p.4 #1 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Exdsc wrote:
If NEX-7 files are lossy compressed to 60% of their original size, is that mean the camera is also actually a 15mp camera compared to 24mp?
no.
Exdsc wrote:
My reason for getting really irate at Nikon is as simple as this. The Nikon D5100 has the same sensor at D7000. So, if someone does not want the fancy AF and other stuff of D7000 and simply want to use the IQ of the sensor, they have to pay $500 more to get the D7000 because D5100 RAW files are lossy compressed... But more annoyingly every forum expert will recommend D5100 to people because "it has the same sensor as D7000!"
it sounds like you are little unclear on what exactly compression does. it also sounds like you don't care at all about actual pictures, just purity of file format. lossless compression can reduce the file size dramatically without altering what you can or can't get out of raw file. in fact you could just make a converter that could generate the original uncompressed file from the compressed file. with lossy compression it depends on the algorithm and how aggressively it is used. some companies have much more advanced algorithms than others (and spend a lot more on development) you won't be able to make any real judgments on image quality by just looking at the file size between two different cameras or whether they are compressed versus uncompressed. i would happily recommend the d5100 to anybody who just cares about iq over the d7000. the problem with the d5100 for me is the viewfinder. it's doubtful anybody could tell images on giant prints between the two cameras in a blind test. if they could it would more likely be due to differences in filter toppings and processing prior to the ADC than to differences in RAW compression.
p.4 #2 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
timpdx wrote:
Throw in a Sigma DP2M that I got a couple of weeks ago as my high rez landscape and backings camera (I shoot sometimes for the film business where we print 50 foot long backings, often stitching images) The DP2M is a resolution machine, I found it beat my 5DII and L glass, others may argue, but in my shooting recently, I say that its up close to 28-30mp in resolution.
+1 for the DP2M. Incredible image quality in a small package. Perfect for landscape and architecture. Also works fine with an close up adapter.
I picked up a small pano adapter for the DP2M today. Stitched it is the large format playing field. http://pt4pano.com/de/products/multirow-vr-system
p.4 #3 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Exdsc wrote:
To sebboh and douglasf13: In regards to RAW compression in NEX-7.
I don't have a NEX-7 and I don't wish to make its owners feel bad, but when NEX-7 applies lossy compression to its RAW files, then the question is are those files any longer RAW? RAW data means unaltered data (no addition/subtraction), when some of its data is subtracted its not RAW data/file.
If NEX-7 files are lossy compressed to 60% of their original size, is that mean the camera is also actually a 15mp camera compared to 24mp?
My reason for getting really irate at Nikon is as simple as this. The Nikon D5100 has the same sensor at D7000. So, if someone does not want the fancy AF and other stuff of D7000 and simply want to use the IQ of the sensor, they have to pay $500 more to get the D7000 because D5100 RAW files are lossy compressed... But more annoyingly every forum expert will recommend D5100 to people because "it has the same sensor as D7000!"
Have you ever used a software like ZIP to compress your files? If yes then you would know that once you "unzip", you get the original files back with no change whatsoever. Lossless compression is a way to store data such that it takes less space, but making sure that the data remains 100% intact.
As an example, one of the simplest lossless compression schemes is Run Length Encoding. Say you have a part of your image where you have 30 black pixels in a row, i.e. 30 adjacent pixels have value = 0. Now instead of spending lets say 2 bytes for each of the zeros, you can just have a scheme where you say - the image has 30 zeros here. That takes much less space but stores the same information. Once you "uncompress" the image, you get back your 30 0's. And of course there are smarter and more efficient ways to do this than Run Length Encoding.
Thats why lossless compression is called lossless. You don't lose any of the original data, it remains intact without any alteration.
p.4 #4 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
I don't think that guy is confused about lossless vs lossy. It seems that he is on some jihad about the sins of lossy raw format even if it doesn't make a difference in final image quality.
But ultimately, he seems to think RAW means pure bits written from a sensor. That's simply not the case with digital image recording in any format.
p.4 #5 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
I disagree with the title of this thread. Camera stuff is consumer consumption. Similar to buying a big screen TV or a new iPhone. Stocks and bonds are investments.
p.4 #6 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Uncle Mike wrote:
I disagree with the title of this thread. Camera stuff is consumer consumption. Similar to buying a big screen TV or a new iPhone. Stocks and bonds are investments.
agreed, though he could get a Leica and then the lenses at least might hold their value.
p.4 #8 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Uncle Mike wrote:
I disagree with the title of this thread. Camera stuff is consumer consumption. Similar to buying a big screen TV or a new iPhone. Stocks and bonds are investments.
It depends what output you are expecting. Stocks are financial investments, but don't yield good photos.
p.4 #10 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
MarcG19 wrote:
I rejected the Sony because of the limited lens selection. Fuji will soon have IMO a sufficient range of lenses, but I wanted to start running with a reasonably full kit months ago, and didn't want to wait. For my part, I flirt with getting one of the smaller cameras as a backup body (previous generation bodies at Cameta are waay cheaper than and have better performance than all but the biggest sensor point and shoots) - again, with the small pancakes like the 14mm, these small m4/3cameras are almost small point and shoot sized. But beyond that, I have no intention of upgrading my OM-D anytime in the next year, especially since the market is in such flux. I still keep my NIkon DX kit, though.
16/2.8 wide (24mm-e)
19/2.8 wide (28mm-e) from Sigma
24/1.8 wide (36mm-e)
30/2.8 wide/normal (45mm-e) from Sigma
30/3.5 Macro (45mm-e)
35/1.8 normal (52mm-e)
50/1.8 Portrait tele (75mm-e)
10-18/4 zoom (15-27mm-e)
16-50 pancake zoom
18-55 zoom
18-200 high-end zoom
2 18-200 low-end zooms (Sony and Tamron branding, same lens)
18-200 video powerzoom
55-210 telezoom.
And of course full coupling with all A mount lenses via 3 different adapters (LA-EA1/3 for compact with AF for SSM/SAM/HSM lenses only or LA-EA2 for AF with all A mount lenses)
Plus both systems get a 12/2.8, 32/1.8 and 50/2.8 Macro from Zeiss in April.
p.4 #11 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
FlyPenFly wrote:
But ultimately, he seems to think RAW means pure bits written from a sensor. That's simply not the case with digital image recording in any format.
Of course, as unlike film, the actual output from a sensor is analog ;-) (yes, film is digital at the per-grain level and CCD and CMOS sensor sites actually output analog voltage levels)
And if you then compare quality of the lenses, then one or two of Sony's drop out. I think that Fuji has done a really good job with their initial lineup.
16/2.8 wide (24mm-e)
19/2.8 wide (28mm-e) from Sigma
24/1.8 wide (36mm-e)
30/2.8 wide/normal (45mm-e) from Sigma
30/3.5 Macro (45mm-e)
35/1.8 normal (52mm-e)
50/1.8 Portrait tele (75mm-e)
10-18/4 zoom (15-27mm-e)
16-50 pancake zoom
18-55 zoom
18-200 high-end zoom
2 18-200 low-end zooms (Sony and Tamron branding, same lens)
18-200 video powerzoom
55-210 telezoom.
And of course full coupling with all A mount lenses via 3 different adapters (LA-EA1/3 for compact with AF for SSM/SAM/HSM lenses only or LA-EA2 for AF with all A mount lenses)
Plus both systems get a 12/2.8, 32/1.8 and 50/2.8 Macro from Zeiss in April....Show more →
yeah, but almost all of the fuji lenses are interesting to me and almost none of the sony ones are. and those upcoming zeiss ones are also coming to fuji mount.
p.4 #16 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Thanks for the lens lineup, mawz. A few have already made points about the list, and while I respect your view, the current lineup doesn't work for me either. Especially since 20-24mm focal length is critical for my (hobby landscape) photography.
1. I bought the EM-5 in May, and started working with it then for landscapes at 24mm-e (allegedly an excellent lens, I've found it to be plenty good though not perfect. And I'm also unsure that I've gotten the best out of it yet whereas I was very comfortable with the landscape abilities of the APS-C Tokina 11-16 right out of the box) and 80-300mm-e (very decent Oly consumer zoom lens) right at purchase. The Sony lineup was rejected because of statements that the 24mm-e lens isn't so good.
2. Fuji's 20mm-e lens will be available within a week (and was in the rumors in May IIRC). I think there is little doubt this will be an excellent lens. The Sony 16-50 and 10-22 are still at least a month away (and weren't even in the rumors in May), their quality is TBD.
3. Adapting lenses from bigger cameras IMO defeats the purpose of mirrorless cameras. And even the 18-55 zoom I find incongruously bulky on the NEXs, in contrast to the much smaller Panny and especially Oly equivalents.
Again, I'm personally looking for less weight and (especially) less systemic bulk, which I definitely get from m4/3 over APS-C. For better for worse, the bulk saved replacing my minimum APSC kit (D90+11-16+55-200+35mm f/1.8) has been replaced by many more m4/3lenses in my walkaround kit (OM-D, 12mm, 25mm f0.95, 60mm macro, 40-150mm), but not only am I still ahead bulk and weight wise, but also the 25mm and 60mm lenses are really fun to play with. And again, with the Panasonic 14mm prime walk-the-streets lens, I get all the use I get out of an 18-55 kit zoom on APSC/NEX in a near-compact size package -I'm very pleased with that lens after owning it for only a week.
With all the new lenses, Sony becomes much more interesting to me. But the ship has sailed AFAIC; while Fuji interests me to a bit (image quality and x-pro optical viewfinder - assuming I wanted to sell my current "investment" and buy a new investment, not something I necessarily think will yield significant photographic or financial dividends) I don't presently see anything in Sony to tempt me away from m4/3. [to be honest, the only thing that might tempt me away from m4/3 are small Nikon DX lenses]
p.4 #17 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
sebboh wrote:
it sounds like you are little unclear on what exactly compression does.
Not really. Lossless compression is fine, lossy compression is not fine, but then it depends on one's definition of 'fine'.
curious80 wrote
Have you ever used a software like ZIP to compress your files?
I have. And I can tell you I'm not talking about zip compression, which is lossless, I'm talking about lossy compression -- as if the camera takes the data from the sensor, throws away lots of it because "its not needed" - that sort of compression. If you have made your own MP3 files then you'd know.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I don't think that guy is confused about lossless vs lossy. It seems that he is on some jihad about the sins of lossy raw format even if it doesn't make a difference in final image quality.
But ultimately, he seems to think RAW means pure bits written from a sensor. That's simply not the case with digital image recording in any format.
I don't give a damn, I mean I simply won't buy a camera that has lossy compression enabled by default. But even then, give me a pinhole camera and I can still bring images that gear-whores could only dream of getting, but that is a different story.
p.4 #20 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Exdsc wrote:
I don't give a damn, I mean I simply won't buy a camera that has lossy compression enabled by default. But even then, give me a pinhole camera and I can still bring images that gear-whores could only dream of getting, but that is a different story.
good for you, cognitive dissonance is the key to happiness.
