Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4815, showing: 961 – 980
« First‹ Previous4748495051Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Pretty balanced article, but there are two points that I think could have been better.

Page 2: "In this instance, the a6300's finder is around 20% larger than that of the Canon. Its fast refresh means it's better able to help you follow the action than ever before."
This is my opinion not true at all. While fast refresh may make a6300 better than some other mirrorless cameras, how could it compete with the natively zero lag of an optical viewfinder? EVFs have some advantages over OVFs, but following action definitely isn't one of them.

Page 8: "While Canon's APS-C lineup isn't quite as comprehensive as its offerings for full frame, it's still pretty comprehensive, especially when you include those full frame lenses that remain useful on the smaller format."
I find this a bit of an underhanded way of saying that Canon has the most versatile native (EF, EF-S, TS-E) lens selection of any camera maker in the history of cameras. Nikon is the only one who comes even close.

- Henrik

I'm not clairvoyant enough to know whether 'No EVF will ever beat an OVF for tracking action' is true. I wouldn't rule it out getting *good enough*. If latency and mode switching time can be reduced far enough, it might one day be comparable to (or less significant than) mirror blackout time.

It's not there yet, but the latest generation of cameras is getting closer. However, I thought the statement I made in the article already implied 'but it's not there yet.' I'll see if I can find a way to make this implication clearer.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Pretty balanced article, but there are two points that I think could have been better.

Page 2: "In this instance, the a6300's finder is around 20% larger than that of the Canon. Its fast refresh means it's better able to help you follow the action than ever before."
This is my opinion not true at all. While fast refresh may make a6300 better than some other mirrorless cameras, how could it compete with the natively zero lag of an optical viewfinder? EVFs have some advantages over OVFs, but following action definitely isn't one of them.

Page 8: "While Canon's APS-C lineup isn't quite as comprehensive as its offerings for full frame, it's still pretty comprehensive, especially when you include those full frame lenses that remain useful on the smaller format."
I find this a bit of an underhanded way of saying that Canon has the most versatile native (EF, EF-S, TS-E) lens selection of any camera maker in the history of cameras. Nikon is the only one who comes even close.

- Henrik

With regards viewfinders, I'll admit it's true only in the sense that we've tested it and shown it to be true.

Like a couple of other mirrorless cameras, the a6300 can show live shots from the sensor (albeit only one or two), rather than replayed images, between captures. This is 'better than ever before' for an EVF.

It's still not as good as an optical system but the text doesn't claim it is. Instead it links to an article where we demonstrate, side-by-side, that it isn't.

With regards lenses, I'm not willing to repeat the true but not necessarily helpful marketing line about all EF lenses being 'fully compatible' with the EF-S mount. You can *use* them but they're not necessarily the lenses you'd want, once you've multiplied their focal lengths by 1.6.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 22:21 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

The JPEG files are shot with whatever exposure is needed to give the correct brightness. This is what you'll get if you use the camera's meter, the histogram or you judge exposure 'by eye' from the image on the back of the camera.

The Raw files are shot so that all cameras get the same amount of light at each ISO setting and are then processed to give the same brightness. This means the results are directly comparable, regardless of what the camera would otherwise do.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 19:16 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2196 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: I see a couple of reviewers including the camera store in Canada have stated the xt2 is more accurate and quickier focusing in their head to head test with the Sony a6300. Richard have you had a chance to compare it to the a6300 yet? Also do you know if Fuji will be sending an update to the xpro2 to have the same focusing system? Thanks

Testable firmware does not exist at present for the X-T2, so I wouldn't put too much faith in any reviews you've read so far.

As it stands, the X-T2 is definitely a step forward for Fujifilm but I'll wait until I know it's final behaviour before putting it side-by-side against the Sony. It may be able to match the Sony for focus speed, depending on the choice of lens. I'd be more interested to see how the focus cases and tracking perform (that's where the performance difference is likely to be).

I believe Fujifilm has said that the X-Pro2 will get the X-T2's focus algorithms but not its level of subject-specific customisation.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: i owned the A6000 for quite some time, then i decided to update to the A6300 this year. mainly becasue of the 4K video... boy what a disappointment.

not that the quality is bad but i was visiting the USA this year (arizona, texas) and i had constantly overheating problems.
and i did not even shoot 30 min at once.
but filming a few minutes, stopping for 20 seconds, flliming again for a few minutes was enough to oveheat the A6300. i was very disappointed to be honest.

There are lots of types of video shooting that don't require half-hour chunks of video.

However, even with the latest firmware, the a6300 can overheat before 29:59, depending on the circumstances. I've never found it a limitation, personally, but it's worth being aware of.

Sadly the a6300's 1080 is not very good. The 4K is superb.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

moawkwrd: Still not sure what is meant by the phrase "through-the-viewfinder focus"...

As opposed to through the LCD? Are through-the-electronic-viewfinder focus and through-the-optical-viewfinder focus different things? Do you mean manual or auto focus?

It's just unnecessary to be that clunky with your phrasing.

"The EOS 80D's auto focus is generally good" would've worked fine.

It's a fair criticism if I've failed to make it clear enough.

If you use the viewfinder on an 80D, it will use its dedicated phase-detection AF module in the bottom of the camera to focus. If you switch to live view and use the rear LCD to autofocus, the mirror has to stay in the up position, so it has to use the phase-detection elements on the sensor to autofocus, which gives a very different performance.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

poppyjk: Several reviewers have mentioned the 80D advantage over the a6300 for videobloggers. The 80D fully articulating screen with live view AF functionality overrides the a6300 4K image quality and possible overheating shutdown for their self video posts.

Part of the reason I wrote this article was to illustrate that the differences between the cameras aren't just their respective specifications.

It's not true that 'the fully articulated screen with live view AF functionality overides the a6300 4K image quality.'

More accurately, it will be true for some people and the opposite will be true for others. I tried to detail the difference so that you could decide for yourselves.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Imagingfix: Nice side by side, but the only thing to take from this is the actual specs. Shooting experience, lens options, manual focus, adaptive lenses (capable on both) and physical size are all personal preference. If you really want it all, then buy both. I use mirrorless for its portability and use APS-C Canon for long lens work – using both system for occasional video. If I had to let one system go it would be hard to choose but would probably keep mirrorless and rent a DSLR when needed. Just me!

I tried to focus on the things that the spec sheets won't tell you. Yes, the preference between the two cameras is personal so I tried to explain how each behaves so that you can make an informed choice.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Still solid: Fujifilm X-E2S Review (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick932: Thanks for the review DPreview. The grip seems like a move forward, having USB 2.0 and the same clutered back seems that somebody forgot to ugrade the camera. Being A disatisfied X owner of X-E1 does not seem a very promising investment.

There are only something like four or five cameras that offer USB 3.0 at present, despite its widespread adoption elsewhere, so I don't think of it as being especially dated.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

HenryDJP: Only time will tell after a few real reviews, but on paper the Fuji XT2 is nowhere near $600 more of a camera than the Sony A6300.

In response to your post, I upgraded the firmware on our a6300 test unit.

In a cool office environment it recorded the full 29:59 but outdoors in the sunshine (after an extended period of inactivity, in the cool), it switched itself off after 16 minutes. So overheating can still occur but its not necessarily a problem, depending on how and where you're shooting.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 23:32 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leonp: Isn't it about time to do some renaming? :
Studio comparison tool / Studio shot comparison / studio-compare -> Old studio scene comparison tool.
New studio scene comparison tool / Studio shot comparison / image-comparison -> Studio scene comparison tool.

I got that, but I'm not sure where on the site it still calls it the 'new' comparison tool. I remember us changing it on the 'Reviews' pull-down, but there's clearly another outdated reference we need to update.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
On article Nikon D500 versus D750: Which one is right for you? (382 comments in total)
In reply to:

NearlySatient: Do you have information on the difference between the two cameras when viewing through the viewfinder?
I'd expect more magnification on the D750 - which means a lot for me personally.

Our [side-by-side comparison tool](https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d750&products=nikon_d500) shows that the D750 has a 0.7x mag viewfinder with 100% coverage.

The D500's is 1.0x magnification with 100% coverage. Once you've taken its crop factor into account, this means it's 0.67x mag in full frame terms, so yes, the D750's finder is slightly larger.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 23:08 UTC
On photo IMG_3724 in the The "S Curve" challenge (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

CQui: @moderator, is it possible to change the title of the picture, it should have been "Follow the Z up the mountain"

I don't think it is, I'm afraid.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 22:59 UTC
On article An introduction to our studio test scene (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leonp: Isn't it about time to do some renaming? :
Studio comparison tool / Studio shot comparison / studio-compare -> Old studio scene comparison tool.
New studio scene comparison tool / Studio shot comparison / image-comparison -> Studio scene comparison tool.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2016 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

DanK7: I loved the X100 series. It seems like the X-E2 v4.0 with a 27mm pancake lens is even better. Similar size, cheaper, more capable, missing only the optical viewfinder and the ND filter. Am I missing anything significant?

You end up with a longer lens that lets in 1EV less light, which might be significant.

Also, I'm not sure I'd use the word 'only' when describing the absence of one of the X100 series' defining features.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2196 comments in total)
In reply to:

st4140: " I suspect that even the faster sensor readout, improved algorithms and more sophisticated tracking will only really benefit the company's fastest-focusing lenses" So now you are guessing at performance with a non-final camera. Great! Why don't you just have them send you the name of the camera and you guess/make up the rest of the "review"?

There is no such thing as a final X-T2 at the moment, so it's impossible for us (or anyone else) to be certain. That's exactly why we haven't tested anything or given a final assessment. This is a first impressions article and I'm hoping it's clear from my phrasing that it is a educated guess, rather than a declarative statement of fact.

Would you rather I just parrot the PR line that the AF is going to be amazing? Ultimately, we've used and tested enough cameras that we *know* that some of the lenses in the Fujifilm lineup will *never* focus quickly. The company has made clear that it made the decision to prioritise image quality over focus speed, when it was designing some of its lenses.

Yes, it's a guess (and that's made clear), but it is an educated guess.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

HenryDJP: Only time will tell after a few real reviews, but on paper the Fuji XT2 is nowhere near $600 more of a camera than the Sony A6300.

@HenryDJP

Although I didn't get the a6300 to overheat during video shooting (I think the longest clip I shot was 11 minutes), I don't think you'll get 29:59 of 4K out of it.

Equally, the X-T2 also offers clean HDMI and oversampled 4K (albeit from a 5K region, not the full width of the sensor).

For two cameras that are almost certainly built around the same sensor, they're remarkably different to use. There are merits to each, depending on your needs and expectations. As we've seen, both have areas in which their specs look stronger.

Realistically, I can't imagine someone that's happy with a a6300 would necessarily appreciate an X-T2. Or *vice versa*.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 18:48 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2196 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: Thank you Richard for the update on video. Exactly this is what I was afraid of: a great camera with totally crippled video AF system. Maybe firmware update 3.0 in two years will have these issues ironed out.

@peterwr - the only cameras I'd trust to AF in video are the Canon EOS 80D and the Canon EOS-1D X II. Sadly the 80D only shoots 1080 (and not exactly the most detailed 1080 we've seen) and the 1D X II is huge, expensive and slightly peculiar in its use of Motion JPEG to compress its DCI 4K.

So, while there are two cameras I'd trust to autofocus, they aren't necessarily the cameras I'd choose to shoot with.

Someday, one of the camera makers will get enough of this right that it becomes relatively easy to shoot good-looking video. That day hasn't come, yet.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 18:41 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 Review (2196 comments in total)
In reply to:

coody: Why not choose Nikon D500 at only $400 more?

They're *very* different cameras. I'd be amazed if the X-T2 can compete with the D500 when it comes to pro sports (which is the D500's great strength).

The X-T2 looks like it's going to be a very capable all-rounder, with great still images and, quite possibly, better video than the Nikon. Personally I wouldn't buy a D500 unless I needed its sensation AF capabilities and I can't see the X-T2 being competitive in that respect (mainly because no comparable camera has).

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 18:36 UTC
On article Still solid: Fujifilm X-E2S Review (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: I traded my E1 for an E2 and updated the firmware. Wow, what a great little camera. Especially like the improved autofocus and the extra Fn buttons. Complaints in this review about the menu are nonsense in my humble opinion....try wading through the menu on the Sony a7. Continual warnings about the 16mpix sensor getting a "bit" old may be a "bit" true, and I would love to see the 24mpix sensor in the E3. On the other hand, 16mpix is still large enough for magazine and newspaper photos of 6x9 or smaller, so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade. In large measure, I have zero complaints. Small, light, easy to use and customize, great lenses, and a great sensor. What's to complain?

Part of the problem is that we've all used the X-Pro2 and X-T2, whose menus are much improved by being broken down into sub-categories. Once you've experienced something done better, it's difficult to go back to the less-well-designed version.

However, most of our Sony reviews will criticise the menus. I can't imagine anyone believing the Sony menu system is good.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
Total: 4815, showing: 961 – 980
« First‹ Previous4748495051Next ›Last »