Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 5369, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Review: Nikon D7500, speed and capability (524 comments in total)
In reply to:

Duncan D: to admin: The nikon d7500 is exposed to the left instead of the right like all other cameras in the ISO variant test

Could you be more specific? The shots I'm seeing say they've been given the same exposures as the D7200.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
On article Nikon D850 added to studio scene comparison (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Wolff: why were the 850 and 810 patterns shot with different lenses: 1.8 and 1.4?

I'm not sure why different lenses were used (though, CA aside, there's not a significant difference in performance at F5.6).

Sarah Terra: the shots I've seeing for D7200 and D500 show the use of the same lens and I don't understand your point about exposure comp.

For JPEG images we include whatever exposure settings give closest to middle grey for the middle grey patch (ie whatever is needed to give a 'correctly exposed' JPEG), Raw are shot using standardized exposure settings, except for the oldest cameras in the scene.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

don-bosco: DPReview, have you ever thought of replacing your technical director? It looks like he/she has failed to set-up any reliable test methodology to investigate manufacturer claims. For one, your studio comparison chart is so poorly thought out that it would be ill-conceived to judge a camera based on that. Most of the reviews are done on reactive measures and generally fail to prove anything beyond manufacturers literature or what DxO and Lensrental have in store. Really, you cannot be any worse.

Many of your readers have more to contribute to these reviews than the paid staff. How is this possible?

don-bosco - we haven't conducted our usual AF testing yet, so this doesn't in any sense reflect on our methodology.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: in burst, the blackout time w/o the grip is considerably higher than with the D5 or D500. Therefore, 3D tracking has simply less time to track with the D850. I would expect a tad worse results then.

Using the grip is therefore mandatory to compare the two AFs.

It is another story though in AF.C mode when shooting a single image. The AF point should move the same with both cameras. If not then we have an issue here ...

That's a good point and certainly one of the things we'll be looking at in our testing.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
On article Blackmagic Video Assist 4K review (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

raoulsam: Does this do an anamorphic squeeze?

There are no anamorphic-friendly functions on the Video Assist 4K, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 18:02 UTC
On article Leica M10 added to the studio comparison tool (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

Xentinus: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=leica_m10&attr13_1=nikon_d750&attr13_2=sony_a9&attr13_3=leica_sl_typ601&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.1901382488479262&y=-0.7875705731394355

I looked into it and there was an error with our Raw processing. I've reprocessed and re-uploaded.

As an added bonus, I've also uploaded the DNGs, so you can download them and apply your preferred processing.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
On article Nikon D850 added to studio scene comparison (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

osv: @dpr staff - "so far it's safe to say we've been really impressed. Its low ISO dynamic range is class-leading..."

is .21 of a stop better pdr, at base iso, really "class leading"?? can you actually see that difference in real-world use?

looking at the bill claff pdr data... sony is clearly better than the d850 from iso640 up.

at iso160 and up, the d850 is no better than a 5dmk4...in fact at higher iso ranges, the 5dmk4 pulls ahead slightly.

i'm not seeing anything exceptional about this d850 sensor? maybe i'm just reading the data wrong :-0

Camera: MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV

Nikon D850 11.63 4115 10.36
Canon5DMkIV 10.83 5011 10.65
Sony 7RM2 11.42 5857 10.87
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-9

The difference between ISO 64 and ISO 100 is 2/3EV, which is meaningful to some people (it's essentially the same difference you'd usually gain by moving from full frame to 44 x 33mm medium format).

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 00:29 UTC
On article Nikon D850 added to studio scene comparison (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

osv: @dpr staff - "so far it's safe to say we've been really impressed. Its low ISO dynamic range is class-leading..."

is .21 of a stop better pdr, at base iso, really "class leading"?? can you actually see that difference in real-world use?

looking at the bill claff pdr data... sony is clearly better than the d850 from iso640 up.

at iso160 and up, the d850 is no better than a 5dmk4...in fact at higher iso ranges, the 5dmk4 pulls ahead slightly.

i'm not seeing anything exceptional about this d850 sensor? maybe i'm just reading the data wrong :-0

Camera: MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV

Nikon D850 11.63 4115 10.36
Canon5DMkIV 10.83 5011 10.65
Sony 7RM2 11.42 5857 10.87
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-9

If you can get the same (or better) DR but at a lower ISO setting, you have the ability to tolerate more light, which means every tone in the image is cleaner, something that isn't clearly conveyed by just looking at the headline 'DR' figure.

Max DR (at base ISO) is the main time that a single 'DR' value is useful, above that point, a consideration of SNR 18 (noise level at 'middle grey') helps give a better representation of noise performance.

Also, just on a point of semantics, 'class leading' simply means best in class, it doesn't imply anything about the margin by which it leads.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
On article Nikon D850 added to studio scene comparison (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: Pentax k1 output doesn't look bad compared to D850. Sometimes, looks better, and not only with pixel shift..

The K-1 uses a very good sensor.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 23:49 UTC
On article Nikon D850 added to studio scene comparison (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: the good bright light image test viewing bandwith seems fine ...

but the dpr "low light" image test viewing bandwith seems overwhelmed ...

The images are sliced and created as demanded. We tried to make sure most states had been generated before it went live but there may be some that need to be prepared when the first user requests them.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1203 comments in total)
In reply to:

KWNJr: I did not read all 1199 postings. Perhaps there should be a search only within a thread(?) ?
In “Teathered Shooting” : “Apple OS” should be: “Apple iOS” or “Apple Mac OS” or both.
In “High-resolution Anamorphic Shooting” : “...DCI style ~ 19:1 image, ...” should be: “...DCI-style ~ 19:10 image, ...”.
I did not work as a copy editor, but these things bug me.
In any case - keep up the great reviews.

Thanks for highlighting those errors. I've corrected both.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 18:25 UTC
On article The Nikon D850 could be the only DSLR you’ll ever need (1100 comments in total)
In reply to:

mocshot: Are all pixels /photosites equal?
My old D700 is 12.1 megapixel full-frame sensor (8.45µm pixel pitch)
The D850 is 45.7 megapixel full-frame sensor (4.35 µm pixel pitch)
I can see a use case for the extra megapixels as I often significantly crop high ISO (sports) images.
If I zoomed in/cropped an original D850 ( high ISO) image to the same size as a native D700 image, will it look the same re: colour, clarity, grain etc.
I guess I am asking if the small photosites on the new camera can give the photo goodness as the big photosites of my old camera?
Any one compared this?

If you crop the D850 down to 12MP then it'll be noisier for the same exposure (since exposure is based on light per unit area and you'll have sampled less total area). However, if you downscale high pixel count images, you usually get broadly comparable performance.

There have been advances in sensor design since the D700, not least the development of dual conversion gain chips, so I'd expect the D850 to be better per unit area, even if it appears to be worse per-pixel.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Looks more like WEX took over Calumet

It shouldn't, since that's not what's happened.

The private equity group that already owned Calumet bought WEX [back in March](http://aureliusinvest.com/en/press/press-releases/aurelius-erwirbt-wex-photographic/), and has now merged the two companies.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

Zdman: So why was this not as big a deal when Nikon did it with their 1 series 6 years ago?

The idea is more 'what's most interesting about the RX10 IV,' not 'why the RX10 IV is historically significant.'

That said, this is the first superzoom I can think of to include on-sensor PDAF and it's a technology that becomes especially valuable for long lenses. So, while it's technology we've seen before, we've not seen it applied to this particular problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

Zdman: So why was this not as big a deal when Nikon did it with their 1 series 6 years ago?

Nikon wasn't the first company to introduce on-sensor phase detection (it was Fujifilm, and we [published an article explaining it](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2151234617/fujifilmpd), at the time).

The world has subsequently moved on. Fewer cameras are announced and we have a larger team, which means we're able to publish a video about product launches now, in a way we couldn't when the Nikon 1s were launched.

Please note, this video doesn't say on-sensor phase detection is new, just that it's the most interesting thing on this camera, since it's an enabling technology for a superzoom that's trying to do all these things.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

spunksters: I don't agree with the assumption that 12-bit and 14-bit are insignificantly different. Consider for a moment that the extra 2 stops are 1/6th of a 12-bit camera's range. that's 16.67%... pretty close to 18%, which is the actual reflectance level of middle gray. In other words, depending on how an image is exposed, you may find that nearly the entire bottom half of a photograph's tonality is missing because of only 2 bits. Fortunately that's a rare scenario, but very provable.

As for my personal opinion, the noise floor MUST be accounted for but it is not properly exposed to be a range narrowing factor in this article. But, I won't be satisfied until we're delivering a whopping 18 stops of dynamic range cleanly. That matches my eyes, and I hope HDR displays and sensor improvements get us there.

The noise floor is accounted for when the article discusses the dynamic range of the sensor.

Bit depth of the Raw file defines its capacity for DR, but the sensor (including its noise contribution) defines the upper limit of DR capability.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 20:56 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: "The Mark IV uses the same 24-600mm equivalent, F2.4-4 zoom lens as its predecessor. As, no doubt, people will be highlighting in the comments, this is an equivalent aperture range of F6.5-10.9. This is not significantly less light than the F6.8-9.5 equivalent you'd get from an F4.5-6.3 tele zoom on an APS-C camera. On top of this, we've always been impressed with the quality of this lens, especially considering its long reach."

I can't believe that a DPR author is making the same mistake about equivalency that so many DPR readers make. The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure. The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size. For exposure purposes f4 is the same on a 1/2.5 sensor as it is on a FF sensor.

I've added a link to the article where it makes explicit that f-numbers are used for the 'exposure' way of looking at light and equivalent f-numbers are used for the 'total light' perspective.

From what I've seen, there are more comments worrying about people confusing equivalent apertures and the exposure model than there are from people who seem genuinely confused. It makes sense to include the link to avoid any confusion, though.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: "The Mark IV uses the same 24-600mm equivalent, F2.4-4 zoom lens as its predecessor. As, no doubt, people will be highlighting in the comments, this is an equivalent aperture range of F6.5-10.9. This is not significantly less light than the F6.8-9.5 equivalent you'd get from an F4.5-6.3 tele zoom on an APS-C camera. On top of this, we've always been impressed with the quality of this lens, especially considering its long reach."

I can't believe that a DPR author is making the same mistake about equivalency that so many DPR readers make. The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure. The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size. For exposure purposes f4 is the same on a 1/2.5 sensor as it is on a FF sensor.

I'm pretty sure it's not me who's making the mistake.

Your statement: "The equivalency factor is not about "light" because it has no effect on exposure," is a non sequitur and this is highlighted by your following sentence.

"The light intensity per unit area for any given f stop does not change with sensor size." Which nobody is contesting.

However, if the intensity per unit area is the same and the area is larger, then it follows that you have more light, despite no change in 'exposure.'

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: find someone familiar with pro sports shooting
who is familiar with sony menus *ha!* and Sony A9 sports-wannabe capabilities
send them (him? or her?) out to a pro football/soccer/baseball/basketball mid-season game ...

with this RX10 IV ... placed amidst pro-shooter peers using Canon 1DxMII and Nikon D5 shooter on the playing field perimeters ... and see the best that can be got from it ...
invite other pro-sport shooters
see if any will stumble, fumble, struggle, with it (menu!?) or not (PDAF?) ... (zoom?) etc
or produce impressive keeper (publishable) shots with "good enough" IQ for action

The RX10 IV is not a pro sports camera, so that would be a waste of time.

Also, you'd need someone to spend a lot of time with a new brand before they could give useful feedback. Pros are generally *very* familiar with their primary system, which means they have already learned the menus and the limitations of it.

This presents the risk of established knowledge being overlooked or taken for granted. The foibles of an unfamiliar system are easier to recognise than the ones you've become accustomed to working 'round.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: The music in the video makes it difficult to hear what the narrator is saying.

Sorry about that. We tested it on a couple of machines before we published and thought it sounded ok.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
Total: 5369, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »