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: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (756 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 35th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (756 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 146th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (244 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 (244 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
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (244 comments in total)
In reply to:

samhain: If the old saying "lenses are the heart of a camera system" is true, then it's pretty easy to see why Nikon is flailing while Sony is creeping into the #2 position.

Nikon makes great bodies, but the only lens from Nikon in the past 10 years that's been even remotely appealing to me is the 58mm, and sadly that one didn't live up to expectations.

The new 105 isn't remotely appealing? Tough crowd!

Nikon's released a ton of compelling FX glass in the last ten years (a solid range of inexpensive f1.8 and f1.4 primes for starters). Its DX glass has been lackluster.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

Antti Roine: Kodak was the leader in photography on seventies and eighties with 140000 employees. Kodak invented digital camera and made lot of patents of the digital photography. However, the bosses believed on the mechanical and chemical film. The result was bankruptcy.

Canon is in the same situation now. Canon has the knowhow, but Sony turns this into business with Alpha a9 and a6500.

Canon believes, for example, on primitive, noisy, tardy and expensive mechanical shutter and mirror. The 4K video is already the standard in TV sets, but with my Canon camera I cannot create media for my TV – this is quite sad.

I really hope that Canon will realize the current business situation - before they will release the new EOS 7D Mark III.

To clarify, it seems to me that Kodak was the brand leader for photographic film, but a lot of people preferred Fuji for color and Ilford for black and white. Kodak was a distant second to Techicolor for motion picture stock. A couple of specific Kodak films (e.g Tri-X Pan) were highly respected. No-one respected kodak's cameras or lenses, and Kodak damaged their credibility in the 70s, 80s and 90s with their consumer-oriented cartridge and disk films, and APS (which traded convenience for image quality).

So, when digital took over, the advantage went to the camera and lens brands, and kodak's only real shot was to dominate sensors, but the problem there was that digital video photography had beaten them to the punch there too (Sony has been dominant in sensors for a long, long time, and was the brand and quality leader in cameras, studio equipment, and media for digital video).

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 03:51 UTC
On article 7 tips to set up your Nikon DSLR for fast use (17 comments in total)

This video could (should) have been a set of bullet points, ideally annotated to indicate which cameras support each feature so you don't waste time spelunking your menus for features Nikon couldn't be bothered including in your model.

Also, are you sure you haven't covered the Sony A9 enough today?

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 03:42 UTC as 10th comment
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

taktak91: I personally can't see much difference in A9 and A7 series.
They both have the same sensor size. Body design is mostly identical.
A9 is faster than anything in the A7 line-up, sure, but what stopped Sony from naming it 'A7 Superfast' or something?
'A9' should have been reserved for medium format camera.

Well it's twice as expensive, so there's that (and 2x premium for essentially identical "pro" models is pretty modest by Sony's standards). But really, speed, buffer size, weather sealing — these are the things you get in pro models, along with high prices.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 05:38 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (504 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardf12: Just for interest's sake, some shutter lag times in AF-S in seconds with basic prime lens and pre-focused to eliminate lens focus speed (source: Imaging-resource):
Fuji X-T2: 0.053
Canon 1DX Mark II : 0.085
Olympus E-M1 II: 0.108
Sony A99 II : 0.11
Nikon D5: 0.132
Canon 5D Mark IV: 0.165
Nikon D810: 0.212
Sony A7R II: 0.212

Weird, according to this review the prefocus lag time for the D5 is 0.039s, for the IDiii it's 0.038s. You're quoting the AF-S time. 0.132s shutter lag is atrocious if it's not focusing. But with the focus time included it's lens-dependent.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d5/nikon-d5A6.HTM

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
On article Sony a9: Why being better might not be enough (766 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gmon750: Kudos to Sony for shaking up the industry. While it is a very nice camera on paper, nothing about this camera has me thinking even for a moment of dumping my 5DM3 and lenses. It all comes down to personal preferences. The Sony will play well in areas where the high FPS comes in handy.

The black-out between shots is such a non-issue. Why that continues to be brought up and marketed as such is perplexing to me.

My hope is that the Sony camera is the kick in the backside that Canon needs to get its mirrorless offerings going.

Still on track to buy a 5DM4.

The blackout between shots on digital was a huge issue until the a9 — on a DSLR the mirror blackout is quite different as the view is latency free when the mirror is down, allowing you to track. In digital, you get a slideshow (with or without blackout). So it's not so much that the 60fps view in the a9 is so much better than a DSLR as that it's eliminated a huge con of predecessors.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
In reply to:

minzaw: Why change why switch ???DPR article ?? Sony was/is an primarily audio company venturing all popular fields......such as computers/cameras/phones/minidisc/games bought Minolta for DSLR tech....

Sony has dominated professional video for nearly forty years. Video cameras went digital years before stills and Sony already had the best sensor tech and a partnership with zeiss before it bought Motorola. Suggesting Sony is an audio company is a bit like saying all Canon does is make naval gunsights or whatever it did before if started making cheap Leica clones.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Antti Roine: Kodak was the leader in photography on seventies and eighties with 140000 employees. Kodak invented digital camera and made lot of patents of the digital photography. However, the bosses believed on the mechanical and chemical film. The result was bankruptcy.

Canon is in the same situation now. Canon has the knowhow, but Sony turns this into business with Alpha a9 and a6500.

Canon believes, for example, on primitive, noisy, tardy and expensive mechanical shutter and mirror. The 4K video is already the standard in TV sets, but with my Canon camera I cannot create media for my TV – this is quite sad.

I really hope that Canon will realize the current business situation - before they will release the new EOS 7D Mark III.

I think it's unfair to suggest Kodak's management didn't back digital. They sold early digital cameras and partnered with Nikon on the first DSLR. The problem was that Kodak was the brand leader for *film*, not cameras or lenses, and even then not known for the highest quality film.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tonio Loewald: "Contrary to popular belief, greater bit depth doesn't help overall 'tonality'; instead it means there are enough available values to accurately describe the deepest shadows, rather than clumping everything into a few values, leading to a type of noise (quantization error)."

What? You're saying it doesn't do X, it does X. And incidentally the linked article shows bit depth improving tonality. Having more detail in shadows is tonality.

What is important is that bit depth subdivides dynamic range, so if you have enormous dynamic range and poor bit depth you'll have worse tonality than if you had the same bit depth and less dynamic range (assuming you shot something within the dynamic range).

So what you mean is that "greater bit depth doesn't help overall tonality beyond a certain point" which is kind of true of anything. Also bit depth that is overwhelmed by noise isn't bit depth, it's noise.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 00:42 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

"Contrary to popular belief, greater bit depth doesn't help overall 'tonality'; instead it means there are enough available values to accurately describe the deepest shadows, rather than clumping everything into a few values, leading to a type of noise (quantization error)."

What? You're saying it doesn't do X, it does X. And incidentally the linked article shows bit depth improving tonality. Having more detail in shadows is tonality.

What is important is that bit depth subdivides dynamic range, so if you have enormous dynamic range and poor bit depth you'll have worse tonality than if you had the same bit depth and less dynamic range (assuming you shot something within the dynamic range).

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 17:27 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

I found this to be a lot less drivel-like than usual. He actually says things like our customers seem to want X so we are giving them X. We have to prioritize. We aren't making bodies smaller because customers aren't asking us to do that.

What else can you expect? A roadmap for competitors to use which osbornes their current product line?

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

flektogon: I am not sure why everyone is suddenly so keen on such, for a long time considered mediocre lenses. Those triplets (3/3) used to be basic, cheapest lenses during the film era. The Tessar-like (4/3) were far better lenses, but the Biotar-like (6/n) used to be far superior to everything else. Do you like the bokeh of this Trioplan? Because I don't.

We just need to remind millennials that in the old days photography used chemicals.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 07:39 UTC
In reply to:

maxmarra: this is what happens when you give everything you can in your product and then u have not much things left in your pocket for your future line up. people always complaint canon and nikon for taking away features that basically cost them nothing to including. I m pretty sure that there are lots of people out there which still using GH2 which is 7 years old camera with awesome 1080 60fps video capability and have not much solid reason to upgrade to GH3...or 4 or 5.
I believe their business strategy cannibalized themselves

Fear of cannibalizing yourself is just as dangerous, if not more so. If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone will do it for you. It's not like the GH2 sold like hot cakes either. Panasonic's problem really comes from never having been an A-player (despite good intentions), and now the market is shrinking.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 07:27 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: My remembered experience from long ago with MMs. They were a part of me, and I hated the tunnel vision, and the blinkered vision you get on an SLR, hated it and could not cope for years.

BUT, in poor light you use the M rangefinder which is one square at the centre of the M's viewfinder, and you nail focus where you need it every time. Zone focus is for sunlit conditions: "f8 and be there".

You simply choose an aperture and set its distant aperture marking to coincide with the infinity mark on the lens barrel. Then everything is sharp from infinity all the way in to where the near aperture mark shows on the nearer distance part of the scale on the lens barrel, and as long as the light is good enough and you dont go too close (I think a 35mm lens gets you 10ft to infinity at f8), you need not focus again.

Thus the Leica IS the best and fastest camera in use, no autofocussing delay, and a clear view of reality as it is.

Focus peaking is great in more cases than a rangefinder. Automatic zoom in EVFs when focusing works very well too. Personally the old microprisms in SLRs we're my favorite (split view in the middle, with the same shortcomings as a rangefinder, with a ring of smaller splits around it.

Rangefinders are ok in some cases and terrible in others (to start with there's only one spot in the middle and it's best for nailing vertical features, so you often need to pick a spot, switch to portrait mode, focus, and then recompose. A sensible person will use AF when appropriate and it will be useful in more situations than the rangefinder.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 14:15 UTC
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: My remembered experience from long ago with MMs. They were a part of me, and I hated the tunnel vision, and the blinkered vision you get on an SLR, hated it and could not cope for years.

BUT, in poor light you use the M rangefinder which is one square at the centre of the M's viewfinder, and you nail focus where you need it every time. Zone focus is for sunlit conditions: "f8 and be there".

You simply choose an aperture and set its distant aperture marking to coincide with the infinity mark on the lens barrel. Then everything is sharp from infinity all the way in to where the near aperture mark shows on the nearer distance part of the scale on the lens barrel, and as long as the light is good enough and you dont go too close (I think a 35mm lens gets you 10ft to infinity at f8), you need not focus again.

Thus the Leica IS the best and fastest camera in use, no autofocussing delay, and a clear view of reality as it is.

You can manually focus a camera with autofocus. Just a thought.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1089 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: This review restores my faith in DP Review. Even less costly cameras deserve this frankness, even if their flaws sometimes are less obvious. Especially in the post truth society, saying it as it really is is very refreshing.

Few people aspire to Leica and, as far as I am concerned, with this camera they have done me a favour. I do not aspire to Leica prices, did aspire to Leica M quality in the days when we only had film. So now, I am even happier with the Nikon D610 I bought recently. There is nothing that suits me better at any price.

I do prefer optical viewfinders but if Leica have contrived to make the view through their EVF look like an OVF even in HDR lighting into the sun, then that would be real progress. However this camera is as heavy as mine without a mirror, so for most people what's the point?

Fair points. Actually it looks like Leica has managed to outdo Sony which is impressive just on its own — including being able to read the sensor at 11fps which is almost as fast as Canon's flagship.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 05:23 UTC
Total: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »