Tonio Loewald

Lives in United States Arlington, VA, United States
Works as a Consultant
Has a website at
Joined on Jul 25, 2005


Total: 356, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marc Rodstein: You state that the mirrorless camera was introduced by Panasonic which I believe is incorrect. The Canon Pellix mirrorless camera was introduced in 1965.

The Canon Pellix wasn't mirrorless… It just used a fixed mirror. This predates Sony's pellicle camera which were conflated with mirrorless cameras.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2018 at 18:28 UTC
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (486 comments in total)
In reply to:

El Lawrence: No Fujifilm X-T2 or Nikon D500. This list is flawed, and I'm being kind.

And two Canon mirrorless models. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 02:47 UTC

I think Engadget did a much better job of covering these guys at launch:

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 16:17 UTC as 87th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CanonKen: I like the concept, and this would have been an A-grade project to do for a college marketing class, but at the end of the day, its just easier and cheaper to use your phone. People that are going to bother to carry something around will also want more control and power.

My biggest gripe is how horny companies get over SERVICES!!! Everyone knows services = high margin, so they FORCE services into places customers don't want it.

Draw a Venn diagram. Make the left circle the size of a small city. Those are smartphone users. Make the right circle the size of a shopping center. Those are the traditional camera users. Make the overlap about the size of a nail salon. That is this market. Its going to be TINY.

The right circle is probably almost entirely enclosed in the left circle (most camera users have smartphones right?). In any event, they're presumably after smartphone users who AREN'T traditional camera users which undercuts your argument.

I think it is a dumb idea, but not for the reasons you suggest.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: What we really need is Android (or iOS) on a good DSLR or mirrorless.
Take a photo, edit it with Snapseed. Or, open Pro HDR, let the camera take 2-3 photos and mix them togheter... or an automatic stitching app... or whatever you like.
Then, open FB or Instagram, etc. and share it from the camera.
All from the touchscreen, with a clever interface.
The first manufacturer doing it really right, blows away the competition.

I think you're one step off. Just have a camera with a slot in the back into which you can slide and dock a smartphone. The camera has the sensor, lens, etc., and simply uses the smartphone for image review, processing, and all the rest.

The DxO camera is a step in the right direction but with bad ergonomics and not that great a camera. Imagine (say) an Olympus M43 camera with a slot in the back. No more figuring out Olympus's menu system. Potentially works with almost every lens in the world. Still fits in your pocket (with phone attached and pancake lens).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 16:05 UTC

Fractal techniques did just as well 25 years ago.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 13:59 UTC as 16th comment

Soon we can have ML powered cameras that remove noise, paint in extra resolution, and add detail to shadows. Years ago there was a fractal compression algorithm that could scale compressed images beyond their original size with inferred detail. The compression algorithm never gained popularity but several commercial products use the technique to upscale photos to higher resolutions.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 01:12 UTC as 45th comment
On article First samples: Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 (222 comments in total)

Clearly, Leica has discerned that a market exists for expensive lenses based on obsolete optical designs based on various kickstarters, the continued existence of Lensbaby, etc. Et voila!

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 01:09 UTC as 84th comment
In reply to:

Turbguy1: I wonder what DXO would score a normal human eye...

Coliban if you go out In dim light and take a photo with a modern camera you’ll see color and contrast in the photo you do not see with your eye. Also, if you look closely when looking around in the dark, you can see noise! The sensor in the eye has terrible distortion and resolution drops off markedly away from the center. All this is compensated for by amazing software (the brain) that is constantly stitching and interpolating, adding fake detail etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

Turbguy1: I wonder what DXO would score a normal human eye...

The sensor would do rather poorly. But the processing software is amazing.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 05:11 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: A stronger Bayer filter leading to lower base ISO, which is then used as a selling point?

Maybe they're using something like an enchroma filter. I.e. They've picked out a frequency that we pick up as crosstalk (owing to the peculiarities of our eyes, not physics) and blocked it, leading to sharper differences between perceived colors.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: The quest for unparalleled colour accuracy is noble, for sure, in an abstract sort of way... but perhaps someone could explain to me why it matters when everyone consumes images on phones and computers with wildly differing colour profiles that totally mangle everything they display. I have two decent 27" monitors and even I (i.e. someone who cares) cannot make them look alike.

Sure there's professional print journalism and advertising, but even then once a file has gone through Lightroom who really cares how accurately the sensor delivered?

Sensors of old used to do crazy things to colours, especially highly saturated materials and reflective/metalic surfaces... but nowadays?

I'm not saying they shouldn't pursue it, I'm just wondering whether it sounds much more useful than it actually is...

The color accuracy of recent digital devices is actually far better than, say, CRTs or printed photos. What people are doing to their photos with filters and post processing is a whole other story.

It's like when the iPod rendered most hifi testing obsolete — it provides effectively perfect reproduction.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

L F Brown: Couldn't help noticing the irony in DPReview's reporting of this camera at $49,999 +/- and the re-birth of Kodak Ektachrome in the same news cycle. Just as digital photography is catching up with film quality, a quality film makes a comeback giving hope that photography may yet remain the most democratic of all art forms.

Seems to me like the smartphone has been the greatest democratizer of photography. In the analog days I generally couldn't afford to shoot much because of processing costs. Even when I processed my own, supplies were expensive.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

pro photo 2011: Think of it this way:

For $1700, you can buy a Fujifilm X-T2 camera body that features an APS-C sensor, or you can buy a Sony RX10-IV body that has a 1-inch sensor AND a Zeiss 24-600mm lens permanently attached AND has the ability to shoot 24fps using AF-C. Having such a long zoom range is a definite plus, as you don't lose time and opportunity while changing lenses.

So it comes down to how good the Sony 1-inch sensor is compared to APS-C, although often being able to catch a shot with a convenient setup outweighs sensor size and image quality.

You could put a Tamron 18-400 or similar on a D7500 or EOS80D for a similar price. The Sony will be a better video camera and not much smaller.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 23:51 UTC
On article iPhone X: What you need to know (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: Okay, here's what I really want in an iPhone. It won't happen (because it will kill sales of other Apple products) but here it goes:

*8gb of Ram

*The ability to connect wirelessly (or with a wire) to a monitor, mouse and keyboard and then switch to Mac desktop mode so I can run Lightroom, Photoshop, Fusion 360, etc. A Mac in my pocket.

*Full manual control in the regular camera app (I already have it in another app, but it would be nice to have it as a standard feature).

*AppleTV built in

*Longer battery life (even if that means thickening up the phone a bit)

*Wireless charging (as the new ones now will)

*Waterproof up to ten meters for an unlimited amount of time (take it surfing, swimming, bathtub).

*Small screen on the back that uses minimal battery in order to continually show time, date, outdoor temperature, and anything else that the Apple watch can show in a small space.

*USB port and mini SD port

Charge what you want, Apple. I'd buy it.

It pretty much does all this except the ports (which would make it less water proof) and being a Mac. It doesn't need 8GB of RAM and more RAM is less battery life.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 05:02 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2096 comments in total)
In reply to:

yoms: @DPReview team, thanks for this analysis :) Appreciated.

To my opinion Nikon's real issue isn't OSPDAF but their lenses.
- Wide-angle zooms are old and not performing so well, no16-35mm f/2.8,
- Primes... 35mm f/1.4 has not been updated as Canon did after Sigma released their first Art. Was it really more important to release a nice 28mm before the so frequently used 35mm?
- New 24-70mm being a lesser performer than the former one, 24-120 f/4... no comment,
- Etc.

Now they do have nice f/1.8 lenses. The new 105mm f/1.4 and the latest 70-200mm performs admirably despite steep prices. Well all that doesn't make a great lineup to my opinion.

In a perfect world we would have Canon's L glass for Nikon mount :-)

For people not tied to a brand, It's not about Canon 5D IV vs Nikon D850 (Nikon wins this one, period) nor is it about Canon glass vs Nikon glass (Canon wins this one, period). The real battle is Canon lenses vs Nikon D850. And well, I'm clueless as for this...

Imagine if we had a common lens mount...

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 05:16 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2096 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael1000: I like how you can push the D850 6 stops, and it doesn't take on a magenta tint in the midtones and shadows. How did they do that?

Seems like it has slightly more green blotchy noise in the shadows though.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 05:13 UTC
In reply to:

Stigg: strange title as there is nothing strange about this lens. its a zoom lens, it focuses, pictures can be made. end of story. i used one briefly in the late 70s. it was sharp but a little awkward to use so i gave it back to my friend after a few days. primes were my thing then, so i saw no reason to try to get one. the companies were more innovative then. they had to be to invent AF.

accidental post.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

bertalan: You'd think by now they could make a 10-100.

I don't think there's as much commercial pressure to increase the wide end, and it looks like lens designers find adding reach to be easier (I don't understand optics beyond the basics). Lenses starting at 16mm (DX) are still pretty rare.

To get an idea how much wide angle doesn't matter, consider Canon's crop factor is 1.6 and no-one seems to mind.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: I'm sorry but the one think that struck me most about the samples was not about the lens.
It was the the amount of noise which imho makes it hard to judge anything like lens sharpness. But it was especially the fact that images at ISO100 to 800 were already *that* noisy. Why do these photos, shot in bright sunlight show more noise at ISO100 than the ISO200 RAW images I process from my G81 m43(!) camera in Camera Raw 9.10 with noise reduction OFF? (I did a direct comparison.)

What went wrong? The 80D can do better according to your test chart RAW images.

Two suggestions for the next sample gallery:
1. Use lower ISO settings at least for a part of the images (across the zoom range). The third image with the bee was shot at ISO800 + 1/2000s. That image would very likely be sharper at ISO200 and +1/500. After all this lens has image stabilization.

2. Find out how to process the images so they do not look that grainy.

Fair points, but when you're photographing a bee, camera shake is probably not the reason for high shutter speed.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 03:04 UTC
Total: 356, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »