Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 5815, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

Croninfilm: Whoa whoa whoa...14 bit raw AVAILABLE? What the hell does that mean??

It means the GH5S can shoot 14-bit Raw files in stills mode, which the GH5 can't.

Page 5 of the review shows the difference it makes (improved pixel-level DR at base ISO).

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 18:28 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: I'm not interested in a highly video centric camera. But the multi-aspect sensor and different base ISOs of the GH5s should be part of a more still-oriented camera. Too bad the G9 doesn't have those.

Maybe the GX9 will?

Given how many recent sensors are dual gain, it seems likely the next generation Four Thirds sensors will be, too.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 17:00 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mescalamba: I kinda love how main aspect of 14-bit vs 12-bit is considered irrelevant.

Okay, 14-bit isnt anywhere to give you extra steps of noise in shadows. Cause dont kid yourself, when noise is bad enough in shadows its the end, no matter if your camera can do 12, 14 or 16.

14-bits is important for something completely different.

12-bits = 4,096 tonal values per color
14-bits = 16,384 tonal values per color

Simply put, in well exposed areas, 14-bits gives you 4x times more data to work with in post-processing. If you shoot into JPG, it doesnt mean a thing. There is no difference. But if you like to post-process in mildly or heavily destructive ways, then you will eventually see the difference. 14-bit files tend to break quite a bit later, good quality 16-bit file is like made from rubber gum (yea thats why top end of pro photogs like MFDBs, cause if you do everything tip-top, files are super durable).

Continue in next post..

That rather depends on the camera. Sometimes you have to just let the highlights go to avoid your midtones becoming too noisy (essentially why the V-Log L curve chops the top bit of the V-Log curve off).

But I agree we need to get to the stage where exposure, analogue gain and rendering intent are separate.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

capeminiol: "Alexa, start recording"

In fairness, Arri got there first (I think the first Alexa was launched in 2010).

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 21:21 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

I quite agree: it's a really good camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

Deanaaargh: I would really like it if we could include area for all sensors in these types of announcements. especially as terms like 1/2.7" 1/1.3"... do not accurately represent the size of the sensors. Furthermore the sensor area is what is of ultimate significance when it comes to things like DR.
I know it is relatively simple to calculate the values for myself, but it still represents a bit of unnecessary obfuscation to someone trying to compare formats. I do appreciate the inclusion of the diagonal measurements.

That's interesting, I'll have to check who the database emails go to. We're not intentionally ignoring useful feedback. Thanks for letting me know.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

Deanaaargh: I would really like it if we could include area for all sensors in these types of announcements. especially as terms like 1/2.7" 1/1.3"... do not accurately represent the size of the sensors. Furthermore the sensor area is what is of ultimate significance when it comes to things like DR.
I know it is relatively simple to calculate the values for myself, but it still represents a bit of unnecessary obfuscation to someone trying to compare formats. I do appreciate the inclusion of the diagonal measurements.

Venture-Star: I'd agree. It's peculiar that inch sizes have persisted for monitors and camera display panels (though I think CIPA is trying to push away from that). The sensor naming convention is an even knottier problem, since they're not actual measurements (or, at least, not of any property of the sensor).

Vadims: Re: the shortcomings of our mobile phone database, I'll admit I wasn't aware of that. I'll make sure it's brought up in the next planning meeting.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

SomeoneNotImportant: I guess the common (PL)flange depth of 52mm is gone.
A pain in the ass for rental houses.

LPL is designed to be backward compatible with PL. Part of the benefit of it being 44mm flangeback is that this leaves 8mm to fit a PL to LPL adapter in.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

Deanaaargh: I would really like it if we could include area for all sensors in these types of announcements. especially as terms like 1/2.7" 1/1.3"... do not accurately represent the size of the sensors. Furthermore the sensor area is what is of ultimate significance when it comes to things like DR.
I know it is relatively simple to calculate the values for myself, but it still represents a bit of unnecessary obfuscation to someone trying to compare formats. I do appreciate the inclusion of the diagonal measurements.

I think our database always shows the actual dimensions, when known (1/2.3"-type doesn't specify an absolute set of dimensions, but merely a class of similarly sized chips, I believe).

Thankfully the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" type sensors are being wiped out by the 1" sensor (13.2 x 8.8). The naming system is ridiculous but is at least more concise than having to constantly say "it's built around a 13.2 x 8.8 mm sensor."

So long as you treat it as a name, rather than a description, it's alright.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: I wonder... what if that 12Mp was used in a DSLR?
Given the big photosites size, it should have huge DR and great low ISO performance, right?
Who makes that sensor, anyway?

It's a fraction larger than the sensor in the Sony a7S (and S II), so it's unlikely to significantly outperform that chip (which is very capable). You'd get a pixel-level noise benefit at super-high ISOs but any pixel-level DR advantage is lost when you consider the whole image (smaller pixels have less DR but also receive less light at the same exposure, which balances the difference out).

Looks like [Cypress](http://investors.cypress.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=537967) supplies the sensors.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

Deanaaargh: I would really like it if we could include area for all sensors in these types of announcements. especially as terms like 1/2.7" 1/1.3"... do not accurately represent the size of the sensors. Furthermore the sensor area is what is of ultimate significance when it comes to things like DR.
I know it is relatively simple to calculate the values for myself, but it still represents a bit of unnecessary obfuscation to someone trying to compare formats. I do appreciate the inclusion of the diagonal measurements.

As stated in the story, this is fractionally larger than what photographers would call 'full frame.' It's 36.70 x 25.54mm, which means a diagonal of 44.7mm in open gate mode.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 22:28 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

Assuming the following caveats:

A) They are based on similar technology (sorry Medium Format CCD)

and

B) Equivalently bright lenses are available (a challenge for Fujifilm/Hasselblad/Pentax 44 x 33 format, at present)

Larger sensors have an advantage in terms of image quality. That's not brand or format bias, it's physics.

However, blasphemous though it might sound, image quality isn't the sole consideration when choosing a camera. If the 'best' image quality also means heavy and expensive equipment then good enough (and *more than* good enough) are tempting alternatives.

Although I am aware that it can offer better image quality, I cannot imaging myself ever buying a full frame camera (or a medium format one, for that matter). But to do my job properly I need to understand the trade-offs involved. But if you obsess about image quality to the exception of all else, larger sensors win.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 18:55 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

eno2: Not so long ago I was helping to design and build a new, larger test chart so that we wouldn't end up testing Micro Four Thirds cameras at F8.

If an image is soft at F16 on full frame, then it'll be similarly soft at F8 on a Four Thirds sensor because the aperture diameter will be the same size and hence so will the level of diffraction.

The difference that would stem from the difference in area is extremely close to 2EV, since the Four Thirds sensor was chosen with a diagonal exactly half that of 35mm film. There are instances where the latest sensor tech (plus better processing) allows some Micro Four Thirds models to narrow that gap: eg the almost certainly BSI chip in the GH5S outperforming the a7S II when shot at matched depth of field.

But, as a starting point, 2EV gets you very close to the right answer (especially in a time where Sony Semiconductor is acting as chip supplier to pretty much everyone except Canon and Leica).

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 18:47 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxotics: "'What is Log gamma?' we hear the more inquisitive among you ask. Log gamma is a way of compressing more of the camera's dynamic range into a relatively low bit-depth file, to allow more flexibility when post processing the footage."

If you do NOT ADD "at the expensive of color information in your 24-bit color space" you're perpetuating the myth that LOG shooting profiles deliver cost-free increase in DR. And it does not "compress". It selects noisier pixel data at the extremes over pixel data in the middle. When people read "compress" they sometimes don't equate that with quality loss.

Clarifying later with the this muddle "so you should only shoot Log when the scene demands it" is not necessary if you're clear in the first place. If users understand the trade-offs in LOG gammas they could make those choices with real knowledge.

It compresses in the sense that it squeezes the data that makes up most of the Raw capture into relatively few values in the video file. But I agree I should make more clear that by trying to squeeze more dynamic range into a limited bit-depth file, you end up sharing those limited values over a wider range of tones (and hence risk posterization and noise).

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 18:34 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

There are other advantages to smaller sensors: the cameras and lenses can be smaller, they may well be less expensive. There's also the potential for faster readout (less rolling shutter) and for better stabilization (since a smaller sensor has less inertia). And that's before you get to personal needs and preferences in terms of lens quality, available lens range, color response, ergonomics.

However, there is no inherent D-o-F advantage to small sensors.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 02:08 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

And, given the sensors will both be looking at the same view of the world (aspect ratio difference aside), through the same sized hole, they'll receive the same number of photons during the same exposure time.

So, assuming no radical difference in sensor efficiency, both cameras will produce very similar images when printed or viewed at the same size. They'll have the same diffraction, very similar noise, the same perspective and the same depth-of-field. They'll have different ISO values in their EXIF, but that's pretty much irrelevant.

At which point, for non-macro working distances, where's this depth-of-field advantage?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 02:05 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

I'm not going to comment on macro distances, since that's not my area of knowledge and I know all the 'normal' rules start to break down as you get very close.

For general photography:

Perspective is based on where you stand relative to the subject. You can shoot with a wide AOV and crop or you can shoot with a narrow AOV, the perspective will be the same.

If you use equivalent lenses (ie: whatever lenses are needed to give the same angle of view), then from the same position, there's no depth-of-field advantage to a smaller sensor. Let's say you shoot at F2.8 on a Four Thirds sensor, you'll get the same depth-of-field at F5.6 on a Full Frame sensor (I'm only using this example because the 2x crop factor makes the mental arithmetic easier - you can choose any two sensor sizes).

And, not coincidentally, the diameter of the aperture in the F2.8 lens will be the same as the diameter of the F5.6 aperture in the longer lens necessary to give the same AOV on FF...

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 02:02 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Review (1011 comments in total)
In reply to:

dansclic: I can understand why film fans would,buy this one but it is about photography here.
Re thé DOf when shooting portraits you neeed a f1,2 mft lens to achieve the same results as a ff f1,8 which costs half the price of a f1,2 mft Lens. This is to be considered as well as noise is present from 800 iso

As soon as you change your distance to the subject, you change the perspective in the photo.

You cannot zoom with your feet. There is no deeper depth-of-field advantage to smaller sensors.

In general there are size and cost advantages to using smaller sensor cameras (plus the potential for faster readout/less rolling shutter and, in theory, better stabilization through smaller sensors having less inertia), but if sensor performance is the same, you can always stop a larger sensor down and match the results.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2018 at 22:54 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (579 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alfred S: "the one situation in which the GH5S does offer digital stabilization: when combined with a lens offering optical stabilization"

So digital stabilization is not supported with lenses that do not have optical stabilization ?

So far as I can tell: yes.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 01:06 UTC
On article PowerShot Shootout: Canon's G1 X III vs G7 X II (251 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ken Prager: A better comparison would have been the G1X III vs the G5X since they both have viewfinders (and very similar designs). The comparison vs the G7X II isn't very meaningful for someone wanting a viewfinder. I use the G1X III primarily with the lcd folded in composing through the viewfinder and it's awesome!

I also wonder why the Fuji X100F gets a pass with it's $1,300 price, but the G1X III is criticized so harshly for the same price.

We do our utmost to ignore who makes what. The only thing that's likely to differ on a brand basis is criticism of UI and menus.

For us the balance of price and capability of the G1X III didn't work. If it does for you, that's great. However our criticism of the camera are based on our assessment of the camera and its capability, not which brand name is on the front.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 00:12 UTC
Total: 5815, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »