Tonio Loewald

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

Tonio Loewald: It seems to me that "shoot to the right" was more useful in the film era — film has ludicrous (almost infinite) over-exposure latitude (it's not practical to recover it without some kind of high tech enlarger, but I read somewhere it's in the neighborhood of 22-stops). These days, certainly at lower ISOs, it's often advisable to somewhat under-expose lest you accidentally blow out small highlights that aren't apparent in your histogram.

The problem with ETTR is that looking at a histogram on a small LCD is often misleading and you won't realize you've blown a highlight. Indeed, I prefer to slightly underexpose in a lot of cases (and I'm hardly alone in this -- e.g. "Expose to the right is a bunch of bull" http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html).

Yes, it's great if you *know* you're not clipping, but many of the most interesting photographs feature huge dynamic range and you can't get those blown highlights back — you can clean up noise in deep shadow.

If the hump of your histogram is on the right then the chances are VERY high you have blown highlights, even if you don't see a spike in the histogram.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 03:26 UTC
On Nikon D7200 First Impressions Review preview (1004 comments in total)
In reply to:

tecnoworld: When pushing iso 100 (especially at +5 or +6), I personally prefer how nx1 retains colors and detail. Probably d7200 has a tad less luminance noise, but the color cast is reddish.

The color cast is reddish at +0EV, so I think that's something to do with the RAW conversion and not a problem with the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 23:56 UTC

It seems to me that "shoot to the right" was more useful in the film era — film has ludicrous (almost infinite) over-exposure latitude (it's not practical to recover it without some kind of high tech enlarger, but I read somewhere it's in the neighborhood of 22-stops). These days, certainly at lower ISOs, it's often advisable to somewhat under-expose lest you accidentally blow out small highlights that aren't apparent in your histogram.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 22:26 UTC as 55th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Sangster: Would using a bigger light gathering lens to concentrate the photons onto the sensor reduce noise, ceteris paribus?

Yes, but — consider an individual sensel (one pixel sensor). In a smaller sensor either you have fewer pixels OR smaller pixels. By and large you have smaller pixels, right? So if you concentrate a given amount of light onto the smaller sensor you'll be spreading it over more sensels.

The absolute light gathering power of a lens is determined by its aperture relative to the image circle (f2 -> 1/2 the image circle). So the kind of lens you're talking about would be something like an f0.25 lens, which is unheard of because it would be so optically challenging.

Now there's at least one company that uses multiple lenses and multiple sensors to achieve something like this kind of thing — it was just bought by Apple.

http://tinyurl.com/odv43cn (WSJ)

Incidentally, this technique (multiple lenses with multiple sensors) has been used by astronomers to create virtual enormous aperture telescopes for quite some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope_Array_Project

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2015 at 22:24 UTC
In reply to:

Twong: What makes it stand out among other great 100-ish macro lenses already on the market?

Indeed, the only reason to buy, say, the Nikon or Canon equivalent over the Tokina is VR.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Twong: What makes it stand out among other great 100-ish macro lenses already on the market?

The tokina 100mm (corrected!) macro is highly regarded, has an aperture ring, supports autofocus, and costs less.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you are a heavy user, the Google Cloud could cost you several hundred dollars a year. So $11.99 a year looks like a great deal.

Of course, the big problem with cloud storage is every contract has lots of fine print that no one bothers to read. You could sign up, store all your files there, and discover that they have the right to increase their prices anything they want to. Or the service could be sold to someone else, or mined for personal information to sell.

117 million Radio Shack customers are now wondering why Radio Shack is auctioning off their personal information.

OK they need to update their product information page then. OneDrive does sound like a pretty good deal, and if it has decent upload speed it's even better (early users are complaining about CloudDrive's upload speeds).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 16:17 UTC
On X-Transformed? Fujifilm X30 Review article (323 comments in total)
In reply to:

2eyesee: Can someone please explain to me why people find these retro designs appealing? Am I just not 'old school' enough (I got into photography about 15 years ago)?

In answer to the original question: by the time digital photography came along camera design was very refined and the ergonomics of cameras were excellent. Digital cameras aren't, in general, designed for ergonomics but to be small and cheap.

If you look at DSLRs, even the non-retro cameras have, essentially, retro controls (cheap SLRs had few controls and shooting modes, expensive SLRs had more controls with direct access to underlying functionality) — this is why Nikon's Df is so silly.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2015 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: If you are a heavy user, the Google Cloud could cost you several hundred dollars a year. So $11.99 a year looks like a great deal.

Of course, the big problem with cloud storage is every contract has lots of fine print that no one bothers to read. You could sign up, store all your files there, and discover that they have the right to increase their prices anything they want to. Or the service could be sold to someone else, or mined for personal information to sell.

117 million Radio Shack customers are now wondering why Radio Shack is auctioning off their personal information.

This might be true if OneDrive were unlimited but, at least according to the OneDrive website it's limited to 1TB.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 23:48 UTC
On Aloha! We go shooting with Samsung's new NX500 article (186 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonio Loewald: The ISO 2000 shots look awful. For comparison I looked for another recently reviewed camera's sample shots and tried the OM-D EM-5II — which looks better at ISO6400 than the Samsung does at 2000 (and with a smaller sensor).

It's impressive that Samsung is building out its own camera platform from top-to-bottom (sensors, bodies, lenses) — something only Canon and Sony really match — but at least for now they seem to continue to be lagging Sony in sensor tech. (The OM-D is using a Sony sensor AFAIK.)

@ChuckTa: It is a shame that samples don't include consistently lit scenes, so we'll have to wait for the full review, but the Olympus high ISO scenes all look FAR better than the Samsung high ISO scenes (and DxO's scores also show Olympus doing very well lately — within a stop of the excellent 16MP sensors used extensively by Fuji and Nikon — and Samsung not so much).

@Mike99999: are you sure about that? If so, Panasonic is either fabbing a Sony design under license (entirely possible) or their sensor tech has improved spectacularly.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 17, 2015 at 23:55 UTC
On Aloha! We go shooting with Samsung's new NX500 article (186 comments in total)

The ISO 2000 shots look awful. For comparison I looked for another recently reviewed camera's sample shots and tried the OM-D EM-5II — which looks better at ISO6400 than the Samsung does at 2000 (and with a smaller sensor).

It's impressive that Samsung is building out its own camera platform from top-to-bottom (sensors, bodies, lenses) — something only Canon and Sony really match — but at least for now they seem to continue to be lagging Sony in sensor tech. (The OM-D is using a Sony sensor AFAIK.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2015 at 23:55 UTC as 22nd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Roger Cicala from LenRentals tested the two lenses on a $200,000 Optical Bench and came up with similar results. Said that within the focal range of the Nikon, the Tamron performed essentially as well. He measured at 15 and at 23 and came away just as impressed. Bear in mind he used five copies of each lens, and was averaging the results.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

He makes a bunch of different comparison statements that are all along similar lines, but in a nut, at 15mm-ish the lenses are very close. My (minor) issue is that the Nikon is likely optimized for 14mm, not 15.7mm or whatever the actual minimum focal length of the Tamron is, so the comparison is a bit unfair to the Nikon. (Similarly, the new Canon lens goes wider still, and comparing the Canon at 15-16mm would be even more unfair.)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Roger Cicala from LenRentals tested the two lenses on a $200,000 Optical Bench and came up with similar results. Said that within the focal range of the Nikon, the Tamron performed essentially as well. He measured at 15 and at 23 and came away just as impressed. Bear in mind he used five copies of each lens, and was averaging the results.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/just-the-lenses-tamron-15-30mm-f2-8

The big difference in Cicala's review is that he compares the Nikon at 14mm to the Tamron at "15mm" and finds the Nikon to be sharper except at the extreme corners. I imagine the Nikon is optimized for performance at 14mm, not 15.7mm or whatever matches the Tamron wide open.

Even so, it's a very impressive looking lens.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 13:54 UTC
In reply to:

Toccata47: I read through this with the impression there was a price gap between these two. While the tamron might be $200 less initially, it won't hold value as well and it won't have the same level of support.

Big deal.

According to Nikon:

"Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension*."

I can't speak to whether one or the other warranty is more or less excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

Gregm61: I do not even like a 28mm equivalent as my widest option, so why would I want even less? I wouldn't buy either of these lenses, but certainly not the Tamron.

You do realize these are FX (full frame) lenses. Your comment makes no sense.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Marketing is already running away from Pentax after Ricoh puts hands on Pentax.

I hope Ricoh / Pentax hits a home run with this (a compact FF body with IBIS is pretty much the Holy Grail for me). The question is whether it will be built around the Sony/Nikon 36MP sensor. If so, it's probably going to be a generation behind.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 15:35 UTC
In reply to:

Goodmeme: Canon's camera business has tried to change market and product at the same time with its launch into Hollywood, video and the C system.

I can't help thinking that whoever is driving that fairly extreme strategy has in part caused what we might perceive as Canon's disinterest or lack of resources towards its cash cow photography market.

With mirrorless, phones and other technologies changing expectations, perhaps Canon could have done with at least one foot on the ground in order better to roll with the movement. Perhaps it's hard to change direction when you're mid-leap... I'll be interested to see how the division does generally.

Dr Jon — great point. I did not realise Canon dominated industry profits that strongly. The big problem the camera industry faces is survival. If you view your lenses as a lifetime investment, not having a state of the art body to use them with in ten years is a huge deal. It's kind of hard to imagine Olympus, say, will still be around (although hopefully there will be a surviving M43 vendor).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

Catalin Stavaru: 99% of the upsetting caused by the EOS M3 comes from the lack of an electronic viewfinder. If it had one, everyone was raving.

To me, the inclusion of an EVF means a larger camera, a higher price, and another component that could make the camera obsolete sooner because another EVF is brighter or has more pixels.

So the exclusion of the EVF is in fact a very good idea. Those who need it can attach it, and right now it is offered almost for free at Amazon Japan together with the camera (and anyone can preorder via a package forwarding company).

I personally think that the EOS M3 is a winner. The EOS M lens range is small but very high quality and perfectly chosen for the target audience.

The world's most profitable (public) company releases products on a predictable schedule and does not do steep discounting. It's also the world's largest camera company by far. The crazy way the [other] camera companies release products at science fiction prices and then provide ever-greater discounts at random intervals reflects poor supply chain management and product pipelines. In the long run it makes customers alienated and cynical.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 14:12 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2364 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Maybe it's time to test out the new Pentax 645 or something equally high-performance and expensive? The "featured story" being this Canon, which few Canon DSLR buyers will ever buy, is like how mainstream auto mags often test high-megabuck sports cars most of their readers will never buy. So, by "featuring" it and pegging it at the top of the page, it achieves a 17.5% "popularity" rating where more important information on "far more likely to be bought" cameras get pushed down lower. It might be exciting, but it's not particularly important.

"Maybe he means they need to shut up about it? No one really likes the grammar police."

He has upvotes ;-). And moot vs. mute isn't a question of grammar, it's idiom or semantics. (Points being "mute" makes no sense, since points don't speak normally.)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2364 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: As camera makers seem to be unable to decide whether to make high pixel count or low pixel count cameras. It may be time that someone introduces interchangeable sensors. Buy a camera and the user can buy extra sensors that can be easily changed, the same way that a user used to change film, so that a user can decide to shoot high resolution or high sensitivity instead of having to be stuck with one or the other.

How much bigger, more fragile, and expensive are you willing for your interchangeable sensor camera to be?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 14:29 UTC
Total: 247, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »