Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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


Total: 4004, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jonath: Just wondering, the 5D MkIV is the only camera in the default test camera selection with an AA filter, does this interact in anyway or influence the level of noise observed in these tests?

Not as far as I know. AA filters do not absorb significant amounts of light.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Canon has announced a global shutter cmos, but when will it find it's way into dslrs?

From what I understand (and I may be wrong on this), but I believe most current global shutter chips have substantially lower DR and resolution than the sensors used in cameras that do both stills and video.

It's good news for Canon's Cinema EOS range for now, I'd have thought.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

aero1126: You know what would be much more useful? If you compared the rolling shutter "issue" against cameras the Mark IV is competing against, such as the a7r II. After all, the 1D-XII costs nearly 2X as much and is geared for a different target audience. If you guys expand into reviewing cars, I can't wait for the "Ford Focus: Not so fast, handily beat by Shelby GT350" story.

I mean seriously, how is this article supposed to be remotely useful to someone looking to make a purchase at a certain price point? After all, I think it's pretty important for someone looking to make a purchase to see if the other options (being cameras that are competing directly against each other) have a similar problem.

Who knows, maybe this article would have seemed so much less biased. After all, making an article about a single feature about a single camera is going to make people infer that the camera is deficient compared to the cameras it's competing against without actually testing those other cameras.

We compared the 5D IV against one camera that we know to perform well and another that is known to perform badly. This second comparison was done explicitly because: **A** we wanted to show that the 5D IV isn't uniquely bad. And **B** to make clear that we weren't trying to 'cover-up' the performance of a camera whose rolling shutter we didn't notice when we reviewed it.

We you think we were *more* or *less* biased if we'd compared it to, say, an a7 model if that camera did better than the 5D IV, too? (I'm not saying it would, I can't remember that sort of specific about each a7 model in each recording mode).

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 01:46 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: Honestly the more i read about this camera the less i want it!

Bear in mind we've only covered a tiny fraction of the camera's capabilities. Just because some of the novel features aren't quite as exciting as they might have been doesn't mean the 5D IV won't turn out to be a really impressive camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 01:41 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Canon EOS 5D (222 comments in total)
In reply to:

mario loconte: curious the results of the "Studio Test Scene" in raw mode, if compared with the A7S II.

What is it you're finding curious about them? Or do you mean you would be curious to do the comparison?

Both cameras are included in the comparison scene, so you can just select them to compare them to one another.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

However, just so you can check that conclusion, I've uploaded the (lens) AF Microadjust images +5 and -5 from the correctly focused image*.

[AF Microadjust -5](

[AF Microadjust 0](

[AF Microadjust +5](

[DP Image Microadjust -5](

[DP Image Microadjust 0](

[DP Image Microadjust +5](

*The correctly focused image was the one with +1 microadjust, so these will say -4, +1 and +6 if you check the AF fine adjust value in the EXIF.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:42 UTC
In reply to:

That's what we've tried to do in the first two rollovers.

We've only shown -20, -10, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, +10, +20 but we shot all the values but to us, the -2 to +3 AF Microadjustment range looks a lot like -5 to +5 DP Image Microadjust.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

XeroJay: This seems kind of pointless and gimmicky to me. Basically you can now choose to turn slight miss-focus to absence of anything in focus.

"Just because Canon's marketing department states something, doesn't prove that it's not true."

I didn't say what they're claiming wasn't true, just that it's reasonable to suspect that they'd show their system in the best possible light.

Our testing (with multiple lenses, aperture values and working distances), suggests you'll rarely see as much of a shift as their demonstration seems to show.
At which point, if we go back to the original question: 'will this let me correct which eye my portrait is focused on?' The answer ***is*** a resounding 'no'.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

I think we have to assume that the scales of the two systems are completely independent (there's no suggestion that -2 **AF** Microadjustment means the same thing as -2 **Dual Pixel Image** Microadjustment).

It also seems likely that Canon would offer the maximum amount of correction that they could (and that +/-5 is all they believe is possible).

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 00:16 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: some people who tested said it it works best with 300+mm lenses. can you test that?

I've just shot some images with a 70-200mm at 200mm and I'm finding it very hard to see any greater difference.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 23:34 UTC
In reply to:

XeroJay: This seems kind of pointless and gimmicky to me. Basically you can now choose to turn slight miss-focus to absence of anything in focus.

Yes. Oddly enough, the demonstration that Canon gave to journalists makes the feature look as good as possible.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

jam005: Not good at all, you are using still images from the use of a slider!! Record a video and let us watch. Because you are selectively taking still images. How do we know whether or not you may or may not have passed the point of the visible micro adjustment? Here is a video with different results. The proper way to perform and display your findings.

"Passed the point of the visible micro adjustment?"

I don't know what you mean by that. The images, processed at both extremes of the slider's adjustment are available for you to download and examine in detail.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 22:11 UTC
In reply to:

privatebydesign: Really? On close examination the difference between the 5D MkIV, which you call "significant" and the 1DX MkII which you say "exhibits pretty low levels" is minuscule.

The link below is to an overlay comparison.

If Rishi says there's little difference between 60p and 30p on the 1D X II, then I'll defer to him (since the camera is sitting on his desk at present).

The stills from the video show the effect more clearly than the video from the back of the cameras did. Watch the footage and you can see the 5D IV does not perform as well as the 1D X II does. At worst it means that the LCD footage doesn't give enough precision for the red lines to show the difference fully.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Leigh A. Wax: Read page 176 0f the 5D4 manual.

Manual from [Canon Asia](

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 19:41 UTC
In reply to:

privatebydesign: Really? On close examination the difference between the 5D MkIV, which you call "significant" and the 1DX MkII which you say "exhibits pretty low levels" is minuscule.

The link below is to an overlay comparison.

Both are 'accurate' in that both are representative of the performance the cameras give.

The most likely explanation is that the 1D X II shows less rolling shutter in 60p mode, which was used for the still frame grab focused update. The video shows the performance with both cameras in 30p mode.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

Treeshade: Why would DPR publish this test while they didn't do the same with a6300 and NX1?

Well, according to Canon users in this forum, Canon has the largest ILC market share. Most pros use 5Dmk2/3. They would never switch. 5Dmk4 will outsell a6300/NX1. Other brands doesn't matter.

So it is logical to put extra effort into testing this would-be popular camera of Canon, isn't it?

We'd have covered the a6300's rolling shutter if we'd noticed it to the same extent as the 5D IV.

However, being more aware of it now, I went out of my way to include the a6300 as a reference point so that we didn't appear to suggest that rolling shutter is peculiar to the 5D IV or fail to give some context to its performance.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

TigTillinghast: I know very little about video shooting, but isn't the difference in slope from those images almost completely a product of comparing the 5D4 shooting at 30fps and the 1DX shooting at 60fps? I imagine the answer is dependent on whether the sensor reads out faster with the higher fps. I think the 1DX2 shoots at 30 fps as well. It would be great to set the test with the same shooting mode to determine if the 5D4 is really doing anything differently, or if it just lacks the unique 1DX2 feature.

The video at the top shows both the 5D IV and 1D X II in their 30p modes, the stills lower down the page show the difference between 60p and 30p, since they're more concerned about the results from stills grabbing.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 17:55 UTC
In reply to:

mariuss: Why not using dual-pixel technology for (auto)calibrating AF from lens? Somehow like Nikon D500 does. But with dual-pixel techn. why not autocalibrating the lens automaticaly at more different focal lenghts?!
Now, that would be awesome/practical/handy!

That's a good question. Canon filed a patent for such a system a few years ago, yet we've not yet seen the fruits of that.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Jeeeez! This camera keeps getting damned with faint praise.... :(

Bear in mind we're only looking at the peripheral extra features, at this point: we're not criticizing the camera's core capability or image quality.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2016 at 17:47 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

samtheman2014: Is there some way that the test shoots could actually show equal brightness, due to the flexibility in the ISO naming conventions some camera results are darker than others suggesting that they would need more exposure to attain the same end brightness as others in essence you are not comparing like with like . If you are comparing two camera this difference becomes important

Only in a minority of modern cameras is there any significant difference between adjusting brightness through hardware amplification (which I'm assuming is what you mean by 'ISO' - even though this isn't always the case), and digital brightening.

And, in those cameras where these is a difference, it tends to stem from downstream read noise, which only plays a major role at base ISO. As soon as you start boosting the amplification, the role of downstream read noise becomes increasingly insignificant.

Digital correction allows more subtle adjustment (rather than 1/3EV steps), and avoids us conflating any effects of odd in-between ISO systems (where the 1/3 stops in between whole EVs can be more noisy than the whole stop steps).

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 20:38 UTC
Total: 4004, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »