p.5 #1 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Exdsc wrote:
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.
Sure, but typically RAW file compression is lossless, which is why the compression ratio is so low. Since you have made your mp3's you would also know that mp3 files are much much smaller than uncompressed audio files, thanks to lossy compression as you rightly pointed out. In comparison Raw file compression typically gets you only 30-40% which is perfectly doable with lossless compression. You don't need lossy compression to get such a small compression ratio, unless your image has highly random data.
It could be that some cameras are using lossy RAW compression, though I have no reason to believe that this is true in general. If a camera gets only 30-40% compression even with lossy compression then either it is doing a very lousy job at compression or it is throwing away so little information that it doesn't get much compression benefit at all.
p.5 #3 · 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.
In my experience, it is exactly and only gear-whores who get hung up on such things as compression.
I think it is time for you to put out or shut up. Please provide:
1) an image which has been ruined by default lossy compression
2) an image which gear-whores could only dream of getting
If you fail to do this, I think it is clear that you are full of hot air, and little substance.
p.5 #5 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
From that thread, you really should have taken this advice:
I've been struggling for a few minutes to think of a way to say this more constructively, but I failed: I don't think you know what you're talking about, and I don't think you understand the knowledge level of the person trying to help you.
You don't have the problem you think you have, and your conclusions are wrong pretty much across the board. You'd benefit from some listening skills.
It's pretty clear you're a teenager. Try your best to hold back the snark but I understand it's the hormones.
p.5 #6 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
FlyPenFly wrote:
From that thread, you really should have taken this advice:
It's pretty clear you're a teenager. Try your best to hold back the snark but I understand it's the hormones.
If I had the patience for every frustrated gear whore troll on the internet who takes out their resentment due to sucking at photography on those who actually address an issue, I'd be a much better person, but I'm not and I'm ok with that.
p.5 #7 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
MarcG19 wrote:
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.
Either way, I hope you enjoy your Sonys!
Now that is a true. While Sony does have a far more extensive lineup, it is limited in interest for the more serious shooter, and that includes me (I've owned or shot seriously with several of the Sony lenses, I kept only the ZA E 24 and use Alt's and A mount lenses otherwise, I may add the 10-18 soon, or may just wait for the Zeiss 12). I was simply making the point that there's a distinct difference between a more interesting lens lineup and a more comprehensive one. Fuji has the former, Sony the latter and many mistake this.
p.5 #8 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
sebboh wrote:
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.
That I do agree with, and you'll note that I did say that both systems get the Zeiss lenses.
p.5 #9 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
I do not think you have the technical background or way of thinking that would enable you to identify technical issues that are actually rather subtle. This reminds me of the first years in college when we were calculating resistors up to the 1/1000 ohm when our electronics professor told us that it would cost an arm and a leg to produce only one such piece.
You would than be able to figure out that your image consists of about 2/3 of approximations and would actually learn something out of what people are trying to tell you. Engineering is something you definitely do not know a thing.
p.5 #10 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
slungu wrote:
I do not think you have the technical background or way of thinking that would enable you to identify technical issues that are actually rather subtle. This reminds me of the first years in college when we were calculating resistors up to the 1/1000 ohm when our electronics professor told us that it would cost an arm and a leg to produce only one such piece.
You would than be able to figure out that your image consists of about 2/3 of approximations and would actually learn something out of what people are trying to tell you. Engineering is something you definitely do not know a thing....Show more →
You know, the problem is that there are just too many engineers and IT people and other members of the boring occupations who consider photography as some cheap extension of their computer-related activity.
But this issue of compression should be easy to understand by you types, and somehow its not, because it makes you all feel bad about your cameras that you have bought and loved (and hardly put to use).
If you and others feel shafted by Sony or Nikon, its not my fault that I raised this issue.
If you don't agree simply move on.
On the other hand if you feel sensitive when the term gear-whore is used, well, too bad.
p.5 #12 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Exdsc wrote:
You know, the problem is that there are just too many engineers and IT people and other members of the boring occupations who consider photography as some cheap extension of their computer-related activity.
But this issue of compression should be easy to understand by you types, and somehow its not, because it makes you all feel bad about your cameras that you have bought and loved (and hardly put to use).
If you and others feel shafted by Sony or Nikon, its not my fault that I raised this issue.
If you don't agree simply move on.
On the other hand if you feel sensitive when the word gear whore is used, well, too bad. ...Show more →
It's pretty clear you feel shafted by the issue, and you're the one both making a big deal about it and picking fights over it. Frankly, I don't since it's also clear that unlike certain 8+ year old cameras current bodies using lossy RAW compression do not suffer a reduction in IQ from it and most certainly the NEX-7 does not (it remains the mirrorless body with the best low-ISO IQ and its high ISO performance has nothing to do with lossy compression).
I also happen to be an electrical engineer with a fairly good understanding of compression techniques (an area I studied). I know enough about the subject to implement compression algorithms if I need to. Sony's RAW's are visually lossless rather than mathematically lossless. The D200's Lossy compressed RAWs were not visually lossless because the D200 lacked the processing power to do visually lossless (high quality lossy algorithms are computationally intense, even if typically less hard on the processor than mathematically lossless compression).
I've been shooting since long before I was involved in the tech industry, I started with film back around 1990 and still shoot it regularly. Heck, I resisted digital for years because it was too close to what I did for work.
And Carsten? He may be blunt, but he's also one of the most valued members of this forum. He's also right in that you are complaining about a non-issue.
p.5 #13 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
mawz wrote:
That I do agree with, and you'll note that I did say that both systems get the Zeiss lenses.
fuji has 3 lenses. the 35 is the only one well accepted.
Nov 03, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #14 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
fuji has 3 lenses. the 35 is the only one well accepted.
Although it is technically true that fuji only has 3 lenses shipping, B & H lists that in addition to those three lenses they expect the 14 f/2.8 and 18-55 f/2.8-4 OIS next week. In addition, fuji had working prototypes of the 23 f/1.4 and the 56 f/1.4 at Photokina, so it seems reasonable that they will keep to their roadmap and have these available next year. I agree with sebboh and mawz that fuji has the more interesting set of lenses, even if there may be other issues with the system.
p.5 #15 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Getting the conversation back on topic to things that matter in the real world, this bears repeating...
mawz wrote:
My take is pretty simple.
m43 (Oly). If you can't decide, this is the one you want. Any of the 16MP bodies has excellent IQ and the system has the best lens lineup.
m43 (Panny). As Oly, but if you're video oriented rather than stills, where Oly is the way to go for stills.
NEX. The best for adaptation, the lens lineup is a lot better than people make out (as of the ship date for the 10-18 and 35/1.8 all the basics are covered) but right now it's better for the Alt shooter than a serious native lens shooter. Bodies are outstanding and offers the best IQ overall, albeit by a small margin.
Fuji X. If you shoot JPEG and like traditional ergonomics, optical finders and fast primes here's your system. Problematic if you shoot tele, want a good EVF or really need good IQ from RAW. Also kinda pricey as the cheapest body is comparable in cost to the higher-end bodies from everybody else. High ISO monsters, but at the expense of artifacting and colour issues at lower ISO's (in RAW only, JPEG's are fine aside from some odd greens).
Samsung NX. Solid bodies with no real defining features, great lens lineup, limited adaptability (as mirrorless systems go). Pretty much the pick if you want the advantages of m43 with a larger sensor.
Canon EOS-M. If it just has to say Canon, or you need to adapt EF lenses with AF and aren't willing to trust a Chinese adapter. Otherwise overpriced and underperforming. IQ is at best comparable to the Oly 16MP m43 bodies.
Nikon 1/Pentax Q. Great for casual shooters, not ideal for shooters who want IQ
Pentax K-01. If you own K mount lenses and don't want an adapter. Great IQ, but it's huge and brick-like due to the SLR mount.
And you can add Sony to the list for 'best IQ from CaptureOne'....Show more →
p.5 #16 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
Getting the conversation back on topic to things that matter in the real world, this bears repeating...
mawz wrote:
My take is pretty simple.
m43 (Oly). If you can't decide, this is the one you want. Any of the 16MP bodies has excellent IQ and the system has the best lens lineup.
m43 (Panny). As Oly, but if you're video oriented rather than stills, where Oly is the way to go for stills.
NEX. The best for adaptation, the lens lineup is a lot better than people make out (as of the ship date for the 10-18 and 35/1.8 all the basics are covered) but right now it's better for the Alt shooter than a serious native lens shooter. Bodies are outstanding and offers the best IQ overall, albeit by a small margin.
Fuji X. If you shoot JPEG and like traditional ergonomics, optical finders and fast primes here's your system. Problematic if you shoot tele, want a good EVF or really need good IQ from RAW. Also kinda pricey as the cheapest body is comparable in cost to the higher-end bodies from everybody else. High ISO monsters, but at the expense of artifacting and colour issues at lower ISO's (in RAW only, JPEG's are fine aside from some odd greens).
Samsung NX. Solid bodies with no real defining features, great lens lineup, limited adaptability (as mirrorless systems go). Pretty much the pick if you want the advantages of m43 with a larger sensor.
Canon EOS-M. If it just has to say Canon, or you need to adapt EF lenses with AF and aren't willing to trust a Chinese adapter. Otherwise overpriced and underperforming. IQ is at best comparable to the Oly 16MP m43 bodies.
Nikon 1/Pentax Q. Great for casual shooters, not ideal for shooters who want IQ
Pentax K-01. If you own K mount lenses and don't want an adapter. Great IQ, but it's huge and brick-like due to the SLR mount.
And you can add Sony to the list for 'best IQ from CaptureOne'....Show more →
Good summary, Adam.
I might add to Samsung that lens availability (and I imagine accessories too) can be scarce at times, which is baffling for such a large company.
Did you just post a link to a shot which is ancient and has *optional* compression? How does that answer anything? I certainly do not claim that no camera ever had bad compression, but was looking for a recent one where the compression is lossy and non-optional. And where is your answer to 2)? I certainly don't see anything on your Flickr site which will make anyone here have any dreams of copying you.
p.5 #18 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
My feeling is that NEX is the jack of all trades, but master of none. The 5N is the first camera I found worth purchasing since I bought my 5D, which still surprises me a little.
If we expand the conversation from camera systems to fixed lens cameras (am I effectively hijacking the thread) there are probably half a dozen other options which deserve a mention too.
p.5 #19 · Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in...
carstenw wrote:
Did you just post a link to a shot which is ancient and has *optional* compression? How does that answer anything? I certainly do not claim that no camera ever had bad compression, but was looking for a recent one where the compression is lossy and non-optional. And where is your answer to 2)? I certainly don't see anything on your Flickr site which will make anyone here have any dreams of copying you.
I just sampled some of the 105 posts you made in the last two months, and there is a stunning number of posts about compression there. It appears to be your main interest (perhaps apart from swans).
The funny thing is that the photo you linked to doesn't even show the typical effects of lossy compression. Typically the colours will stay the same, but banding will creep in. Why are you convinced that compression caused this? Perhaps you could outline your methodology, which I presume is more detailed than taking two shots 5 minutes/47 frames apart and liking the sky in one better than in the other?
