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

Trundling: TO ARMS, Leica fanboys!!! Explain to us how can a brand new accessory NOT FIT a brand new camera it was designed for? Advanced Placement question: how could it happen in a German company? You've trained all your life for this day. You can do it! Take no prisoners!

Hillary Clinton did it. I mean, she had eight years as First Lady and couldn't do anything about the viewfinder. No viewfinder. I know a lot about viewfinders, and we'll create a terrific, terrific, really terrific viewfinder.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: There must be drawbacks for mass producing curved sensors; Sony released a camera a few years ago with one and we haven't heard anything more.

Let's suppose there are no drawbacks to making curved sensors. Now all you need is to replace your entire lens lineup.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

sapple: 300dpi is pretty terrible especially for a 4x6 since people will be relatively close to the picture. They quote the 9 cents number for the 300 dpi but don't say how much the high resolution mode costs.

You need to see dye sub prints before you make that judgement. Colors aren't made with tiny dots like newsprint or magazines or arrays of RGB pixels like displays but by mixing vaporized inks and then having the ink sublimate on the page as a pixel of the exactly correct color.

When you see an inkjet printer claiming to be 2400 or 4800 dpi it is actually printing a grid of dots that approximate to lower resolution colors, in practice dye sub prints look sharper and better.

Where dye subs have suffered in the past is color accuracy.

I hope this printer is as good as promised. That said, it's still quite small. There's almost no choice for larger prints except for inkjet.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

pacnwhobbyist: This is pretty much an answer to Canon's pedestrian full frame 70-300. Although this one is a tad slower at wide angle but also somewhat lighter than Canon's.

Nikon already had a very decent 70-300 full frame.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 04:19 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

retr01976: So what is the point of the M series existence with a product like this ?

I don't see how Canon's pricing the M6 at twice the price of the A6000 proves a point.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 15:33 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: I can see the 200D as being a great camera to bring smartphone/compact users into the "serious" photography arena, BUT, I think the EOSM5 is a MUCH more suitable camera for such users, as it's closer to the smartphone experience.

I also think Canon make a big mistake in the pricing of the M series. They could take a nice slice of the mirrorless market if they would only undercut Sony etc on pricing.

Canon obviously want to protect their DSLR sales, but (as a 5DS and 5D4 user) I know full well that mirrorles is the future, and I really do wish Canon would take it more seriously, and give us full frame and APS mirrorless cameras that accept L glass without adaptors.

Jim. I think that's a bit unfair to Kodak. Kodak was early in the digital camera market (partnering with Apple and Nikon respectively) but the problem was that they had ceded the camera and lens market to other players (in essence, treating cameras as a "loss leader" they didn't even need to bother with). It's like Goodyear inventing some anti-gravity technology and trying to take over the car market. No-one buys Goodyear cars, and flying cars don't need Goodyear tires. Unless they have the anti-gravity stuff totally sewn up they're not well-placed to compete with BMW and Ford (or Boeing and Lockheed)

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article Hands-on with Canon EOS Rebel SL2 / EOS 200D (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: I can see the 200D as being a great camera to bring smartphone/compact users into the "serious" photography arena, BUT, I think the EOSM5 is a MUCH more suitable camera for such users, as it's closer to the smartphone experience.

I also think Canon make a big mistake in the pricing of the M series. They could take a nice slice of the mirrorless market if they would only undercut Sony etc on pricing.

Canon obviously want to protect their DSLR sales, but (as a 5DS and 5D4 user) I know full well that mirrorles is the future, and I really do wish Canon would take it more seriously, and give us full frame and APS mirrorless cameras that accept L glass without adaptors.

Donnie, I think that if someone moves to (say) Sony and uses Canon lenses using an adapter, they're quite likely going to end up preferring using native lenses (which autofocus better, don't require fiddly adapters, and so on) so it's not good for Canon in the long run. I doubt anyone buys a Sony A9 and then buys non-native lenses to use with it.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

tmy: Very informative and well written article, especially on a fairly complicated subject.

I was thinking though, should we not use the term "physical" shutter rather than "mechanical" shutter? In pre-digital days, mechanical shutters were ones that didn't need batteries to operate, like that of the FM2, OM-1, OM-3, MX etc as opposed to electronically controlled shutters such as those on the F3, AE-1, OM-4 etc which did need a battery.

bit of pedantry I guess, but it all gets a bit muddled....

BTW for me the silent shutter the most useful feature for me in the A7 series, which I've used professionally now for this feature alone for the last 2 years. I have the A7s and the A7RII with Sony, Leica M and Contax G lenses, but otherwise I use Nikon DSLRs.

If you're going to be all super pedantic, you can kind of touch software too… it exists as physical state in electronic circuits.

There was a huge practical difference between electro-mechanical and purely mechanical (clockwork) shutters in the "good old" days — you couldn't actually fire an electro-mechanical shutter with a flat battery, whereas a purely mechanical shutter worked whether the camera's battery was dead or not. After moving to electro-mechanical shutters, a lot of higher-end cameras retained a pure mechanical shutter setting (usually 1/60 or 1/125) so that in a pinch you could still get a shot with a flat battery.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 02:06 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: They seem to be the pioneers of everything despite being years behind every single manufacturer of anything (phones, tablets, cameras & on and on)

FullWrite was awesome except for the crashes :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: They seem to be the pioneers of everything despite being years behind every single manufacturer of anything (phones, tablets, cameras & on and on)

You might like to look into why Photoshop was developed on a Mac (hint: it relied on a bunch of deeply innovative features of the Mac platform that did not exist anywhere else, e.g. When Apple added full color support to the Mac in 1987 it was 48-bit). It's why someone like John Knoll mentioned in passing on stage at WWDC that it's the only computer he has ever used. The innovation on Apple's platforms is deep, pervasive, and fosters further innovation, imitation, and lasting admiration among those who pay attention.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 17:09 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (808 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonio Loewald: What continues to boggle my mind is that there were plenty of "full frame" film cameras you could stick in a pocket and yet a full frame camera that isn't enormous is a revelation today. Sure, the film cameras didn't have much electronics in them but they did have to make space for film and winding mechanisms.

The problem with digital camera thickness is the rear display. Remove that and the electronics behind the sensor, even with IBIS, don't need to be any thicker than the spring plate that held film flush with the focal plane. Add a wifi chip and better phone apps and who needs a rear display?

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

tmy: Very informative and well written article, especially on a fairly complicated subject.

I was thinking though, should we not use the term "physical" shutter rather than "mechanical" shutter? In pre-digital days, mechanical shutters were ones that didn't need batteries to operate, like that of the FM2, OM-1, OM-3, MX etc as opposed to electronically controlled shutters such as those on the F3, AE-1, OM-4 etc which did need a battery.

bit of pedantry I guess, but it all gets a bit muddled....

BTW for me the silent shutter the most useful feature for me in the A7 series, which I've used professionally now for this feature alone for the last 2 years. I have the A7s and the A7RII with Sony, Leica M and Contax G lenses, but otherwise I use Nikon DSLRs.

Electro-mechanical vs clockwork perhaps?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

turvyT: Thanks for the article. I have a pair of questions, sorry if they've been covered. Leaf shutter sounds very efficient, but, doesn't produce darkening in the corners of the image since the center of the plane receives light during a longer time due to the circular movement of the shutter blades?
The second one: Focal Plane shutters can work vertically (like the diagrams used), or horizontally, as the analogue Leica M or others. I guess that horizontal focal plane shutters will be less efficient than vertical ones, am I right?
Thanks again. Cheers.

In fact, since most lenses vignette worse at wide open aperture the effect would be to reduce vignetting.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 18:22 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (808 comments in total)

The AE-1 is an odd choice. Shutter speed priority is my least favorite automatic exposure mode and Canon film cameras are incompatible with modern lenses. In general I'd say Nikon SLRs are a great option because they work with the same lenses (mostly) as Nikon's current DSLRs, and Pentax has a similar advantage.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:18 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (808 comments in total)

What continues to boggle my mind is that there were plenty of "full frame" film cameras you could stick in a pocket and yet a full frame camera that isn't enormous is a revelation today. Sure, the film cameras didn't have much electronics in them but they did have to make space for film and winding mechanisms.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 17:53 UTC as 179th comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosswings: The R&D that Nikon needs to elevate is software, workflow, and communication interfaces. Which means, probably, that they need to move it to Silicon Valley and find some management that actually is interested in photography as a communication tool rather than management theories. You can't solve customer problems if you aren't in touch with your customers, and you can't develop products if you don't understand where your customers are going. Right now, it sure seems out the door.

They need to leverage smartphones rather than ignore or compete with them since the former is dumb and the latter is impossible. Trying to run a software team in Silicon Valley from Tokyo is nuts.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 05:56 UTC
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (248 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovlov: Trump will be out of a job soon. Maybe he can make Nikon great again?

True, Trump will have a job making license plates.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 05:55 UTC
Total: 340, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »