Richard Butler

Richard Butler

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

Comments

Total: 4819, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mrrowe8: Instead of this stupid everyone is equal , all get a trophy ,academic look at these cameras .. just give us a bottom line total bang for the buck if you decided on this style of camera conclusion..

That's precisely why we're not calling this a review. It's just a look at where each has strengths and weaknesses.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 17:18 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Too bad Fuji didn't release leaf shutter lenses with the gfx that's an extremely important spec for myself with medium format. Hopefully Fuji will in the near future.

Up to 1/800th, [according to their press release](https://www.dpreview.com/news/3019005387/fujifilm-releases-first-round-of-g-mount-medium-format-lenses).

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 15:21 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Pentax 645Z vs Hasselblad X1D (340 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Who makes Hasselblad glass Mr. Butler?

Nittoh, according to [the interview they gave us](https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2280876023/hasselblad-interview-at-photokina-2016).

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100F Review (744 comments in total)
In reply to:

enossified: Is there something wrong with the test chart results? I was comparing the X100F against the Olympus E-M10 and the Olympus was noticeably sharper at all ISOs, either RAW or JPEG. 50% more pixels and double the sensor area should look a lot sharper?

The X100F's lens seems to exhibit some curvature of field at relatively close focus distances. The lens is sharper in most use cases than our flat target suggests.

(Also, it's not double the sensor area, it's around 60% larger)

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D Sample Gallery (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petrogel: I don't know about EOS Rebel T7i, but this SEIKO SABR033 is one of my watches i have enjoyed most.
A very good choice !!!
😀

I already have a watch on faux black alligator. I wanted something to mimic the look of the black dial dressy diver I had as a teenager, so it had to be on a bracelet.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D Sample Gallery (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petrogel: I don't know about EOS Rebel T7i, but this SEIKO SABR033 is one of my watches i have enjoyed most.
A very good choice !!!
😀

I love the way it can look as dressy or informal as needed. I also appreciate it not being stupidly big, as seems to be the style. An anti-reflective coating on the crystal would have been nice, but...

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: It is written in the AF & Video section "Shooting in AF-C is with either lens is a headache-inducing experience, as the camera continually hunts (as is the nature of contrast detect). Shooting in AF-S is advisable."
The GFX is not worse at all than any other Fuji/Panasonic/Olympus cameras. For video continuous AF the purely contrast detect systems, no exceptions, are totally unreliable and unusable. In this regard the GFX is not worse and not better than the much raved-about GH5, for example. For these contrast-only systems either MF or AF-S is the only way to shoot videos following a sequence of "focus - shoot - stop - refocus - shoot - stop - refocus ..."
Which is completely fine; just forget about video continuous AF (this is the highly recommended "switch off Continuous AF" on all Panasonic cameras, for example), adapt your shooting style, and you will not be disappointed, since the image quality is stellar: the GFX gives you MF look to your videos.

The comments about C-AF are about stills shooting, where the camera *is* significantly worse than contemporary smaller-format mirrorless cameras, since the camera can't drive the lenses as quickly. (C-AF with CDAF gets significantly worse as it gets slower because your subject is likely to have moved more while the camera is trying to achieve focus, meaning the camera can never find peak sharpness).

In terms of video, yes, CDAF always results in footage with fluttering focus.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 17:47 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: Impressed... 3 pages and not yet complaining about the slow lenses and the fact that FF is so much better because it has the fastest lenses and the total light gathering...

We checked this because it's where a larger sensor should have an advantage and, in this case, it does. However, the advantage is relatively small, given it costs over twice the price of a D810.

We wouldn't have given it a Gold award without that difference.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 17:27 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: Impressed... 3 pages and not yet complaining about the slow lenses and the fact that FF is so much better because it has the fastest lenses and the total light gathering...

I don't think we did look at the issue from just one way. I completely agree that low light and shallow depth of field photography are only one aspect (an area where these cameras currently can't keep up with a smaller format, despite their greater price).

However, as you say, in situations where you're not light limited (such as the studio), you can stop down to whatever degree you want and use base ISO. This is an area that full frame can only compete with if if offers greater full well capacity, that allows a lower base ISO. That's exactly what we were investigating and showing with the studio portraits we shot: you can lower the ISO on the Nikon D810 and get essentially the same IQ/tonality by shooting at ISO 64, but you can't get the resolution. Conversely you can shoot with the 5DS R and get most of the resolution but lower IQ (through a combination of less total light and lower sensor performance).

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D Sample Gallery (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elliot H: most samples NOT taken with kit lens

SOS.......tell me I'm wrong

Canon has not been able to provide a copy of the new kit lens, so we've just borrowed one from LensRentals.

We'll be using it extensively while we finish the review.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 16:05 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

rbach44: “Slow native lenses do not take full advantage of camera's sensor size”

Still touting that strange logic that the maximum F-stop of available lenses is indicative of the IQ potential for an entire format. Backed up yet again by 100% JPEG crops and some pseudo-scientific equivalency equations. Viewing the birth of flawed forum logic in real time is fascinating.

It's not indicative of the IQ of the entire format but it is one of the boundaries that constrains it.

The opposite extreme is when you're at base ISO, when you're not light limited. Maximum aperture doesn't matter at that point, which is why the text you quoted talks about the 'full advantage' not being available.

Equivalence is just another way of looking at how much light your camera gets which, at the heart of it, is **the** most significant determinant of image quality. Hence the 'photo' part of the word 'photography.'

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 23:07 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: Impressed... 3 pages and not yet complaining about the slow lenses and the fact that FF is so much better because it has the fastest lenses and the total light gathering...

You say you don't expect magic but then say that MF gives better resolution, big prints (presumably better IQ?) and tonal gradation. It's this assumption that we wanted to test.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

badi: Impressed... 3 pages and not yet complaining about the slow lenses and the fact that FF is so much better because it has the fastest lenses and the total light gathering...

I wouldn't say FF is better, but it's important that we express how much (or little) of a difference there is between this and other, much less expensive cameras. And yes, we will make clear that features such as leaf shutters are significant, too.

However, we regularly see people talk about medium format as if it has some inherent magic to it. Larger sensors only have an advantage if you can get more light to them (ie: when you can't open up the lens on a smaller format to match the total light capture).

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:52 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

To be clear, though, this isn't a huge deal. It's nice to see a manufacturer use their sensor in an intelligent way, since it has a small but recognisable photographic benefit, but it's the cherry on the cake, rather than a fundamental advantage (in my personal opinion).

As much as anything else, we explained it so that people don't reach the wrong conclusion that having a larger sensor gives you lots of highlight recovery.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

OSDphoto: What was the point of the portrait shot comparison? Why did equivalence fly out the window? DPR lens data shows that f/8 is a diffraction limited aperture on 4micron pixels...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sigma_85_1p4_dg_hsm_a&cameraId=canon_eos5dsr&version=0&fl=85&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=sigma_85_1p4_dg_hsm_a&cameraId2=canon_eos5dsr&version2=0&fl2=85&av2=8
...notice how MTF drops when moving from f/5.6 to f/8 on the 5Ds-R...

Also the lenses are not equivalents:
135mm vs 94mm
135/94 = 1.4x longer effectively
Take the 85mm f/1.4 ART as an alternative option...
85/94 = 0.9x shorter effectively

So wouldn't a more sensible comparison on the 5Ds R be with a Sigma 85mm Art at f/5.6 (or maybe at f/5)?

The shots we included were all with the lights set up the same way (meaning we had to stop the 5DS R down to prevent overexposure). None of the F5.6 shots we initially got were both correctly exposed and perfectly in focus.

However, we have subsequently shot the 5DS R at F5.6 (possibly with the Sigma 85mm Art - it's hard to tell which lens is being pointed at you), which we're planning to drop in. It makes the story a little harder to explain, since you need people to read that you've turned the lights down on one image, but we're hoping to swap it either into this page or a forthcoming article.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jivagraphy: "The Nikon D810, Pentax K-1, Canon 5DS R and Sony a7R II all offer 90% or more of what the Fujifilm offers in terms of IQ, at a substantially lower price and weight, with a far more versatile lens selection that, at times, allows these systems to overtake the GFX in terms of low light performance and subject isolation (shallow DOF)."

This sentence is very misleading. Because you would need a mix of all of them in terms IQ...

You'd need a mix of all of them to match the Fujifilm entirely, but any one of those cameras will offer at least 90% of the image quality. The remaining percentage is the situations in which you need the DR/Noise performance *and* the resolution, which none of those cameras can match.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Consequently, when cameras stop analogue amplification, it makes a huge difference how the higher settings are dealt with. If you take the sensor data and mathematically 'amplify' it before writing it into the Raw file, all additional data is pushed to clipping, just as it would be by hardware amplification. If it's simply a metadata tag, telling the Raw converter how to initially render the data, then the additional data is preserved and the rendering intent can be corrected.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

There are two ways in which the manufacturer utilising the sensor's ISO Invariant behaviour is beneficial.

Firstly, it means that your preview comes out at the correct brightness (albeit without any indication of the additional highlights captured). This is no trivial matter: having some idea of what your final image might look like is a key tool and is much more useful than getting a severely underexposed p/review image that just shows the highlights.

Secondly, it means that you don't start your processing by having to push all the sliders in your converter to extremes (which risks limiting your scope to correct the image, since most Raw converters aren't designed with this way of shooting in mind. This is only a minor benefit, since most Raw converters also don't have tools for incorporating multiple EVs of extra highlights, either.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:15 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

OK, I think I understand where you're coming from. I'll try to take this step by step.

First off, let's put ISO\_Sat to one side. It's a sensible way of assessing sensors on a common basis but it's got a tenuous connection to what manufacturers (and most photographers) mean by 'ISO.' As you've spotted, ISO\_Sat ignores what's going on here.

ISO Invariance is a property of the sensor (the degree to which there's any difference between using a high amplification setting vs using a low amplification setting and pushing later). What the Hasselblad and Fujifilm bring to the table is that they make use of this behavior (the Pentax doesn't so, even if it's broadly the 'same' sensor, it won't always give the same results).

We're agreed that 'all' this is doing is making it easier to take advantage of the sensor's ISO Invariant behaviour, but I'd say making such a workflow easier is significant.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: A Gold award for a six thousand dollar camera that won't focus. Great!

I think you've misread the review.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 17:40 UTC
Total: 4819, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »