DPREVIEW - Sony RAW info
Old 09-02-2015   #1
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,185
DPREVIEW - Sony RAW info

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/283...aw-compression

I never realized Sony was doing a two stage compression on their raw and that in certain situations, they go from 14 bit raw recording to 12.

While I personally have never noticed the artifacts they mentioned in the article, I have noticed over time I cannot work the raw as hard as other RAWs.

For me..not sure it really matters, given I can use other cameras depending on need.. I would think there is enough people that c this as a concern.

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #2
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
 
dcsang's Avatar
 
dcsang is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Toronto Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 4,710
As a guy who shoots, mainly, "people" (weddings, portraits etc.) and has an A7 RII, I don't personally notice nor do I currently have an issue with their RAW. I know this may matter more to some but to me, this camera does all I need and more.

Cheers,
Dave
__________________
I own a Leica and I am NOT a dentist (I don't even portray one on TV!!!)

I have an idea what I'm looking for but it only becomes real once I see it - Constantine Manos

ITS THE MAGIC I SEE IN THE Light, Texture, & Tone
that Intoxicates Me - Helen Hill

My Flickr - it's where I post my RF and P&S shtuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #3
Kate-the-Great
Registered User
 
Kate-the-Great's Avatar
 
Kate-the-Great is offline
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Denver
Posts: 224
Yikes. I tend to push my RAW files pretty hard, this could be a problem for me if I were to go A7.

I'll have to ask my A7 (first version, 24MP)-toting friend if this has been a problem for him in real-world shooting.
__________________
Current Roster:
Olympus E-300 ~ Nikkor 20mm f/4
Canon EOS M ~ Canon 22mm f/2.0
Fuji X-E1 ~ Canon Serenar 28mm f/3.5
Canon 5D "Classic" ~ Canon 40mm f/2.8
And various lenses...
Nikkor-S 35mm 2.8 ~ Nikkor-S 50mm 1.4 ~ Micro-Nikkor 55mm 3.5 ~ Zoom-Nikkor 43-86mm 3.5 ~ Industar-61 53mm 2.8
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #4
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate-the-Great View Post

I'll have to ask my A7 (first version, 24MP)-toting friend if this has been a problem for him in real-world shooting.
Good idea, KtG, because often stuff that's detectable in "testing" has no bearing at all in real-world shooting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #5
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 2,317
Hmmm not good news. I have been thinking about the Sony line as my Nikon keeps gaining weight (or am I losing energy). Hopefully this will be corrected in future models.

Does Fuji compress RAW files as well?
__________________
Raymond

Last edited by ray*j*gun : 09-02-2015 at 13:35. Reason: content
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #6
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 30
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate-the-Great View Post
Yikes. I tend to push my RAW files pretty hard, this could be a problem for me if I were to go A7.

I'll have to ask my A7 (first version, 24MP)-toting friend if this has been a problem for him in real-world shooting.
I've owned every camera in the A7 series with the exception of the A7r, and I don't think this has ever been an issue. In the real world other things are much more likely to constrain your output, and if you're under ideal conditions and must push your files to levels that show compression artifacts, bracketing is usually a prudent thing to.

On another note, the A7rii eye-tracking is truly an unbelievable achievement. I can shoot with a F1.8 lens and nail the pupil on every frame of a 10-shot burst, with the subject walking around. As far as I know, no other cameras comes close to tracking for portraits at this level.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #7
Kwesi
Registered User
 
Kwesi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 499
Interesting article. The article concludes that Sony does this simply because that's how it's always done it in its consumer grade cameras. Perhaps it's time for those who are expecting more from Sony to stand together and ask for it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2015   #8
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
sony is not fuji; they dont care what you ask for. never have.
  Reply With Quote

Here's Some Data
Old 09-03-2015   #9
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,633
Here's Some Data

This summer Jim Kasson published a series of data-driven posts evaluationg the SONY A7RII. The link leads to the raw file compression (low-pass filtering) issue.

There are almost 30 other posts evaluating the A7RII covering a wide variety of topics... including performance with M mount lenses.

Jim's conclusions are objective as they are based on statistical evaluation of raw data and carefully designed comparisons of rendered images. Some of the posts are rather technical, but the conclusions are easy to digest.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2015   #10
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,391
Lossless compression is what most (if not all) other camera makers use. It just reduces size of the files. Sony uses lossy compression, it reduces filesize and information. Please mind the difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-03-2015   #11
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
It's always interesting that engineers and commercial photographers are thinking about these things, just means cameras for everyone get better.

But I have always been lucky to pretty much ignore this level of worry.

I always shot images for collectors who would not have noticed if I used a Kodak Pony or a Hassy. Even when I did street work for magazines or newspapers, they were printed at most a half page, I just used a Nikon F because I liked the viewfinder. I could have used a disposable - quality-wise.

Mine's the Charlie Brown approach to photography, it has served me well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-04-2015   #12
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
Lossless compression is what most (if not all) other camera makers use. It just reduces size of the files. Sony uses lossy compression, it reduces filesize and information. Please mind the difference.
Yes. This distinction is important.

I believe the photographer should have the option to disable any filtering of their raw data. SONY does not agree with this principle.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-08-2015   #13
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
As a formerly film-based artist, who exclusively used professional labs, I find too much emphasis on digital raw data a distraction.

I'm a photographer who likes simple apps like Snapseed, rather than Photoshop.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2015   #14
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by photomoof View Post
As a formerly film-based artist, who exclusively used professional labs, I find too much emphasis on digital raw data a distraction.

I'm a photographer who likes simple apps like Snapseed, rather than Photoshop.
Fine.

Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2015   #15
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
 
photomoof's Avatar
 
photomoof is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Fine.

Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
Honestly you got me there, I have no idea what camera clubs were [or are?].

Two decades ago I was just making chromes, processing and printing at Duggal, only showing Cibachromes.

I remember the '80s discussion revolving around Metro Pictures, not much about technical details -- I don't think I ever heard the word "emulsion."

But that's just me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2015   #16
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
That may to some degree have been true for black and white, but where colour was concerned, technical details were pretty much inaccessible to photographers. It was not until the whole industry standardized on E6/C41 that internals of colour processes became accessible to people that were not industry insiders - and by then, the lack of alternatives made it rather pointless discussing them...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-09-2015   #17
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,806
Sony RAWS are second rate, and have been since Nex-5 in 2010.

It's pretty obvious from the overall results that it's not a show stopper. You learn to use them.

But I far prefer my M9 RAWS which push hard with minimal noise. SOny Raws create noise fast in LR.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:38.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.