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: 349, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 (411 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 (1984 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 (1984 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
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 (235 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 (235 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 (235 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
Total: 349, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »