Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 3923, showing: 961 – 980
« First‹ Previous4748495051Next ›Last »
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pandimonium: don't buy dslrs guys trust us we know. This site is getting more ridiculous every day.

Where does it say not to buy a DSLR?

If anything it says to buy the one that better suits your needs and preferences.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 19:17 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Article kind of skims on the cons a bit with more detail (bias?) provided on the mirror-less side.

DSLR:

Instant AF with dSLR is a big deal over the contrast detect of many a mirror-less. Not all mirror-less have phase-detect and I'm not yet convinced any feel as fast a dSLR.

Manual AF is much much nicer with dSLR, the focus-by-wire of a mirror-less does not feel good, accurate or fast as with dSLR, done through the OVF.

Optical finder. Aside from what the articles says about how it feels, see manual focus. Bracing camera against the head when shooting is also a good feel factor of dSLR.

Lenses. More of them. Many (most) with fast AF built-in. And, as stated above, *mechanical* accurate focus.

A reasonable dSLR with smaller APS-C sensor does not have to feel huge.

What the article says is that the mirrorless lineups are not as extensive as the DSLR systems (though they're getting better), and recommends that you check whether the lenses *you* want exist before buying into a system.

Does that sound unreasonable?

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 02:30 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Article kind of skims on the cons a bit with more detail (bias?) provided on the mirror-less side.

DSLR:

Instant AF with dSLR is a big deal over the contrast detect of many a mirror-less. Not all mirror-less have phase-detect and I'm not yet convinced any feel as fast a dSLR.

Manual AF is much much nicer with dSLR, the focus-by-wire of a mirror-less does not feel good, accurate or fast as with dSLR, done through the OVF.

Optical finder. Aside from what the articles says about how it feels, see manual focus. Bracing camera against the head when shooting is also a good feel factor of dSLR.

Lenses. More of them. Many (most) with fast AF built-in. And, as stated above, *mechanical* accurate focus.

A reasonable dSLR with smaller APS-C sensor does not have to feel huge.

rrccad: I was running out of characters and didn't want to run on to multiple comments, but it looks like I cut too much nuance out.

My point is that *number* of lenses isn't a measure of appropriateness. If there's only one lens you need, then it doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20 lenses available. Some people need T/S lenses but them existing in the catalogue isn't a benefit for many others.

And I'm afraid I [utterly disagree with you](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5678273556/) with regards buying into systems because they have full frame options.

As Impulses points out, there are quite a few lenses that the big DSLR makers don't bother making for APS-C users. There may numerically be a lot of lenses but that's not necessarily useful if you have to make-do with the nearest-to-equivalent full frame lens because the companies' marketing departments want you to change formats in the long run (and *still* have to re-buy some of your lenses).

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 02:27 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Size - disadvantage. Smaller is worse, not better, as it makes them harder to hold and harder to use due to less room for a grip and less room for controls.

Autofocus - disadvantage. As your own article showed:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

even the A7R II is basically a single AF point relatively poor AF camera in challenging conditions.

Video - tie. I can and do use an eye-level viewfinder on my SLR for video, and I get to use Canon's very smooth dual-pixel phase-detection AF as well as the smooth and quiet STM lenses.

System - disadvantage. Way fewer modern options in all respects.

Except that isn't what that article says.

It says that the blackout between shots made it harder to catch the moment and that the 5fps frame rate meant it couldn't keep up with a dedicated professional sports camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 02:16 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Once again, the elephant in the room has been missed...
Mirrorless is by design more precise for focusing for one very simple reason: it doesn't have to rely on a flipping mirror subject to imprecise stops potentially causing it to introduce errors in focusing.
What many slr makers try to hide is that the mirror mechanism is a major cause of failed focus shots in their hardware.
And it's been so since the days of film!
With mirrorless, that is simply impossible. Hence why I switched 5 years ago and have never looked back: if my Oly says it's in focus, it is.
And checking for sure in really difficult situations is as easy as twitching the focus ring: it immediately shows me a magnified section of the image where it's dirt easy to get precise focus on. Try to take a shot of an animal through reeds with a slr and then with a mirrorless camera and it'll become very clear why mirrorless is the way to go!

@Nuno Souto That's precisely the level of detail I was trying not to go into when I said: "In fact, because all mirrorless cameras assess focus from their imaging sensor rather than a separate module, they are able to be more accurate and consistent, especially when focusing wide-aperture lenses.'

I didn't want to start discussing the various extra elements (with tolerance and alignment concerns for each) that make using a separate sensor challenging.

But you're absolutely right.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 02:09 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ross the Fidller: "These factor, as much as the vast number of photographers already invested in DSLR systems, pretty much guarantees that mirrorless cameras won't totally replace the DSLR in the near future."

No, I don't think it guarantees it at all. There is still a bias by some towards DSLRs as well as those that rely on a more capable C-AF of certain DSLRs for birding, sports etc, but don't discount the Mirrorless systems on advancing further "in the near future" as they will & if a Company like Canon gets serious enough towards using a mirrorless system (they really haven't been serious yet) to compete against the likes of the Sony 35mm frame (I don't like using that misnomer Full Frame) system then maybe more advancements might be seen (although Canon have ridden on some advancements from others in the past).

If you read the whole paragraph, you'll find I'm not discounting the likelihood of mirrorless continuing to improve.

However, while a proportion of the market simply prefers an optical viewfinder, at least one of Nikon, Canon or Pentax will keep making DSLRs at least in the near future.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 00:42 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

caver3d: Actually, DPR, the question should be "Why would I NOT buy a mirrorless camera?". It is the future. Get with it, people!

It depends on what you're using the AF tracking for.

We're starting to see mirrorless models that track subjects similarly well to mid-to-high-end DSLRs at distances (subject dependent) and are better at close-up with wide-aperture lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 00:34 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergiusbr: Also, some lenses are prone to BF or FF with DSLRs and so the need of an AF microadjust mechanism for fine tuning the AF. I think most of advanced DSLRs have micro adjustments, though..

(And yes, I'm aware this feature still exists in the E-M1 for when you use adapted Four Thirds lenses).

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 00:09 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergiusbr: Also, some lenses are prone to BF or FF with DSLRs and so the need of an AF microadjust mechanism for fine tuning the AF. I think most of advanced DSLRs have micro adjustments, though..

The question is whether they have detailed enough microadjust.

Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs, never shy of letting the user change things (for better or worse), used to let you apply a different value for each focus point and for each extent of the lens, when you've got a zoom fitted. That level of control is rare and setting it up correctly for the shooting distance you most often use is challenging, to say the least.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

caver3d: Actually, DPR, the question should be "Why would I NOT buy a mirrorless camera?". It is the future. Get with it, people!

I'd agree with 'try both.'

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:51 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Caerolle: Funny, you say:

"Other than the presence of a through-the-lens optical viewfinder, the only other significant difference is that DSLRs have a separate, dedicated autofocus module, whereas mirrorless cameras use their main imaging sensor for focus."

Then go on to explain later why those actually *are* significant. So, which is it?

Both systems have serious advantages and disadvantages relative to each other, and those tend to be almost exact opposites: What one is good at, the other sucks at, and the reverse. Too bad noone yet has been able to make something that it is better than both the current approaches. Maybe in 10 or 20 years, if cameras are still a thing then.

I highlight the two significant differences and then explain *why* they're significant. I don't understand your '*which is it*' comment.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:45 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Serious Sam: I had three mirrorless before I brought my first Nikon. I don’t know about expensive model like A7Rii but I can guarantee you 100% that my D5500 focus faster and more accurate than my A6000 and X-T1. If you are just playing mirrorless is ok, just bot for people that is doing a job. DSLR is still the way to go.

Then there is the “system” cost issue. In Australia I can get a D610 +2 Tamron 2.8 zooms for just over 3.5K. Now try that with an A7, there is no 2.8 zooms and the primes cost an arm and leg. To compare this direct, A D610 + the three 1.8 primes will cost just under 3K AU$. Try that with an A7, You will have a body and a 1.8 lens then your budget is almost gone.

Finally noise performance, if we look at DPR studio test scene, on a equivalent priced model comparison, Nikon is doing way better even they often have the same or similar Sony sensor. Yes A7S and A7Sii is exceptional but apart from those two, the others are really so so in terms of high ISO performance.

"I can guarantee you 100% that my D5500 focus faster and more accurate than my A6000 and X-T1."

That doesn't match the results of our testing. There are a lot of factors involved in AF (lens/body combination, light level, contrast level of subject, AF-S vs AF-C etc), but I don't believe your statement stands as a general case.

Not least because *accuracy* isn't a great DSLR strong point, especially with bright lenses and worse still on models without AF fine tune.

You're right, Sony's lens lineup is currently small and very expensive, but that's arguably a Sony issue, not a mirrorless one.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:42 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Article kind of skims on the cons a bit with more detail (bias?) provided on the mirror-less side.

DSLR:

Instant AF with dSLR is a big deal over the contrast detect of many a mirror-less. Not all mirror-less have phase-detect and I'm not yet convinced any feel as fast a dSLR.

Manual AF is much much nicer with dSLR, the focus-by-wire of a mirror-less does not feel good, accurate or fast as with dSLR, done through the OVF.

Optical finder. Aside from what the articles says about how it feels, see manual focus. Bracing camera against the head when shooting is also a good feel factor of dSLR.

Lenses. More of them. Many (most) with fast AF built-in. And, as stated above, *mechanical* accurate focus.

A reasonable dSLR with smaller APS-C sensor does not have to feel huge.

This is an article about mirrorless, so it does have more information about mirrorless than about DSLR.

Most mirrorless cameras will single AF as fast or faster than most DSLRs. Obviously there are camera+lens combinations that don't fit that generalisation but it's true as a general case. The article points out that not all current mirrorless cameras have PDAF and to check reviews of specific models.

Manual focus (beyond the scope of this article) *can* be better with a DSLR but most DSLRs are autofocus APS-C cameras which aren't exactly great. Magnified live view is slower but more accurate.

There are lots of mirrorless cameras with EVFs that you brace against your head.

*More* lenses sounds great (and is mentioned in the article) but if you don't need a tilt-shift, then their existence in the lineup is irrelevant. Conversely if you want an affordable, fast-ish 35 or 90mm equivalent for your APS-C DSLR... There's a reason the article says 'check the lenses you want are available'

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:37 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

MtnBikerCalif: Lenses can be built smaller/cheaper
because some distortions can be taken care by the image processor. In a DSLR the distortion would be unacceptable while looking through the lens.

Or, to put it another way, MtbBikerCalif is [absolutely correct](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5653763779/a-distorted-view-in-camera-distortion-correction) - I was just trying not to get into that level of fine detail (especially as it's not true of *all* lenses for mirrorless, meaning even more caveats and qualifications).

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

MtnBikerCalif: Lenses can be built smaller/cheaper
because some distortions can be taken care by the image processor. In a DSLR the distortion would be unacceptable while looking through the lens.

Don't mistake the inclusion of digital correction for a lens being 'under-designed.'

Trying to optically correct all aspects of a lens very quickly adds weight, complexity and cost (not just of the materials but of trying to consistently manufacture a more complex design). Furthermore, correcting one property can be a trade-off with others.

If (as optical engineers from Leica have told me) digital correction of lateral CA and distortion have minimal impact on image quality but allow other aspects to be better corrected or the lens to be made smaller and more affordable, then that doesn't sound so bad. Adding more, and more complex, glass elements isn't always the best solution.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:01 UTC
On article Primer: Why would I buy a mirrorless camera? (563 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: You should have written this a few years ago.

Funny you should say that. This article replaces [one that we wrote four years ago](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-camera-buying-guide) and updated two years ago.

We felt things had moved on so far that it was better to write a whole new guide than try to further update the older one.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

Goodmeme: Anyone remember jpeg 2000? The only time I've ever used it is indirectly through a web printing service that converted my files then uploaded them. I imagine this will have similar applications, but it will be almost impossible to replace or even match jpeg.

The whole point is that this /is/ JPEG, so is immediately usable.

The only difference is that this is compressed in a context-aware manner, with lower compression in parts of the image with more detail.

It doesn't require anyone else to change around you, since you're still using the standard format.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 19:06 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Supernova1510: I like the idea of mirrorless compact camera. After all, I used live view for quite some time in the beginning. But ever since I tried mirror, I forgot about LV button almost completely. It might sound really dumb and the professionals might tear me apart for that, but there is something in looking at the world before you take a shot exactly as it is, not through the digital screen. Mirror removes digital filter from your perception. There is something really nice in that. And, while the lag of lv can be fixed in the future, digital filter will always be in your way. If it makes any sense.

It makes sense (and a lot of people feel that way), but bear in mind that a 'digital filter' will be applied to all of your images. Being able to preview the effect of that can be useful, too.

Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that live view on a DSLR is the same as the experience of using a camera designed around an EVF. It should be, but it's usually a much less fluid experience.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 19:44 UTC
In reply to:

Jorginho: In the Leica part..It is not "Lecia" but "Leica". Typo...

Thanks for pointing that out. It should now be corrected.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ktrphoto: Is dpreview sponsored by Sony.

Mirrorless is NOT taking over ... at least not in the short term ... although that seems to be what bloggers and reviewers all over the Internet would like you to think, judging by the noise they make about it.

Instead of looking at % increase/decrease in sales look at the actual numbers of DSLRs and Mirrorless sales.

I also don't think we've said that Mirrorless is taking over.

Mirrorless is where the interesting things are going on: advances in areas such as video that DSLRs aren't great at and improvements in areas such as C-AF that DSLRs have traditionally dominated. However, we're not blind to some of the shortcomings that some/many models have, and try to make those clear in our reviews.

However, while you're right that current sales trends don't tell the whole story (because you can't assume those trends will continue forever - it seems likely that DSLR and Mirrorless will co-exist at some level for the foreseeable future, rather than one replacing the other), absolute sales volumes tell you almost nothing useful beyond the fact that DSLRs are pretty entrenched.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2015 at 20:58 UTC
Total: 3923, showing: 961 – 980
« First‹ Previous4748495051Next ›Last »