Tonio Loewald

Lives in United States Arlington, VA, United States
Works as a Consultant
Has a website at http://loewald.com/
Joined on Jul 25, 2005

Comments

Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ILoveAsianWomen: Why are TV ads perceived to have value but social media influencers aren't?

Because there's decades of data showing that they impact sales (exactly how is still something of a mystery). E.g. Pepsi decided to switch away from TV advertising (towards Internet advertising and social media) and sales plummeted.

Social influencers probably have value but it will take time to understand it. (TV ads are still not well understood.)

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1036 comments in total)
In reply to:

photomedium: Great camera in absolute terms but I handled at the store and it's way too hefty for me for an APSC and in my mind it has created the expectation for the D810/D750 successor.
I understand the price policies but If I have to carry the weight of an D810 and pay the money of a D750 I want full frame.

Obviously that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. Just like if I were going to pay for a DSLR and have something as big as a DSLR, why buy an RX10?

Camera heft and ruggedness are particularly important with larger, especially telephoto, lenses, which can vibrate on a less solid mount, and unbalance a lighter body.

That said, it's clear that Nikon grossly underestimated demand for a camera like this, and probably priced it based on expected low volumes.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 14:32 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan Kasu: As a Sony user I must admit Nikon, with it's excelling D7200 and D810, almost become my brand of Choice if not because of a7RII's timely arrivel to derive my mind at the last minute. Even then, if oneone with a vast interest into landscape/ doesn't want petty mirrorless/ has a desire to burn through their cash stash, D810 is still my No.1 recommendation.

If you set out to go somewhere with photography specifically in mind then having a bunch of charged batteries is no big deal. But if you want a camera you can just rely on to be there and good to go, DSLRs are pretty much unbeatable. For that matter, if you see a shooting opportunity and grab your camera and the battery is dead, by the time you've switched in a fresh battery, the chance may be gone.

By the way, I carry spare batteries for my DSLRs… so are we talking 3 A7 batteries or 10? Also recharging lots of batteries is a pain in the butt.

I think the mirror less folks should design their cameras to work well with the USB bricks that smart phones and tablets have popularized — that will probably make the whole thing moot.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

Big Ga: Good info in the review folks. Well done.
One point - on P14 (the lighthouse shot), the D800 shot is fairly severely back focused. This doesn't make a difference of course when one is purely assessing the noise in flat areas, but if anyone is wanting to compare the sharpness of the non AA filtered D810 against the D800 (as I guess a number of people will), then the position of the default magnification box is going to give a very unrealistic result, as is looking at most of the foreground detail.
Check out the shoreline lights on the far right hand side and you'll see what I mean. Might just be worth making a note of that in the text!
Cheers.

Couldn't you simply add a naked lightbulb and a mirrored ball to your studio test scene?

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:48 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan Kasu: As a Sony user I must admit Nikon, with it's excelling D7200 and D810, almost become my brand of Choice if not because of a7RII's timely arrivel to derive my mind at the last minute. Even then, if oneone with a vast interest into landscape/ doesn't want petty mirrorless/ has a desire to burn through their cash stash, D810 is still my No.1 recommendation.

I find the Sony A7 bodies to be very tempting, and IBIS only adds to that, but I know that in practical terms if I switch then 50% of the time when I reach for the camera it's battery will be dead.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:46 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_d_allan: This "Canon f.f. defector" to the a7Rii is always surprised to read posts from people who have switched or considering switching from the D8#0 family to the a7Rii. They may be disappointed.

Especially since the adapter situation for Nikon lenses is much less mature than for Canon lenses.

How happy are you with your defection?

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:45 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

RubberDials: Glad the 810 'rivals medium format image quality at ISO 64' since it is the size and weight of a medium format camera.

It's enormous. Every time I look at it I think; 'why is it so big?'
And; 'How come it's so big but it still doesn't have IBIS?'.

Nikon doesn't do IBIS for whatever reason. Neither does Canon though so you're basically left with Pentax. Pentax got its IBIS via cross-licensing with Olympus if I recall correctly (so did Sony) so it could be philosophical (optical correction is better in absolute terms, and also uses less power) or practical (Nikon has no tech to horse trade with Olympus).

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:44 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

mmurph: I have been shooting Nikon, Canon, and Sony side-by-side for 7 + years now.

I love my Nikon D810. The ergonomics on the pro body are also much better than on the D750.

But Nikon ergonomics still lag other manufacturers:

1.) There is no "Quick Menu " , that let's you change all major settings on the rear LCD, using only the rear control pad and "ok " button. I miss this from my Nikon D5300, Canon 7DII, & Panasonic G7.

The limited functions available on the "i" menu are all things that I don't change as a Raw shooter- D-Lightning, etc.

2.) Most function buttons cannot be reassigned, or have a very limited set of possible assignments.

3.) The AF mode and AF area can only be changed using the lever on the front left. Along with the limitations inherited from the mechanical lever in their lenses- like no aperture changes in video. Which is why Canon lenses are so much better for adapting.

The best camera ergonomically I have used is the Canon 7DII. I love the ergonomics!

The canon cameras require you to take your finger off the shutter to use one dial, and pretty much take your eye from the viewfinder to use the other dial. They also have randomly positioned power switches. The rear dial on canon pro bodies is ridiculously awesome for image review (and beloved of pro sports photographers all the more for that reason) but the basic shooting ergonomics of canon bodies irk me.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:40 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

mmrezaie: It is interesting that in DP says D810's ergonomics is great and Ken Rockwell says not and he hates it. I do not care anyway since I am amature and this camera is too heavy for me (street photography and D750 is better fit for me) but interesting thing is that ergonomic is very subjective. Can someone clarify if you can look at it and compare it with D750's different layout!?

A few years ago Rockwell decided to sell Canon instead of Nikon (more people buy Canon than Nikon and he lives on ad referrals) so it's simply a cynical gesture. He works out what sells and then helps people justify to themselves buying it. E.g. He knows pros aren't going to buy high end cameras based on his advice, so he tends to poo poo expensive cameras while raving about (surprise) best selling models.

Oh, and he's careful not to offend Nikon owners where he can avoid it, so once you start drilling into Nikon reviews he stops saying nasty things (about the best selling models).

His lens reviews are actually pretty decent.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
On article Benchmark Performance: Nikon D810 review (1945 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorepuusa: I`m a photojournalist for 40 years. I have D800 and I had D200 and D100 and several other Nikons. Why?
Because of Nikon´s ergonomics. That is the main reason pros choose cams. When a pro shoots, he keeps both eyes open. The left eye looks what happens all around the area the camera is aiming at. The right eye checks framing. Together we see a slightly soft area where the framing is sharp in center . (english is my third language sorry bout that.) Keeping the left eye shut means the right gets wet and hard to use. Etc. many reasons.
For me the prism of Nikon is sufficiently to the left. Some faces need canon or others.
Reading these reviews, very little about ergonomics indeed. If one really uses the camera, the more handling means. Pros very seldom talk about noise etc. I`ve never done it and writers never talk about Word or their keyboard.
Couldn`t there be at least one professional photographer in Your team? So the really meaningful things could stand up.

Ergonomics is huge. To its credit, preview does at least discuss control layout and menus in considerable depth. Actually discussing the stuff that really impacts photography (vs technical minutiae) is why I like photozone's lens reviews. E.g. They take a lot of standardized real world photos (deliberately chosen for challenging attributes, such as corner sharpness, distortion, and so on), discuss differences in samples, show fore and aft bokeh and focus transitions, and so on.

Dpreview has gotten better over the years' the quality of the photography is hugely improved and discussion of important stuff improves all the time. I remember when we used to whine about the lack of low light sample shots, now they always take care to include them.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2016 at 16:25 UTC
On article Nikon D610 Review (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: It has a great sensor, however oil leak onto this sensor from defective shutter forced Nikon to decrease price to 1300$. I think Nikon will replace it with D620 soon, thats why it is pushing it forward with hidden advertisements like this one. And Nikon D750 will also decrease the price bec of Pentax I think.

The D600 got people hypersensitive about spots on their sensors, but the D610 does not, statistically speaking, have an oil spot problem. (I say "statistically" because camera sensors get spots on them all the time.)

Camera sensors also have bad pixels (and get more over time). Here's a link to someone complaining about spots on their 5D3's sensor: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00bc9z

Check the replies — all cameras have spots on their sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
On article Nikon D610 Review (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

User8952850599: how do you connect microphone to nikon 610 ?

Using the socket shown in a picture on Page 4 of the review.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2016 at 03:35 UTC
On article Nikon D610 Review (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: It has a great sensor, however oil leak onto this sensor from defective shutter forced Nikon to decrease price to 1300$. I think Nikon will replace it with D620 soon, thats why it is pushing it forward with hidden advertisements like this one. And Nikon D750 will also decrease the price bec of Pentax I think.

The "oil leak" was from the D600. The D610 never had the problem. If you did have the D600 (whether or not you had the problem) Nikon replaced the shutter for free.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2016 at 03:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: EASILY WORTH $1500.

I took the Rx10 ii and a Nikon D7100 to an indoors event with low-lighting.
I had to use a flash on the D7100. If I pumped up the ISO, the image got very noisy, very quickly.
On the Rx10 ii, I pumped up the ISO to 2000 and I did not need a flash.
Almost zero keepers from the Nikon.

Sunset and landscape with the Nikon is better. There is more definition in the details, and the Sony cannot handle the light of the sun. It makes a false ring around it that looks bad.

In Video, the Sony is better. No rolling shutter. It's easier to set, run; and has amazingly fun 1000 frames per second.

I would have paid $2000 for the RX10 or the RX10 ii.

Sony would not have made the RX10 iii or priced it at $1500 if their predecessors had not done well.

If you haven't used a Sony Rx10 series camera, then you literally don't know what you're talking about when you say it's too expensive. You must use the camera to make that assertion; Otherwise, you are speaking from ignorance.

True, but the D7100 has close to a two stop advantage over the Sony based on sensor size, so f2.8 -> f5.6. Pretty hard to find a plausible lens that's slower than that at most focal lengths. Can you name a Nikon F-mount lens that's slower than f5.6 in the 24-200mm range?

(After doing some more settings, the RX10 ii does have a slightly newer sensor than the D7100, and it looks like the D7100 only has a 1.5 stop advantage with noise, so — I guess it's _barely_ plausible that a D7100 with an especially slow lens might seem slightly worse than an RX10 ii in poor light.)

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 18:30 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

kaiser soze: Dpreview: You're really getting on my nerves. What is the point of mentioning the "equivalent" f-number (f11). Have you all lost your senses? All this is going to do is cause confusion. All this is, in total, is a way of saying that the total amount of light captured is the same as it would be with a 35mm camera and a lens at f11. Why do you think that it is meaningful to point this out? I think it is bizarre.It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that matters. Nothing at all. The camera exposure value is the same as it would be 35mm camera and a lens at f4, correct? So it has no relevance to exposure settings, and the angle of view, expressed comparatively, is determined by the relative difference in sensor size, i.e., the "crop factor". So what is the point? I find it downright BIZARRE. You have simply come up with something that you think makes you look smart. It doesn't make me think you are smart. It makes me think you are a bunch of WEIRDOS.

Do you find the full frame focal length description helpful, or do you like having to multiply everything by 2.7 or whatever in your head? Now explain how it's different. Knowing that an Olympus M43 300mm f4 is the equivalent of a 600mm f8 lens on full frame makes apples to apples comparisons easier. Knowing that you can pay $800 for a 75mm f1.8 or $1000 for a 32mm f1.2 portrait lens might be tempered by realizing they're the same as 150mm f3.5 and 85mm f3.2 full frame lenses. This might lead you to do sensible price comparison shopping. But, whatever.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 16:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony RX10 III (307 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: EASILY WORTH $1500.

I took the Rx10 ii and a Nikon D7100 to an indoors event with low-lighting.
I had to use a flash on the D7100. If I pumped up the ISO, the image got very noisy, very quickly.
On the Rx10 ii, I pumped up the ISO to 2000 and I did not need a flash.
Almost zero keepers from the Nikon.

Sunset and landscape with the Nikon is better. There is more definition in the details, and the Sony cannot handle the light of the sun. It makes a false ring around it that looks bad.

In Video, the Sony is better. No rolling shutter. It's easier to set, run; and has amazingly fun 1000 frames per second.

I would have paid $2000 for the RX10 or the RX10 ii.

Sony would not have made the RX10 iii or priced it at $1500 if their predecessors had not done well.

If you haven't used a Sony Rx10 series camera, then you literally don't know what you're talking about when you say it's too expensive. You must use the camera to make that assertion; Otherwise, you are speaking from ignorance.

The idea this thing is better in low light than a D7100 is nutty. What is funny is that this thing is bigger than a D5500 or SL1, and more expensive. You could put an 16-300mm lens on either (the lens will be faster in relative terms), save money, and be about neutral on size and weight. You lose on video capability, but gain in AF. The Sony Zeiss looks like it's sharper at the long end, but you could always choose different lenses for the DSLR.

The Nikon DL24-500 is significantly smaller, cheaper, and has hybrid AF, so that's an interesting option. But since it's Nikon, don't expect great video.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

PKDanny: 70-300 will also be available in May at a price of $1199. Is wrong price.

$700 for this lens.

Sony profit $1,000. Huh.

Weather sealed, "G", nano-coating? Seems like it should be compared to pro lenses like the Canon 70-300L ($1250).

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 23:42 UTC
In reply to:

webber15: Pkdanny....Have you not noticed it's getting rather cliche,,boring,,tiresome insane and completely daft to be whinging about the price considered that the price IS in line with the competition???????

Do you expect sony to give up on R&D costs,,tooling costs,,materials costs,,manufacturing costs - just so you can freakin afford it??.....how about the employees take a pay cut so they can retail it cheaper??....just for you...

The 50 is certainly reasonably priced. If the G is positioned against the Canon L (say) then yeah. Nikon's 70-300 doesn't have a gold ring and is half the price. Nikon's 70-200 f4 (which does have a gold ring, but is also fixed aperture) is about the same price. Canon sells a 70-300 IS for <$500, but its 70-300L is $1250.

Note that, optically, the Canon 70-300L and Nikon 70-300 are pretty close (the Canon is _slightly_ sharper).

If the Sony 70-300 is as good as other G lenses it may well spank Canon, Nikon, et al and be a bargain (modulo AF performance).

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: So Nikon recommends DX lenses with its professional level DX camera (the D500) and then doesn't make a professional level DX lens lineup.

Ok then

To be fair, Nikon has released… um… two "pro" lenses for DX — the long obsolete 17-55, and the new 16-80 which replaces it. So all they're missing is everything else.

@Weerterbos — realistically, the only thing they absolutely need to do is provide ultrawide options (e.g. a 12mm prime and a serious replacement for the 10-24) and *maybe* a light, fast zoom (but again, it has to seem like a good idea over the existing FX lenses). Their f1.8 primes cover a lot of options (and it's hard to imagine a serious amateur preferring, say, a DX 24mm f1.8 for $400 over the FX 24mm f1.8).

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2016 at 16:24 UTC

How are the challenging DSLR battery life? (Seriously impressive camera though.)

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 19:11 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 274, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »