Light theme [beta]
We're testing a lighter alternative to the regular DPReview theme. Both options will stay.
For more information, click here. Don't forget to leave some feedback.

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: 257, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D610 Review (400 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 (400 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 (400 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 (302 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 (302 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 (302 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
In reply to:

Archiver: While the sentiment of a forever lens is wonderful, and the design technology seems to be groundbreaking, a true 'forever lens' is manual focus, and can be serviced by technicians without needing access to parts that will eventually no longer exist.

And/or has solder with lead in it…

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 03:55 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

I've no idea whether Samsung stole any specific technology for their cameras, but they have a terrible record on everything else, and are infamous for simply willfully infringing patents, designs, etc. and simply fighting the resulting lawsuits until the patent holder is exhausted (in essence they're the opposite of a patent troll). As a simple example, go look at a Samsung dishwasher and then go find the almost indistinguishable Bosch dishwasher it was based on. Now, if you're opposed to the very idea of patents — and that's a respectable point of view these days (usually from people who like to pirate MP3s and claim they're sticking it to the man) — then by all means love Samsung. But don't pretend they're no worse than anyone else. The US government lies. The Russian government lies. I'd rather live in the US.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2015 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: I was going to comment on how the USA has influenced Barney's speech when I saw 'reckon' in the second sentence. But after a quick google search I learned the word is common in British English, which is surprising considering it's only common here in the south. Interesting how certain words have uncommon bedfellows.

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2006/06/reckon-and-figure.html

...my old un is all tore up.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

Samsung made Trinitron TVs without paying Sony license fees and simply fought the lawsuits until it was forced to pay (I actually used Samsung's incredibly cheap trinitron clones at the time; if I had known they were stealing Sony's IP I wouldn't have).

So yeah, guilty as charged. I prefer to pay the people who invent the stuff I use.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

If it's typical Samsung they didn't spend billions, they simply stole other companies' work. Samsung is infamous for breaching patents, making huge inroads in market share, and simply letting the lawsuits happen (and destroying evidence when necessary). It doesn't matter if you have to pay out hundreds of millions in damages if you've already carved out market share.

They're probably out of the camera market because the weren't getting market share, and so the lawsuit was going to be a huge loss not offset by having grown a business in the mean time.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/05/05/patent-lawyer-samsung-couldnt-tell-the-truth-if-their-lives-depended-on-it/

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

belle100: I don't care whatever they do with this camera, so long as they finished testing all the "A" series and Tamron's lenses on D810 or D800E.

I find it odd that DxO defaults to showing lens ratings on some random camera that was more-or-less standard when the lens was reviewed rather than with the best current body.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

John_Y: I posted this at a lower level (in response to another comment. Thought it might be useful to others):

If one wants to be a purists, RAW truly does not exist If one defines it by "Throwing data away". The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away". Anyway the Sony RAW process is a result of engineering decisions and trade offs which all manufactures do. It is "unfortunate" that we have the technology and tools search look at and magnify . Based on the amount of technology and efforts Sony has shown since the acquisition of Minolita they are probably working on these corner case observations. Probably not a firmware fix but down in ASIC design/ code.

If your work is impacted by the results of this design, then you probably do not want this as your tool.

'One must still sample fast enough to preserve the highest "frequency component"'

One simply samples as best as one can and stores what one gets. Let's suppose you have an analog sample with theoretically >14-bit precision, but your A/D converter outputs a 12-bit signal (which will also have an error rate). All you can do (with a digital system) is record the 12-bits you get. You can store those 12-bits losslessly or you can store them lossily, but the point is storing what you've got losslessly is *the best you can do*. You're always going to suffer some kind of loss between reality and your digital signal — whether it's in the lens, the sensor, or the A-to-D conversion is kind of immaterial — they're just a system that emits bits as far as your recording system is concerned.

The fact is that Sony was getting a 14-bit signal and then storing it lossily, and that was stupid.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNsZkfh0APB2dX2maSadW0fSlqxozOz4NMzafBf < Check these out, not even one artifacts compression yet.

Strange. I just tried again and I just got a 404 page again.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

John_Y: I posted this at a lower level (in response to another comment. Thought it might be useful to others):

If one wants to be a purists, RAW truly does not exist If one defines it by "Throwing data away". The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away". Anyway the Sony RAW process is a result of engineering decisions and trade offs which all manufactures do. It is "unfortunate" that we have the technology and tools search look at and magnify . Based on the amount of technology and efforts Sony has shown since the acquisition of Minolita they are probably working on these corner case observations. Probably not a firmware fix but down in ASIC design/ code.

If your work is impacted by the results of this design, then you probably do not want this as your tool.

'The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away".'

Sure but it's data you couldn't practically store. Storing analog data on a wax cylinder is lossy too. Only when you convert to digital is there even a prospect of lossless capture.

Another case where cameras mess with data before storing "RAW" files is mapping out hot pixels (actually I'm not sure if they do it in the camera, or pass the hot pixel data in the RAW file for the RAW converter to use; the latter would be "purer").

Anyhow, the point is kind of moot since Sony just announced they're fixing the issue in firmware (in the A7R ii and the A7S ii at any rate).

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNsZkfh0APB2dX2maSadW0fSlqxozOz4NMzafBf < Check these out, not even one artifacts compression yet.

Indeed, the 404 page renders perfectly.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 04:31 UTC
Total: 257, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »