This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015A7rII rumour
p.4 #1A7rII rumour
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The compression ratio of Sony's older lossless raw is approximately 2:1 versus 3:1 for lossy compressed so there is a little difference (my Sony a900 24MP compressed lossless raws are approximately the same size as my a7r 36MP lossy compressed raws).
The compression ratio of Sony's lossy format is exactly 1.75 : 1 (each 14 bit value is encoded using 8 bits on average). Note the actual RAW filesizes vary slightly, this is due to the embedded JPEG preview.
On my old 5D3 I got anywhere between 1.2 : 1 and 1.7 : 1 from it's lossless compression, depending on image content. I don't think I ever saw it reach 2:1 but I guess it's possible. Canon's lossless RAW is based on lossless JPEG, which is a pretty good algorithm, I don't think you can do much better.
But yes, in general lossless A7 raws would be about the same size as lossy A7ʀ raws, so the A7 can clearly handle the heat.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
"Visually lossless" comes with conditions of course and for a raw file, the ultimate utility of using raw is compromised in certain situations where "visually lossless" breaks down, however rare. Maybe Sony should rename these files jpeg raws or something similar because calling them "raw" is just as much a contradiction of terms/ oxymoron.
All RAW files from every manufacturer feature some processing, you never get the values directly from the ADC, so I don't object to the terminology in principle, but the implementation should/could have been better. And an option to turn it off should be provided.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It has been reported by users that the a99 does in fact have a hidden lossless compressed raw mode when used at slower frame rates.
That is very interesting, maybe there is light somewhere in the tunnel...
The compression ratio of Sony's older lossless raw is approximately 2:1 versus 3:1 for lossy compressed so there is a little difference (my Sony a900 24MP compressed lossless raws are approximately the same size as my a7r 36MP lossy compressed raws).
The compression ratio of Sony's lossy format is exactly 1.75 : 1 (each 14 bit value is encoded using 8 bits on average). Note the actual RAW filesizes vary slightly, this is due to the embedded JPEG preview.
On my old 5D3 I got anywhere between 1.2 : 1 and 1.7 : 1 from it's lossless compression, depending on image content. I don't think I ever saw it reach 2:1 but I guess it's possible. Canon's lossless RAW is based on lossless JPEG, which is a pretty good algorithm, I don't think you can do much better.
But yes, in general lossless A7 raws would be about the same size as lossy A7ʀ raws, so the A7 can clearly handle the heat.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
"Visually lossless" comes with conditions of course and for a raw file, the ultimate utility of using raw is compromised in certain situations where "visually lossless" breaks down, however rare. Maybe Sony should rename these files jpeg raws or something similar because calling them "raw" is just as much a contradiction of terms/ oxymoron.
All RAW files from every manufacturer feature some processing, you never get the values directly from the ADC, so I don't object to the terminology in principle, but the implementation should/could have been better. And an option to turn it off should be provided.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It has been reported by users that the a99 does in fact have a hidden lossless compressed raw mode when used at slower frame rates.
That is very interesting, maybe there is light somewhere in the tunnel...
Mar 19, 2015 at 06:51 AM
p.4 #2A7rII rumour
ecarlino wrote:
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.
I'm talking specifically about the Sony implementation here, which of the following do you think requires the most computation:
1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many steps they are from the minimum and store this value. Repeat for the next 16 pixels.
Hopefully it's clear that 1. describes lossless processing and 2. describes lossless. Given this how on Earth can you argue that lossy gives the advantage of "simpler computation"?
The only thing you save other than space is time to store the image in memory, and time to write it to the card.
ecarlino wrote:
my comments regarding heat are not my own, but rather from conversations with people much smarter than me (2 of whom would be well known to most people frequenting these boards)
I'm sorry, your appeal to authority holds no weight with me.
ecarlino wrote:
and it makes sense. generally, using LOSSLESS will require an increase in the computational power and bandwidth of the entire system - that would require larger space and generate more heat. Heat being a major problem for sensors, so heat dissipation would be an issue. In the a7 series body size is at a premium. In the a-mount, I have no idea, but could guess that 'cheaper parts' were also a priority.
It really doesn't make sense as it doesn't explain why there's no lossless option in the A7s which has far far less data to process and move. Cheaper parts? I'm sorry that just doesn't seem likely when much cheaper cameras don't resort to lossy raws.
Finally lossless only requires more bandwidth to obtain the same throughput. You can keep the same bandwidth and accept lower throughput, this is in fact what every other manufacturer does.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:09 AM · View previous versions
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.
I'm talking specifically about the Sony implementation here, which of the following do you think requires the most computation:
1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many steps they are from the minimum and store this value. Repeat for the next 16 pixels.
Hopefully it's clear that 1. describes lossless processing and 2. describes lossless. Given this how on Earth can you argue that lossy gives the advantage of "simpler computation"?
The only thing you save other than space is time to store the image in memory, and time to write it to the card.
ecarlino wrote:
my comments regarding heat are not my own, but rather from conversations with people much smarter than me (2 of whom would be well known to most people frequenting these boards)
I'm sorry, your appeal to authority holds no weight with me.
ecarlino wrote:
and it makes sense. generally, using LOSSLESS will require an increase in the computational power and bandwidth of the entire system - that would require larger space and generate more heat. Heat being a major problem for sensors, so heat dissipation would be an issue. In the a7 series body size is at a premium. In the a-mount, I have no idea, but could guess that 'cheaper parts' were also a priority.
It really doesn't make sense as it doesn't explain why there's no lossless option in the A7s which has far far less data to process and move. Cheaper parts? I'm sorry that just doesn't seem likely when much cheaper cameras don't resort to lossy raws.
Finally lossless only requires more bandwidth to obtain the same throughput. You can keep the same bandwidth and accept lower throughput, this is in fact what every other manufacturer does.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:09 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 07:17 AM
p.4 #3A7rII rumour
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the resolution of the sensor will be interesting. I would hope they bump the resolution, perhaps to 46-48mp (as was rumored in January), with EFCS, and IBIS in the A7 II body. I doubt it will have lossless RAW, which will piss a lot of people off, but otherwise I think that would be a compelling package. If it just adds IBIS, the better ergonomics, and EFCS, many people will still want it, but it makes future upgrades more problematic (i.e., when the A7 II is upgraded it would be nice if it went to 36mp). Still...Show more →
Upgrades are not all about sensor MP - there are plenty of significant upgrades to the A7II and likely A7RII to be had. I think Sony has it right - Low MP FX A7s, medium MP FX A7, and high MP FX A7r. No need for the A7R to go up in MP. A "pro" model very well might have a higher resolution sensor, PDAF, way better pro-compatible body, etc. etc.
I think the resolution of the sensor will be interesting. I would hope they bump the resolution, perhaps to 46-48mp (as was rumored in January), with EFCS, and IBIS in the A7 II body. I doubt it will have lossless RAW, which will piss a lot of people off, but otherwise I think that would be a compelling package. If it just adds IBIS, the better ergonomics, and EFCS, many people will still want it, but it makes future upgrades more problematic (i.e., when the A7 II is upgraded it would be nice if it went to 36mp). Still...Show more →
Upgrades are not all about sensor MP - there are plenty of significant upgrades to the A7II and likely A7RII to be had. I think Sony has it right - Low MP FX A7s, medium MP FX A7, and high MP FX A7r. No need for the A7R to go up in MP. A "pro" model very well might have a higher resolution sensor, PDAF, way better pro-compatible body, etc. etc.
Mar 19, 2015 at 08:27 AM
p.4 #4A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
I'm talking specifically about the Sony implementation here, which of the following do you think requires the most computation:
1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many...Show more →
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.
the conversation on every one of these threads is not between LOSSY COMPRESSION and UNCOMPRESSED.
it is the desire to have a LOSSLESS COMPRESSED file.
get back to me when you figure out the steps required in the LOSSLESS algorithm and let me know which you think requires more computation, etc.
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
ecarlino wrote
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many...Show more →
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.
the conversation on every one of these threads is not between LOSSY COMPRESSION and UNCOMPRESSED.
it is the desire to have a LOSSLESS COMPRESSED file.
get back to me when you figure out the steps required in the LOSSLESS algorithm and let me know which you think requires more computation, etc.
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
Mar 19, 2015 at 08:41 AM
p.4 #5A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
I'm talking specifically about the Sony implementation here, which of the following do you think requires the most computation:
1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many...Show more →
I'm not sure if you're comparing lossy compressed to uncompressed (my apologies but I'm finding it painful to read all the replies in this thread) raw data. Raw data obviously doesn't require processing it to a smaller size, only compression does. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm talking down to you, but your first option looks like uncompressed. Uncompressed is not viable.
If you are comparing lossy compression to lossless, there's a few important things to mention;
Lossy suffers generation loss (to save you searching wiki; "generation loss refers to the loss of quality between subsequent copies or transcodes of data.")
Lossy requires additional preprocessing.
Typically speaking, if the truncation of data is substantially large, the entropy encoder has to do a bit less work (this applies to most but not all compression algorithms); however, the overall computation is more complex; in addition, the additional preprocessing loads a processor.
There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use lossy over lossless for "simpler computation" is erroneous.
It is also worth noting that lossy compression, on a technical objective level, destroys substantial amounts of data. This is why it is used for sound, images etc, things perceivable to the senses. The reason for this is because the human senses aren't as good at measuring things as computers are. We can't always judge missing data. However, the problem with the lossy compression concept is that the algorithm is designed specifically for the human i.e. to reduce data in a way not to be perceivable by the human. This requires making adjustments or redesigning an algorithm altogether and running tests on subjects; some subjects might be greater judges than others; furthermore, data might be seen to be lost but test subjects might state it doesn't effect the over-all experience to any great degree. Test subjects might be judging an unedited raw file, where the file is not pushed to its limits. What I mean by this is, a subject might see no difference in file A vs file B, but if they were to push the shadows up two exposures, perhaps then they would notice the difference.
The minidisc used lossy compression; test subjects found it comparable to CD (an already inferior method of storage compared to vinyl) with no great loss. Scientists said the human ear can only hear 20 Hz to 20 kHz so truncation of 25khz won't matter. The problem with this is, although we can only consciously tell differences between those frequencies, we can in fact tell the difference when a sound is simply truncated. Square waves do not feel pleasant.
For those that do not want to read all of this:
Lossy compression is inferior to lossless on an objective and usually perceivable level even if people try to design it in an receivable way.
Lossy compression is flawed by design.
It is incorrect to say that lossy compression substantially reduces processor load, saves battery life and is simpler from a computational point of view.
It is far more complex to design an algorithm capable of reducing files in a way that is imperceivable to the human rather than keeping the original data.
ecarlino wrote:
I'm talking specifically about the Sony implementation here, which of the following do you think requires the most computation:
1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many steps they are from the minimum and store this value. Repeat for the next 16 pixels.
Hopefully it's clear that 1. describes lossless processing and 2. describes lossless. Given this how on Earth can you argue that lossy gives the advantage of "simpler computation"?I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.
the conversation on every one of these threads is not between LOSSY COMPRESSION and UNCOMPRESSED.
it is the desire to have a LOSSLESS COMPRESSED file.
get back to me when you figure out the steps required in the LOSSLESS algorithm and let me know which you think requires more computation, etc.
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
Lossy requires an additional preprocessing stage before the entropy encoder. It's a more complex algorithm. Most of what he said is actually accurate.
On a subjective note. I recently had a large 30 inch print from a 16 bit printer. I paid a company rather a lot to print it, it's come out like crap thanks to lossy compression. I'm a bit disappointed about it. I wish I rented a medium format camera
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:03 AM · View previous versions
ecarlino wrote
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many...Show more →
ecarlino wrote
my comments regarding heat are not my own, but rather from conversations with people much smarter than me (2 of whom would be well known to most people frequenting these boards)ecarlino wrote
and it makes sense. generally, using LOSSLESS will require an increase in the computational power and bandwidth of the entire system - that would require larger space and generate more heat. Heat being a major problem for sensors, so heat dissipation would be an issue. In the a7 series body size is at a premium. In the a-mount, I have no idea, but could guess that 'cheaper parts' were also a priority.I'm not sure if you're comparing lossy compressed to uncompressed (my apologies but I'm finding it painful to read all the replies in this thread) raw data. Raw data obviously doesn't require processing it to a smaller size, only compression does. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm talking down to you, but your first option looks like uncompressed. Uncompressed is not viable.
If you are comparing lossy compression to lossless, there's a few important things to mention;
Lossy suffers generation loss (to save you searching wiki; "generation loss refers to the loss of quality between subsequent copies or transcodes of data.")
Lossy requires additional preprocessing.
Typically speaking, if the truncation of data is substantially large, the entropy encoder has to do a bit less work (this applies to most but not all compression algorithms); however, the overall computation is more complex; in addition, the additional preprocessing loads a processor.
There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use lossy over lossless for "simpler computation" is erroneous.
It is also worth noting that lossy compression, on a technical objective level, destroys substantial amounts of data. This is why it is used for sound, images etc, things perceivable to the senses. The reason for this is because the human senses aren't as good at measuring things as computers are. We can't always judge missing data. However, the problem with the lossy compression concept is that the algorithm is designed specifically for the human i.e. to reduce data in a way not to be perceivable by the human. This requires making adjustments or redesigning an algorithm altogether and running tests on subjects; some subjects might be greater judges than others; furthermore, data might be seen to be lost but test subjects might state it doesn't effect the over-all experience to any great degree. Test subjects might be judging an unedited raw file, where the file is not pushed to its limits. What I mean by this is, a subject might see no difference in file A vs file B, but if they were to push the shadows up two exposures, perhaps then they would notice the difference.
The minidisc used lossy compression; test subjects found it comparable to CD (an already inferior method of storage compared to vinyl) with no great loss. Scientists said the human ear can only hear 20 Hz to 20 kHz so truncation of 25khz won't matter. The problem with this is, although we can only consciously tell differences between those frequencies, we can in fact tell the difference when a sound is simply truncated. Square waves do not feel pleasant.
For those that do not want to read all of this:
Lossy compression is inferior to lossless on an objective and usually perceivable level even if people try to design it in an receivable way.
Lossy compression is flawed by design.
It is incorrect to say that lossy compression substantially reduces processor load, saves battery life and is simpler from a computational point of view.
It is far more complex to design an algorithm capable of reducing files in a way that is imperceivable to the human rather than keeping the original data.
ecarlino wrote:
Matt Grum wrote
ecarlino wrote
you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size.1. Read value from ADC, store value in memory. Repeat.
2. Read 16 values from ADC, subtract black point, for each value find where it lies on a 5 segement tone curve, apply the appropriate transformation (requires at least one subtraction, one multiplication and one addition). Scan the values to find the largest and smallest values. Store the locations of these values. Compute the difference between these values to calculate the step size. For the remaining 14 values, work out how many steps they are from the minimum and store this value. Repeat for the next 16 pixels.
Hopefully it's clear that 1. describes lossless processing and 2. describes lossless. Given this how on Earth can you argue that lossy gives the advantage of "simpler computation"?
the conversation on every one of these threads is not between LOSSY COMPRESSION and UNCOMPRESSED.
it is the desire to have a LOSSLESS COMPRESSED file.
get back to me when you figure out the steps required in the LOSSLESS algorithm and let me know which you think requires more computation, etc.
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
Lossy requires an additional preprocessing stage before the entropy encoder. It's a more complex algorithm. Most of what he said is actually accurate.
On a subjective note. I recently had a large 30 inch print from a 16 bit printer. I paid a company rather a lot to print it, it's come out like crap thanks to lossy compression. I'm a bit disappointed about it. I wish I rented a medium format camera
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:03 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 08:52 AM
p.4 #6A7rII rumour
serhan_ wrote:
Now 2 cameras, 36MP A7R II & 50MP A9 w/ April or May announcement. :
(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.
I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the body
Now 2 cameras, 36MP A7R II & 50MP A9 w/ April or May announcement. :
(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
Earlier quote
The two new Sony Full Frame camera that Sony will introduce the coming weeks should be:1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.
Earlier quote
2) The official Canon 5Ds competitor! A new 50 Megapixel Sony camera using a new Sony sensor (not the Canon 5ds sensor). It is yet unclear if the new 50MP camera is the long time rumored A9 PRO E-mount camera or the new A-mount camera flagship. I actually hope Sony is thinking to release both at the same time…but that’s again just a wish of mine and not a rumor. Both cameras are rumored to comes in a special April (or at last May) announcement. For now sources could nor confirm or deny if there will be also some RX and APS-C E-mount camera announcement. I can add that almost certainly we will have new 4K camcorders. More about that soon on SAR.Earlier quote
Some behind the scene rumors: The new Sony 50MP camera is said to “easily OUTPERFORM” the Canon 5ds camera in terms of image quality at low ISO.I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the body
Mar 19, 2015 at 08:54 AM
p.4 #7A7rII rumour
Fletcha wrote:
Lossy requires an additional preprocessing stage before the entropy encoder. It's a more complex algorithm. Most of what he said is actually accurate.
Or just give us the option of uncompressed RAW... and avoid the whole oxymoronic argument.
Lossy requires an additional preprocessing stage before the entropy encoder. It's a more complex algorithm. Most of what he said is actually accurate.
Or just give us the option of uncompressed RAW... and avoid the whole oxymoronic argument.
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:12 AM
p.4 #8A7rII rumour
ecarlino wrote:
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.
Can you find the word "compression" anywhere in what I wrote (hint: it's not there)? I was talking about a lossless direct uncompressed RAW (clear from the description of process 1) which is a perfectly viable alternative - if you're concerned about processing overhead and heat generation.
ecarlino wrote:
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
Has it? My points were relatively simple. 1) The A7s has much lower resolution than say the A7ʀ so why does it need to apply lossy compression? 2) If it was implemented in the A mount cameras to save money, then that doesn't make sense as no other budget camera with RAW uses the same approach. 3) You claim lossless requires more bandwidth, that's not true, if you have larger files you can transmit them with the same bandwidth at a slower speed.
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.
Can you find the word "compression" anywhere in what I wrote (hint: it's not there)? I was talking about a lossless direct uncompressed RAW (clear from the description of process 1) which is a perfectly viable alternative - if you're concerned about processing overhead and heat generation.
ecarlino wrote:
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.
Has it? My points were relatively simple. 1) The A7s has much lower resolution than say the A7ʀ so why does it need to apply lossy compression? 2) If it was implemented in the A mount cameras to save money, then that doesn't make sense as no other budget camera with RAW uses the same approach. 3) You claim lossless requires more bandwidth, that's not true, if you have larger files you can transmit them with the same bandwidth at a slower speed.
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:15 AM
p.4 #9A7rII rumour
jhinkey wrote:
Upgrades are not all about sensor MP - there are plenty of significant upgrades to the A7II and likely A7RII to be had. I think Sony has it right - Low MP FX A7s, medium MP FX A7, and high MP FX A7r. No need for the A7R to go up in MP. A "pro" model very well might have a higher resolution sensor, PDAF, way better pro-compatible body, etc. etc.
I have heard a similar saying before in 2012 - when Canon released the 5D MkIII with the same 22 MP FF sensor as in its predecessor camera, whereas Nikon came out with the 36 MP sensor in the D800(E) series. Suddenly periphery improvements were more important than sensor improvements on the Canon side.....reading now the comments when the 5Ds series with higher MP is close, nobody wants to admit that those excuses were said 3 years ago
.
No new sensor in those cameras is simply an incremental stepping stone to milk the herd...and a disappointment.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:17 AM · View previous versions
Steve Spencer wrote
I think the resolution of the sensor will be interesting. I would hope they bump the resolution, perhaps to 46-48mp (as was rumored in January), with EFCS, and IBIS in the A7 II body. I doubt it will have lossless RAW, which will piss a lot of people off, but otherwise I think that would be a compelling package. If it just adds IBIS, the better ergonomics, and EFCS, many people will still want it, but it makes future upgrades more problematic (i.e., when the A7 II is upgraded it would be nice if it went to 36mp). Still slowing upgrades would not be a bad thing for Sony. It looks like all future FF bodies will have IBIS, maybe that will change if there is every an A5 series, but the A7 series and IBIS seem to go together.I have heard a similar saying before in 2012 - when Canon released the 5D MkIII with the same 22 MP FF sensor as in its predecessor camera, whereas Nikon came out with the 36 MP sensor in the D800(E) series. Suddenly periphery improvements were more important than sensor improvements on the Canon side.....reading now the comments when the 5Ds series with higher MP is close, nobody wants to admit that those excuses were said 3 years ago
. No new sensor in those cameras is simply an incremental stepping stone to milk the herd...and a disappointment.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:17 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:15 AM
p.4 #10A7rII rumour
Dpedraza wrote:
(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the body
I had to laugh... that they actually felt the need to point out that the new Sony camera will NOT use a Canon sensor...
serhan_ wrote
Now 2 cameras, 36MP A7R II & 50MP A9 w/ April or May announcement. :(SR4) Sony to announced the new 50 Megapixel camera within weeks. Image quality outperforms the Canon 5ds?
Earlier quote
The two new Sony Full Frame camera that Sony will introduce the coming weeks should be:1) The Sony A7rII Full Frame E-mount camera (with the same A7II 5 axis stabilization and improved autofocusing). Shipment in May-June. I am yet not sure about the sensor but so far I “believe” it uses the same or tweaked version of the current 36MP sensor. But that’s just my “feeling” and not a “rumor” coming from sources.
Earlier quote
2) The official Canon 5Ds competitor! A new 50 Megapixel Sony camera using a new Sony sensor (not the Canon 5ds sensor). It is yet unclear if the new 50MP camera is the long time rumored A9 PRO E-mount camera or the new A-mount camera flagship. I actually hope Sony is thinking to release both at the same time…but that’s again just a wish of mine and not a rumor. Both cameras are rumored to comes in a special April (or at last May) announcement. For now sources could nor confirm or deny if there will be also some RX and APS-C E-mount camera announcement. I can add that almost certainly we will have new 4K camcorders. More about that soon on SAR.Earlier quote
Some behind the scene rumors: The new Sony 50MP camera is said to “easily OUTPERFORM” the Canon 5ds camera in terms of image quality at low ISO.I had to laugh... that they actually felt the need to point out that the new Sony camera will NOT use a Canon sensor...
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:15 AM
p.4 #11A7rII rumour
molson wrote:
Or just give us the option of uncompressed RAW... and avoid the whole oxymoronic argument.
What "oxymoronic" argument?
Matt Grum wrote:
Can you find the word "compression" anywhere in what I wrote (hint: it's not there)? I was talking about a lossless direct uncompressed RAW (clear from the description of process 1) which is a perfectly viable alternative - if you're concerned about processing overhead and heat generation.
Has it? My points were relatively simple. 1) The A7s has much lower resolution than say the A7ʀ so why does it need to apply lossy compression? 2) If it was implemented in the A mount cameras to save money, then that doesn't make sense as no other budget camera with RAW uses...Show more →
I don't see how it's viable to have uncompressed raw with such a small buffer size (excluding the a7s). They could increase it but that's more expensive than having a more complex algorithm.
I agree with compression, I just don't agree with lossy compression and the arguments against lossless compression are weak
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:34 AM · View previous versions
Fletcha wrote
Lossy requires an additional preprocessing stage before the entropy encoder. It's a more complex algorithm. Most of what he said is actually accurate.What "oxymoronic" argument?
Matt Grum wrote:
ecarlino wrote
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.ecarlino wrote
the rest of your last statement seems to have gone off the rails and I'm not sure you are understanding things.I don't see how it's viable to have uncompressed raw with such a small buffer size (excluding the a7s). They could increase it but that's more expensive than having a more complex algorithm.
I agree with compression, I just don't agree with lossy compression and the arguments against lossless compression are weak
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:34 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:16 AM
p.4 #12A7rII rumour
Fletcha wrote:
Uncompressed is not viable.
It apparently is for the Nikon bodies that offer it as an option. It seems perfectly viable if lossless compression is causing your cameras to overheat.
Fletcha wrote:
Typically speaking, if the truncation of data is substantially large, the entropy encoder has to do a bit less work (this applies to most but not all compression algorithms); however, the overall computation is more complex; in addition, the additional preprocessing loads a processor.
There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use...Show more →
Lossy compression is not by definition more complex than lossless compression(e.g. truncating every 14 bit value to 8 bits is lossy compression). Also Sony's lossy compression algorithm doesn't use an entropy encoder, it is simpler than lossless JPEG which the other manufacturers use.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:51 AM · View previous versions
Uncompressed is not viable.
It apparently is for the Nikon bodies that offer it as an option. It seems perfectly viable if lossless compression is causing your cameras to overheat.
Fletcha wrote:
Typically speaking, if the truncation of data is substantially large, the entropy encoder has to do a bit less work (this applies to most but not all compression algorithms); however, the overall computation is more complex; in addition, the additional preprocessing loads a processor.
There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use...Show more →
Lossy compression is not by definition more complex than lossless compression(e.g. truncating every 14 bit value to 8 bits is lossy compression). Also Sony's lossy compression algorithm doesn't use an entropy encoder, it is simpler than lossless JPEG which the other manufacturers use.
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:51 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:21 AM
p.4 #13A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
It apparently is for the Nikon bodies that offer it as an option. It seems perfectly viable if lossless compression is causing your cameras to overheat.
There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use lossy over lossless for "simpler computation" is erroneous.Lossy compression is not by definition more complex (e.g. truncating every 14 bit value to 8 bits is lossy compression). Also Sony's lossy compression algorithm doesn't use an entropy encoder, it is simpler than lossless JPEG which the other manufacturers use.
"It apparently is for the Nikon bodies that offer it as an option. It seems perfectly viable if lossless compression is causing your cameras to overheat. "
It is a viable option for the nikon bodies, yes. You're comparing apples with oranges.
"Lossy compression is not by definition more complex (e.g. truncating every 14 bit value to 8 bits is lossy compression). Also Sony's lossy compression algorithm doesn't use an entropy encoder, it is simpler than lossless JPEG which the other manufacturers use."
Truncation is another step to take. Source regarding the sony lossy compression algorithm?
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:39 AM · View previous versions
Fletcha wrote
Uncompressed is not viable.Fletcha wrote
Typically speaking, if the truncation of data is substantially large, the entropy encoder has to do a bit less work (this applies to most but not all compression algorithms); however, the overall computation is more complex; in addition, the additional preprocessing loads a processor.There are a couple of things wrong with this claim "you are INCORRECT to suggest that LOSSY requires more computation than LOSSLESS. the advantages to designers of using LOSSY over LOSSLESS are: simpler computation and smaller resulting file size."
1) Lossy by definition is more complex; it requires additional preprocessing
2) The claim that designers use lossy over lossless for "simpler computation" is erroneous.
"It apparently is for the Nikon bodies that offer it as an option. It seems perfectly viable if lossless compression is causing your cameras to overheat. "
It is a viable option for the nikon bodies, yes. You're comparing apples with oranges.
"Lossy compression is not by definition more complex (e.g. truncating every 14 bit value to 8 bits is lossy compression). Also Sony's lossy compression algorithm doesn't use an entropy encoder, it is simpler than lossless JPEG which the other manufacturers use."
Truncation is another step to take. Source regarding the sony lossy compression algorithm?
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:39 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:24 AM
p.4 #14A7rII rumour
Dpedraza wrote:
I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the body
I don't regard the Canon 5DS and 5DS R to be "outrageously" priced in the least. At this moment the Canon models project to be the least expensive 50 MP cameras on the market (when compared to, say, the Pentax 645Z, which is more than double the price). That said, I think the Sony will be priced lower still if they truly announce one.
Right now my main area of hope is that the new 50 MP proves out to be that hoped for "a9" E-mount camera and not an A-mount camera. I have no use for an A-mount camera and no in-place investment in the A-mount system. If it indeed turns out to be the a9, then I expect it to be well under Canon's price.
One more thought: it will be interesting to see who will be the first to start shipping 50 MP cameras to customers. Sony has a golden opportunity to make Canon appear foolish/weak on three levels: 1. Far superior 50 MP sensor, 2. Lower price, and 3. First to ship. Interesting times, right?
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:31 AM · View previous versions
I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the body
I don't regard the Canon 5DS and 5DS R to be "outrageously" priced in the least. At this moment the Canon models project to be the least expensive 50 MP cameras on the market (when compared to, say, the Pentax 645Z, which is more than double the price). That said, I think the Sony will be priced lower still if they truly announce one.
Right now my main area of hope is that the new 50 MP proves out to be that hoped for "a9" E-mount camera and not an A-mount camera. I have no use for an A-mount camera and no in-place investment in the A-mount system. If it indeed turns out to be the a9, then I expect it to be well under Canon's price.
One more thought: it will be interesting to see who will be the first to start shipping 50 MP cameras to customers. Sony has a golden opportunity to make Canon appear foolish/weak on three levels: 1. Far superior 50 MP sensor, 2. Lower price, and 3. First to ship. Interesting times, right?
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:31 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:26 AM
p.4 #15A7rII rumour
Matt Grum wrote:
Can you find the word "compression" anywhere in what I wrote (hint: it's not there)? I was talking about a lossless direct uncompressed RAW (clear from the description of process 1) which is a perfectly viable alternative - if you're concerned about processing overhead and heat generation.
has anyone on any thread EVER pined for an UNCOMPRESSED RAW file?
it's available on Nikon but I've never heard of anyone using it.
why would you?
LOSSLESS COMPRESSED is generally what people are calling for.
btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate.
I think the outtrade in our conversation is that you were referring to UNCOMPRESSED (not sure why) so I guess we can end the pissing match b/c I've always respected your posts so let's let this one go.....
ecarlino wrote
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but your description in #1 is not COMPRESSION at all.has anyone on any thread EVER pined for an UNCOMPRESSED RAW file?
it's available on Nikon but I've never heard of anyone using it.
why would you?
LOSSLESS COMPRESSED is generally what people are calling for.
btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate.
I think the outtrade in our conversation is that you were referring to UNCOMPRESSED (not sure why) so I guess we can end the pissing match b/c I've always respected your posts so let's let this one go.....
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:29 AM
p.4 #16A7rII rumour
"has anyone on any thread EVER pined for an UNCOMPRESSED RAW file?
it's available on Nikon but I've never heard of anyone using it.
why would you?
LOSSLESS COMPRESSED is generally what people are calling for."
Argumentum ad numerum.
"btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate."
This is erroneous, I've explained why it's erroneous. Why do you continue to make erroneous statements?
http://pastebin.com/9TvedTK6 -- lossy
http://pastebin.com/VbLQnR6J -- lossless
"I think the outtrade in our conversation is that you were referring to UNCOMPRESSED (not sure why)"
His argument for uncompressed makes sense but he's forgetting that nikon cameras have bigger buffers and pipelines. However, lossless compressed is superior to lossy and can be implemented with the current hardware.
Hopefully he'll reply with the source to his information
it's available on Nikon but I've never heard of anyone using it.
why would you?
LOSSLESS COMPRESSED is generally what people are calling for."
Argumentum ad numerum.
"btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate."
This is erroneous, I've explained why it's erroneous. Why do you continue to make erroneous statements?
http://pastebin.com/9TvedTK6 -- lossy
http://pastebin.com/VbLQnR6J -- lossless
"I think the outtrade in our conversation is that you were referring to UNCOMPRESSED (not sure why)"
His argument for uncompressed makes sense but he's forgetting that nikon cameras have bigger buffers and pipelines. However, lossless compressed is superior to lossy and can be implemented with the current hardware.
Hopefully he'll reply with the source to his information
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:33 AM
p.4 #17A7rII rumour
Fletcha wrote:
"btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate."
This is erroneous, I've explained why it's erroneous. Why do you continue to make erroneous statements?
I wrote my statement to be very general and accommodating, so as to put an end to the back and forth - certainly there are LOSSLESS algorithms that can be more or less complex than LOSSY - it all depends on the algorithm. But, generally a LOSSLESS compressed file will be larger than a LOSSY compressed one.
not sure what is erroneous in that. btw, I think the Sony LOSSY algorithm is actually very efficient.
"btw - as far as the computational complexity of compression algorithms, they vary - but the file size of LOSSLESS compressed will be bigger than LOSSY compressed and therefore all of the 'parts' will necessarily need to be bigger/faster to accommodate."
This is erroneous, I've explained why it's erroneous. Why do you continue to make erroneous statements?
I wrote my statement to be very general and accommodating, so as to put an end to the back and forth - certainly there are LOSSLESS algorithms that can be more or less complex than LOSSY - it all depends on the algorithm. But, generally a LOSSLESS compressed file will be larger than a LOSSY compressed one.
not sure what is erroneous in that. btw, I think the Sony LOSSY algorithm is actually very efficient.
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:45 AM
p.4 #18A7rII rumour
"I think the Sony LOSSY algorithm is actually very efficient"
You judge this, how?
"I wrote my statement to be very general and accommodating, so as to put an end to the back and forth - certainly there are LOSSLESS algorithms that can be more or less complex than LOSSY - it all depends on the algorithm."
I don't care how you wrote it, lossy is more complex by nature, it has to be for it to be non perceivable and for the additional stages.
"But, generally a LOSSLESS compressed file will be larger than a LOSSY compressed one."
This is a separate claim, I'm not arguing with this claim, I agree with this claim. I'm arguing with the claim that lossless is more complex than lossy, it's not. Lossless is less complex if we're to speak in a "general" and "accommodating" way.
AFAIK, the sony algorithm even messes with the black point.
for (uint32 x = 0; x < w - 30 {
bits.checkPos();
int _max = bits.getBits(11);
int _min = bits.getBits(11);
int _imax = bits.getBits(4);
int _imin = bits.getBits(4);
int sh;
for (sh = 0; sh < 4 && 0x80 << sh <= _max - _min; sh++);
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
int p;
if (i == _imax) p = _max;
else if (i == _imin) p = _min;
else {
p = (bits.getBits(7) << sh) + _min;
if (p > 0x7ff)
p = 0x7ff;
}
dest[x+i*2] = curve[p << 1];
}
x += x & 1 ? 31 : 1;
}
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:54 AM · View previous versions
You judge this, how?
"I wrote my statement to be very general and accommodating, so as to put an end to the back and forth - certainly there are LOSSLESS algorithms that can be more or less complex than LOSSY - it all depends on the algorithm."
I don't care how you wrote it, lossy is more complex by nature, it has to be for it to be non perceivable and for the additional stages.
"But, generally a LOSSLESS compressed file will be larger than a LOSSY compressed one."
This is a separate claim, I'm not arguing with this claim, I agree with this claim. I'm arguing with the claim that lossless is more complex than lossy, it's not. Lossless is less complex if we're to speak in a "general" and "accommodating" way.
AFAIK, the sony algorithm even messes with the black point.
for (uint32 x = 0; x < w - 30
{bits.checkPos();
int _max = bits.getBits(11);
int _min = bits.getBits(11);
int _imax = bits.getBits(4);
int _imin = bits.getBits(4);
int sh;
for (sh = 0; sh < 4 && 0x80 << sh <= _max - _min; sh++);
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
int p;
if (i == _imax) p = _max;
else if (i == _imin) p = _min;
else {
p = (bits.getBits(7) << sh) + _min;
if (p > 0x7ff)
p = 0x7ff;
}
dest[x+i*2] = curve[p << 1];
}
x += x & 1 ? 31 : 1;
}
Edited on Mar 19, 2015 at 09:54 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:52 AM
p.4 #19A7rII rumour
jhinkey wrote:
Upgrades are not all about sensor MP - there are plenty of significant upgrades to the A7II and likely A7RII to be had. I think Sony has it right - Low MP FX A7s, medium MP FX A7, and high MP FX A7r. No need for the A7R to go up in MP. A "pro" model very well might have a higher resolution sensor, PDAF, way better pro-compatible body, etc. etc.
I agree upgrades don't have to be about megapixels (I am a happy owner of an A7 II), but my thinking is Sony probably wants to match or come close to matching Canon's mp count on the 5Dr. I don't think they will make the pro model the high mp model, because they will want the frame rate higher on the pro model and that will be hard with 50 mp. Frame rate is basically a function of computing power and megapixels. With 50 mp, the frame rate would probably be 4 or 5, and with 36 for the pro model they could probably get the frame rate up to 6 or 8. Basically by going to 50 mp, they will have to slow the frame rate by 70 percent, and for a pro camera I think they will already have a challenge getting the frame rate up to what they would like. If they make the A7r II the 50 mp camera, then I think they can live with a slow frame rate--the A7r certainly has no blazing frame rate. So, I think just based on the shooting speed issue it makes more sense to have the 50 mp camera be the A7r II. We'll see though, so fare the rumours tell us nothing about megapixels.
Steve Spencer wrote
I think the resolution of the sensor will be interesting. I would hope they bump the resolution, perhaps to 46-48mp (as was rumored in January), with EFCS, and IBIS in the A7 II body. I doubt it will have lossless RAW, which will piss a lot of people off, but otherwise I think that would be a compelling package. If it just adds IBIS, the better ergonomics, and EFCS, many people will still want it, but it makes future upgrades more problematic (i.e., when the A7 II is upgraded it would be nice if it went to 36mp). Still slowing upgrades would not be a bad thing for Sony. It looks like all future FF bodies will have IBIS, maybe that will change if there is every an A5 series, but the A7 series and IBIS seem to go together.I agree upgrades don't have to be about megapixels (I am a happy owner of an A7 II), but my thinking is Sony probably wants to match or come close to matching Canon's mp count on the 5Dr. I don't think they will make the pro model the high mp model, because they will want the frame rate higher on the pro model and that will be hard with 50 mp. Frame rate is basically a function of computing power and megapixels. With 50 mp, the frame rate would probably be 4 or 5, and with 36 for the pro model they could probably get the frame rate up to 6 or 8. Basically by going to 50 mp, they will have to slow the frame rate by 70 percent, and for a pro camera I think they will already have a challenge getting the frame rate up to what they would like. If they make the A7r II the 50 mp camera, then I think they can live with a slow frame rate--the A7r certainly has no blazing frame rate. So, I think just based on the shooting speed issue it makes more sense to have the 50 mp camera be the A7r II. We'll see though, so fare the rumours tell us nothing about megapixels.
Mar 19, 2015 at 09:53 AM
p.4 #20A7rII rumour
darbo wrote:
I don't regard the Canon 5DS and 5DS R to be "outrageously" priced in the least. At this moment the Canon models project to be the least expensive 50 MP cameras on the market (when compared to, say, the Pentax 645Z, which is more than double the price). That said, I think the Sony will be priced lower still if they truly announce one.
Right now my main area of hope is that the new 50 MP proves out to be that hoped for "a9" E-mount camera and not an A-mount camera. I have no use for an A-mount camera...Show more →well heres why I said outrageously priced. Canon has their cameras 500 or so higher than a Nikon equiv model. You can almost bet Nikon will use the 50mp Sony sensor and it will probably come in under the canons and still be better. Don't get me wrong I am not biased toward any camera company. But the 5diii was overpriced in my opinion and was like 500 more than the d800/e. You get basically the same performance with the 6d. You lose a few minor things like af performance. Their sensor performance has been lackluster and outdated to me. With the new canons you're just buying 50mp that's it but I do understand that they have it geared toward a certain photography demographic and I'm sure it will work well for them as well.
I'm not saying that if Sony has an fe mount 50mp camera it will be the best on earth. It's already limited by native lenses. Lol good thing you can adapt just about any lens to it though.
Dpedraza wrote
I saw this. Hopefully the 50mp camera isn't outrageously priced. I mean can't be any higher than canons offerings lol almost 4k for the bodyRight now my main area of hope is that the new 50 MP proves out to be that hoped for "a9" E-mount camera and not an A-mount camera. I have no use for an A-mount camera...Show more →well heres why I said outrageously priced. Canon has their cameras 500 or so higher than a Nikon equiv model. You can almost bet Nikon will use the 50mp Sony sensor and it will probably come in under the canons and still be better. Don't get me wrong I am not biased toward any camera company. But the 5diii was overpriced in my opinion and was like 500 more than the d800/e. You get basically the same performance with the 6d. You lose a few minor things like af performance. Their sensor performance has been lackluster and outdated to me. With the new canons you're just buying 50mp that's it but I do understand that they have it geared toward a certain photography demographic and I'm sure it will work well for them as well.
I'm not saying that if Sony has an fe mount 50mp camera it will be the best on earth. It's already limited by native lenses. Lol good thing you can adapt just about any lens to it though.
Mar 19, 2015 at 10:03 AM