Mark IV First Impressions Review (1161 comments in total)
In reply to:

User1192886920: What is the bit depth of the JPEG video?
The reviewer only makes negative comments about a 500mbs recording ability.
In the world of pro video low compression is a positive feature!
1/So have Canon gone for 8bit or 10bit jpeg Video?
2/Does the dual pixel raw turn this camera from a 30MO sensor to a 60MP sensor?

Mn

It's 8-bit, so far as we know. I think it's 4:2:2 at least.

No, it's not a 60MP sensor in a conventional sense. It's more 30MP x 2, since both images are formed from the same microlens, so there's no increase in spatial resolution.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 21:36 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2154 comments in total)
In reply to:

el touristo: It is just me or is the spec published here importantly incorrect? : Image stabilization No

No. The camera does not feature image stabilization.

Stabilized lenses are available and there's digital stabilisation available in video, but there's no still image stabilization in the body.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2016 at 19:27 UTC
On article Canon EOS-1D X Mark II: What you need to know (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: Hmm... Notoriously mean me might pick up one of these from eBay a few years down the line. Nice summary. As a none Canon user, the main review was definitely a case of tl;dr. The AF systems of the professional cameras are impressive, but I assume they must still be properly learned...

Nobody has said otherwise.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kona Mike: Why even bother reviewing this?

Announced by Canon on February 6, 2015
Became available in Europe and Asia in April 2015
For sale in U.S. in October 2015
Reviewed by DPR August 2016

There are rumors of a new one coming out this fall? Is this review possible push back, from Canon? No early access to new camera if no review for previous model??

jdu_sq - we're not and we wouldn't. It would be impossible for us to do our jobs if any camera maker were trying to exert pressure on us to review or prioritise their product over someone else's.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 21:04 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 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.

Again, if it is less sensitive and is given the same amount of light then the shadows will be noisier and processing to a common brightness will show that.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 16:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

KCook: "As a decidedly midrange experience being sold at something approaching a more entry-level price, the Fujifilm X-E2S deserves a look."

$1k is now considered an "entry-level" price??? Gawd, I need to find a different hobby.

Kelly

My point would be that there's more to a camera than just specs and performance.

The user interface and user experience is radically different, not just the looks.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 16:29 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 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.

However, our Raw files are shot with fixed illumination, shutter speed and aperture values across cameras, so the results are **directly comparable**. Any 'cheating' would count against the camera here.

But, if you want your out-of-camera JPEGs to be a set brightness, you'll need to give between 1/3 and 2/3EV more exposure than a light meter would lead you to expect.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 04:18 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 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.

The best way of clearing this up is definitely to introduce a third, similar but not directly connected ISO sensitivity scheme.

ISO declared by cameras are JPEG-based and there are two methods. The SOS system is essentially (and intentionally) analogous to the film system. Under SOS, you should, based on a light meter, be able to predict what shutter speed and aperture are required to give a JPEG with middle grey presented as middle grey.

REI, the part of standard for multi/matrix metering, does not fit this pattern. For any given illumination level, shutter speed and aperture, the camera only has to give *whatever the manufacturer decides is correct*.

As I've said, the Fujifilms we've seen appear to be giving images between 1/3 and 2/3EV (depending on the ISO setting) darker images than you'd expect under the SOS part of the standard. However, if the ISO numbers given are based on matrix/multi area metering, then they're not necessarily wrong. Because the standard is vague.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 04:15 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 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.

Except ISO is not ISO.

A better analogy would be rpm and distance a wheel travels. There's a connection between the two but, if different manufacturers can use different sized wheels, then there isn't a constant relationship between rpm and distance.

The ISO declared on camera is JPEG-based (distance travelled). DxO is reporting rpm (Saturation-based ISO). They're fairly directly related but there's no expectation of a single absolute connection.

Pointing out that Canon and Nikon use one wheel size and that others don't doesn't mean the rest are cheating. It might just mean you don't understand the connection between rpm and distance travelled.

To complicate the picture, the distance travelled by Fujifilm is not the same as their declaration would suggest, but it turns out the ISO standard is unhelpfully loose and allows this. But while you conflate this result with the distance/rpm difference, you're going to draw the wrong conclusion.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2016 at 19:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: My opinion is that no award for the Fujifilm X-E2S after the X-E1 received a Gold award makes almost no sense. The fact that the X-E2S is using a proven 16 mp sensor is hardly a reason for no award at all. This is especially true considering that Fujifilm reduced the price of the X-E2S by $300 vs the release price of the X-E1. And it is also a consideration that many of the existing APS-C lenses from almost all manufacturers seem to struggle on the newest crop of 24 mp sensors (Sony E-mount anyone?). 16mp is a great sweet spot for resolution and file management. On DPR, there are only two scenarios where a camera doesn't get ANY award at all: either the camera performed great but oddly the reviewer didn't like the camera (i.e. Nikon V1, Nikon Df, and arguably the Pentax K-01), or the camera just didn't perform well. I cannot think of a time when the update of a Gold Award camera received no award at all. It's time to dump the awards or add a Bronze award, the XE series is great.

We discussed exactly this point in some detail before choosing the award.

One (small) consideration was 'who is the camera for' given the lowered pricing, relative to the X-E2's when it was reviewed. The lower price means we have to consider a more mainstream audience who won't necessarily understand or appreciate the interface and slower performance, though the reviewer points out that for photographers like him, it would be a silver.

By far the bigger issue, though, is how far the market has moved on. The X-E2 was reviewed before the a6000 raised the bar for both autofocus and video. It wouldn't have got a Gold after that point. Since then, cameras such as the NX1, a6300, D500 and 80D have further highlighted what is possible even if their prices mean it's not necessarily *expected* at this level.

I acknowledged in the conclusion of the X-E2 that it wasn't a great all-rounder and since then we've increasingly reviewed cameras that are, which show up the X-E2S's weaknesses.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 19:50 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

JakeB: Pair the Fujifilm X-E2(S) with the Fujifilm 35mm f1.4.

Ignore all the petty squabbling from gearhead geeks on photo sites.

Go away for twenty years and just take photos.

You will have lived a happy and creative photographic life.

No, no, no, you want to wait for the 23mm F2 on Fujifilm's roadmap.

;)

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 19:33 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

KCook: "As a decidedly midrange experience being sold at something approaching a more entry-level price, the Fujifilm X-E2S deserves a look."

$1k is now considered an "entry-level" price??? Gawd, I need to find a different hobby.

Kelly

BlueBomberTurbo - I think that's terrible advice.

The a6000 is certainly better than the X-E2S in several respects (particularly autofocus and video). If those are the things you need, then yes, the Sony is a good choice.

However, a lot of the Fujifilm's appeal comes from what it's like to shoot with and the JPEGs it takes. If that's why you're interested in the X-E2S then the a6000 would make a very disappointing substitute.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 19:21 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: the score seems a bit too high.

Those bars do not start at 0 (since no camera has 0 image quality).

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 18:50 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "Canon doesn't appear to be applying much, if any, geometric lens corrections to its JPEGs, which is unusual."

For an Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic or Sony ILCs maybe you accept to have geometrically corrected images by default, for a Canon or Nikon or Pentax, it is strictly an optional feature.

Call it the great divide...

...

Digital correction can be used for a number of things. Yes, you can use it to make lenses smaller (which is how we suddenly got 28 and 24mm equiv compacts a few years back), or simpler and cheaper, in the case of some kit zooms.

However, I've had conversations with Leica engineers where they've said that digital correction means that you aren't forced to correct lateral CA and geometric distortion at the potential expense of other aspects of IQ. So you can build potentially better lenses (and lenses with higher manufacturability).

They tried to explain that there's little to no IQ cost to this but sadly I'm not familiar with the optical design text book they referred me to, so I've not been able to go off and try to understand it myself.

Ultimately they talked about it as another lens technology, just like aspheric elements or a new type of glass: something that gave them more options in the design process.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: "Canon doesn't appear to be applying much, if any, geometric lens corrections to its JPEGs, which is unusual."

For an Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic or Sony ILCs maybe you accept to have geometrically corrected images by default, for a Canon or Nikon or Pentax, it is strictly an optional feature.

Call it the great divide...

I don't think anything I've said is 'rewriting history.' I think we're agreed: historically you *had to* correct all aspects of IQ optically. In recent years, once processing got fast enough to apply corrections on-the-fly, the option to use digital, instead of optical correction became available but only really makes sense on cameras where you can correct the preview.

It's not an issue of backwards compatibility, though: most mirrorless systems have lenses that do include correction as part of the design and others that don't require it (I don't think anyone bothers correcting long teles, for instance). You can happily use DSLR lenses on Sony E-mount cameras, even though that platform supports digitally corrected lenses.

But I disagree that it's a matter of pride. Conservatism, possibly, but not pride.

Cont...

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 18:11 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

scarlet knight: Does it have built-in flash? Does it come with a flash unit?

It comes with a small flash that clips into the hotshoe. Sadly, although this folds down, it only pops up into a single position and can't be bounced.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 17:54 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: the score seems a bit too high.

Our scoring system is heavily weighted towards image quality and the M3's IQ is pretty good.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 01:33 UTC
On article Rebel in your pocket: Canon EOS M3 Review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarkSpencer: I call BS on the M3 re: battery life. I just bought one and have over 450 shots without recharging. My only complaint is that using the built-in WIFI to transfer RAW to iOS FORCES a "downgrade" to JPEG. I use Lightroom Mobile, which now natively supports RAW, and I have to transfer the images using the crappy Apple camera connection kit.
But nothing - NOTHING - matches Canon for its colour. So yeah, I paid for the EF-M Adapter & mount my L-Series glass. Something none of the competitors can match, or even come close to.

I think you've misunderstood how CIPA testing works.

CIPA battery life figures are a number based on a standard test methodology. Canon themselves conducted these tests and came up with the number of 250 shots per charge, so it would be odd for them to low-ball the result.

However, just like government-standard gas mileage/fuel economy figures, they should not be taken as the number of miles or photos you're going to get, but how that model compares with another model.

If you got 450 shots out of a 250 shots-per-charge rated camera, then you could reasonably expect to get around 900 shots from a 500 shots-per-charge rated camera, roughly speaking.

Either way, I'm glad that you're enjoying the results you're getting. Color and tonality was one of the areas the M3 scored well in.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 01:33 UTC
Total: 3924, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »