This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013Bailing on the A7r....
p.3 #1Bailing on the A7r....
lambers wrote:
If you read too much into Lloyd Chamber's nit-picking, you won't be happy with anything. Name one camera that he has not taken issue with?
#1 - I gladly pay him to find those issues as well as learn how to look for them on my own.
We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I want image quality so the fact that the A7r can't manage some situations the NEX 7 could manage is an issue.
If you read too much into Lloyd Chamber's nit-picking, you won't be happy with anything. Name one camera that he has not taken issue with?
#1 - I gladly pay him to find those issues as well as learn how to look for them on my own.
We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I want image quality so the fact that the A7r can't manage some situations the NEX 7 could manage is an issue.
Dec 08, 2013 at 07:45 PM
p.3 #2Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/11257422215_c2d60b9cf5.jpg
A7r_Nocti (1 of 1)-6 by gdi2003, on FlickrThis may be the lenses fault - you're at f2 according to your notes. I would like to see 4-5.6 with a better lens.
! You deleted the paragraph immediately preceding the image stating it was the demo showing red and green side by side on the A7r. I didn't post that to demonstrate the mushiness....
tennclay wrote
Unfortunately, I am very disappointed with even my 50s on the A7r. Today I did a quick comparison between my M8 and the A7r and the 50 Elmar-M, and my Hex 50 Limited. in both case the A7r was able to provide great resolution of a distant landscape in the center, but it quickly turned to mush as you scan toward the edges. This is not color shift, but smeared mushy detail.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/11257422215_c2d60b9cf5.jpg
A7r_Nocti (1 of 1)-6 by gdi2003, on Flickr
! You deleted the paragraph immediately preceding the image stating it was the demo showing red and green side by side on the A7r. I didn't post that to demonstrate the mushiness....Dec 08, 2013 at 07:47 PM
p.3 #3Bailing on the A7r....
naturephoto1 wrote:
When saving the A7r RAW files to TIFF from LR5.3RC and importing them to PS6 the TIFF files are 206MB in size in 16 Bits/channel.
RichYes, but then you already lost some information in the RAW format which is limited, as I read here, to 30MB.I just opened the original RAW file in PS6. The RAW file shows exactly the same image size as the TIFF file that was exported from LR5.3RC. The RAW file opens at 103.4 MB at 300 pixels/inch at 8 Bits/channel. The TIFF file is 206.9 MB at 240 pixels/inch at 16 Bits/channel. So, yes, the TIFF file has been lowered from 300 to 240 pixels/inch. So there is even more information in the RAW file. But, I never print from a file that has gone through LR to PS. I send my TIFF files prepared from LR to my Printer...Show more →
Sorry, but file size, bits per channel, PPI, etc do not mean anything at all in regards to whether the RAW file is lossy or lossless. The only sure way to know is to wait for open source/GPL converters such as DCRAW to support the files, then a programmer can go look at the source code and see what algorithm was used to decompress the RAW file (or, ask the developer). Or if someone was already familiar with Sony RAW file formats, one could go examine the binary file itself and look for the compression header structure to see what method was used.
wiseguy010 wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
MaxBerlin wrote
The other issue is around the 8 bit compression the A7r uses across the board - no RAW file is above 37.4mb - the D800e can generate files twice this size on complicated photos. What is being lost in that 30mb ? Or being compressed (pixelated/banded) ?Rich
Sorry, but file size, bits per channel, PPI, etc do not mean anything at all in regards to whether the RAW file is lossy or lossless. The only sure way to know is to wait for open source/GPL converters such as DCRAW to support the files, then a programmer can go look at the source code and see what algorithm was used to decompress the RAW file (or, ask the developer). Or if someone was already familiar with Sony RAW file formats, one could go examine the binary file itself and look for the compression header structure to see what method was used.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:01 PM
p.3 #4Bailing on the A7r....
'the Sony smearing starts well within what would be the M8 frame.'
I saw what you did there. The 'Sony smearing', is it? Looks like a heavy mechanical or optical vignette, makes it hard to see any corner detail at all, and corners will be out of the focal plane most likely, so you are relying on DoF for coverage at this short focal distance with a 50mm. Are you suggesting the sensor vignetted the image?
Sony, like the others, can do many things very well, but guaranteeing that you and Max will be deliriously happy with any lens shot at any aperture is not on their agenda.
Even fine cameras can't do that for you. Of course comparisons are always welcome, so you might be able to show us another camera that did better here - same technique, same lens, same FF frame, same scene? That would be statistically meaningful and would get us past the realm of mere opinion, welcome though that is of course. In your shoes, I would want to do that anyway.
Max, if you don't trust the goods, don't buy. Plenty of time to do so later, or buy something you like better.
I saw what you did there. The 'Sony smearing', is it? Looks like a heavy mechanical or optical vignette, makes it hard to see any corner detail at all, and corners will be out of the focal plane most likely, so you are relying on DoF for coverage at this short focal distance with a 50mm. Are you suggesting the sensor vignetted the image?
Sony, like the others, can do many things very well, but guaranteeing that you and Max will be deliriously happy with any lens shot at any aperture is not on their agenda.
Even fine cameras can't do that for you. Of course comparisons are always welcome, so you might be able to show us another camera that did better here - same technique, same lens, same FF frame, same scene? That would be statistically meaningful and would get us past the realm of mere opinion, welcome though that is of course. In your shoes, I would want to do that anyway.
Max, if you don't trust the goods, don't buy. Plenty of time to do so later, or buy something you like better.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:15 PM
p.3 #5Bailing on the A7r....
On LC: Lloyd gets paid by the number of page views, best to remember that. His business model is pretty rank in some ways...a para held out as a taster followed by an exhortation to join up for the modest and very reasonable fee to receive the rest of the received wisdom hiding just out of reach. Just what the web is all about, eh? 
He often comes across as a photographic version of Chicken Little, not the source of all wisdom by any means - like a lot of people, just another data point, some good, some much less so.
He often comes across as a photographic version of Chicken Little, not the source of all wisdom by any means - like a lot of people, just another data point, some good, some much less so.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:22 PM
p.3 #6Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
What LLoyd is documenting is ...
Without full details we've no idea what Lloyd is documenting nor how he goes about it.
Same lens? How about same lens same sensor, i,e, target A7r and D800E sensor, instead of pitting the A7r sensor up against the higher pixel density NEX-7 sensor.
Honestly... I just don't care. I just peeked at some of my D800 files at 11x and they look much the same as my A7r files at 11x, same subject, same focal length, shot in similar lighting on different but equally crisp days. I assure you that'll be the last time I click on the 11x magnification choice in Lightroom. The pixelated effect might be art for some but not me.
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:27 PM · View previous versions
What LLoyd is documenting is ...
Without full details we've no idea what Lloyd is documenting nor how he goes about it.
Same lens? How about same lens same sensor, i,e, target A7r and D800E sensor, instead of pitting the A7r sensor up against the higher pixel density NEX-7 sensor.
Honestly... I just don't care. I just peeked at some of my D800 files at 11x and they look much the same as my A7r files at 11x, same subject, same focal length, shot in similar lighting on different but equally crisp days. I assure you that'll be the last time I click on the 11x magnification choice in Lightroom. The pixelated effect might be art for some but not me.
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:27 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:25 PM
p.3 #7Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/11257422215_c2d60b9cf5.jpg
A7r_Nocti (1 of 1)-6 by gdi2003, on FlickrThis may be the lenses fault - you're at f2 according to your notes. I would like to see 4-5.6 with a better lens.! You deleted the paragraph immediately preceding the image stating it was the demo showing red and green side by side on the A7r. I didn't post that to demonstrate the mushiness....I didn't want to have to point out that most of that green/red transitions in your photo are separated by some extensive purple fringing.
The purple is just a bonus! I must have missed it because I just inspected it at 9x magnification!
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:53 PM · View previous versions
tennclay wrote
MaxBerlin wrote
tennclay wrote
Unfortunately, I am very disappointed with even my 50s on the A7r. Today I did a quick comparison between my M8 and the A7r and the 50 Elmar-M, and my Hex 50 Limited. in both case the A7r was able to provide great resolution of a distant landscape in the center, but it quickly turned to mush as you scan toward the edges. This is not color shift, but smeared mushy detail.http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/11257422215_c2d60b9cf5.jpg
A7r_Nocti (1 of 1)-6 by gdi2003, on Flickr
! You deleted the paragraph immediately preceding the image stating it was the demo showing red and green side by side on the A7r. I didn't post that to demonstrate the mushiness....The purple is just a bonus! I must have missed it because I just inspected it at 9x magnification!
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:53 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:27 PM
p.3 #8Bailing on the A7r....
You forgot about the weird speckling artifact that some people think is an issue with reflections between the layers of sensor glass.
You forgot about the triple-prosumer-DSLRs shutter lag, though it's fast enough for many types of shooting.
You forgot about the quintuple-prosumer-DSLRs / triple-1/3-price-NEX-6 shutter blackout that isn't.
You forgot the is-this-firmware-still-in-alpha start-up and wake-from-sleep times.
You forgot the awful battery life.
You forgot the awful ergonomics.
I dunno, an EVF and focus magnification and the ability to adapt any lens are all fabulous, but that's about all this camera has to offer. In every other way (except higher pxiel count) my ancient-in-consumer-electronics-terms D700 is a better camera. The A7/r would be really impressive if it was 2010 and this was their first mirrorless, but after 87 iterations of the NEX line and two stabs at the RX1 they really ought to have it together much better than this. Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:42 PM · View previous versions
You forgot about the triple-prosumer-DSLRs shutter lag, though it's fast enough for many types of shooting.
You forgot about the quintuple-prosumer-DSLRs / triple-1/3-price-NEX-6 shutter blackout that isn't.
You forgot the is-this-firmware-still-in-alpha start-up and wake-from-sleep times.
You forgot the awful battery life.
You forgot the awful ergonomics.
I dunno, an EVF and focus magnification and the ability to adapt any lens are all fabulous, but that's about all this camera has to offer. In every other way (except higher pxiel count) my ancient-in-consumer-electronics-terms D700 is a better camera. The A7/r would be really impressive if it was 2010 and this was their first mirrorless, but after 87 iterations of the NEX line and two stabs at the RX1 they really ought to have it together much better than this. Why can't anyone, not even CaNikon, build a mirrorless camera that's as good as a CaNikon DSLR?
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 08:42 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:35 PM
p.3 #9Bailing on the A7r....
millsart wrote:
Who is Lloyd Chambers other than a guy who thinks I should have to pay to read his opinion on the internet ?
I mean, I know his site and that he does reviews, but what are his credentials as a photographer ? Does he have an extensive background in optic design or electrical engineering ?
Is he a celebrated landscape photographer with multiple galleries in exotic cites, or perhaps an experienced photo journalist with 200+ magazines covers and a Pulitzer to his credit ?
Not knowing anything about his make its a bit hard to judge if one should or shouldn't...Show more →
To be fair, many of those qualifications only prove one's savvy at marketing, not actual skill
That said, Lloyd (at least from what I remember when I subscribed) does some pretty darn thorough testing on various lenses and bodies. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he does put forth a lot of effort.
If you don't believe me, do a test run comparable to some of his and see how long it takes (like my EM1 review, it takes a lot longer to make than it does to consume).
Again, it's not to say he's wrong or right, but he does get pretty thorough.
Who is Lloyd Chambers other than a guy who thinks I should have to pay to read his opinion on the internet ?
I mean, I know his site and that he does reviews, but what are his credentials as a photographer ? Does he have an extensive background in optic design or electrical engineering ?
Is he a celebrated landscape photographer with multiple galleries in exotic cites, or perhaps an experienced photo journalist with 200+ magazines covers and a Pulitzer to his credit ?
Not knowing anything about his make its a bit hard to judge if one should or shouldn't...Show more →
To be fair, many of those qualifications only prove one's savvy at marketing, not actual skill
That said, Lloyd (at least from what I remember when I subscribed) does some pretty darn thorough testing on various lenses and bodies. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but he does put forth a lot of effort.
If you don't believe me, do a test run comparable to some of his and see how long it takes (like my EM1 review, it takes a lot longer to make than it does to consume).
Again, it's not to say he's wrong or right, but he does get pretty thorough.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:42 PM
p.3 #10Bailing on the A7r....
It took a long time for DSLR's to get where they are now.
Evolution takes time.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:44 PM
p.3 #11Bailing on the A7r....
philip_pj wrote:
'the Sony smearing starts well within what would be the M8 frame.'
I saw what you did there. The 'Sony smearing', is it? Looks like a heavy mechanical or optical vignette, makes it hard to see any corner detail at all, and corners will be out of the focal plane most likely, so you are relying on DoF for coverage at this short focal distance with a 50mm. Are you suggesting the sensor vignetted the image?
Sony, like the others, can do many things very well, but guaranteeing that you and Max will be deliriously happy with any lens shot at...Show more →
No, you didn't see what I did there - because you didn't read what I wrote.
I didn't offer that single image as anything more than an A7r shot with some red abutting green that Max said caused a problem ( which I see nothing really wrong with.) So all your speculation is incorrect.
As I stated, I tested the same lenses side by side on the M8 and the A7r- on a distant landscape without stopping down more than a stop. And the Sony image was smeared where the Leica image wasn't. If the Sony can't perform further across the frame than the M8 with a 50mm 2.8 then I don't consider it nitpicking.
Look, I was hoping that the A7r would work well with RF lenses or I wouldn't have bought it. I haven't written it off yet and I have a new hopefully higher quality adapter arriving tomorrow. So maybe I have a bad adapter and it will be a lot better with the new one. I am just trying to compare notes here and learn what works and what doesn't.
'the Sony smearing starts well within what would be the M8 frame.'
I saw what you did there. The 'Sony smearing', is it? Looks like a heavy mechanical or optical vignette, makes it hard to see any corner detail at all, and corners will be out of the focal plane most likely, so you are relying on DoF for coverage at this short focal distance with a 50mm. Are you suggesting the sensor vignetted the image?
Sony, like the others, can do many things very well, but guaranteeing that you and Max will be deliriously happy with any lens shot at...Show more →
No, you didn't see what I did there - because you didn't read what I wrote.
I didn't offer that single image as anything more than an A7r shot with some red abutting green that Max said caused a problem ( which I see nothing really wrong with.) So all your speculation is incorrect.
As I stated, I tested the same lenses side by side on the M8 and the A7r- on a distant landscape without stopping down more than a stop. And the Sony image was smeared where the Leica image wasn't. If the Sony can't perform further across the frame than the M8 with a 50mm 2.8 then I don't consider it nitpicking.
Look, I was hoping that the A7r would work well with RF lenses or I wouldn't have bought it. I haven't written it off yet and I have a new hopefully higher quality adapter arriving tomorrow. So maybe I have a bad adapter and it will be a lot better with the new one. I am just trying to compare notes here and learn what works and what doesn't.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:47 PM
p.3 #12Bailing on the A7r....
MaxBerlin wrote:
#1 - I gladly pay him to find those issues as well as learn how to look for them on my own.
We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I want image quality so the fact that the A7r can't...Show more →
ick, from the descriptions here of his reviews i can't imagine reading them let alone paying to read them. when i want to find out about image quality from a camera or a lens i download a few raws from somebody that i'm confident knows how to focus a camera.
lambers wrote
If you read too much into Lloyd Chamber's nit-picking, you won't be happy with anything. Name one camera that he has not taken issue with?We all know that every camera or lens has some compromise or issue. But on the whole Lloyd has been pretty satisfied with the Sigmas, (just need FF and EVF) although he's found a few issues. Same with the D800e, the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX1(s). He is mainly liking the A7 and he was thrilled with the Zeiss APO 135mm and the Otus. (deservedly so)
I want image quality so the fact that the A7r can't...Show more →
ick, from the descriptions here of his reviews i can't imagine reading them let alone paying to read them. when i want to find out about image quality from a camera or a lens i download a few raws from somebody that i'm confident knows how to focus a camera.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:50 PM
p.3 #13Bailing on the A7r....
atwl77 wrote:
When saving the A7r RAW files to TIFF from LR5.3RC and importing them to PS6 the TIFF files are 206MB in size in 16 Bits/channel.
RichYes, but then you already lost some information in the RAW format which is limited, as I read here, to 30MB.I just opened the original RAW file in PS6. The RAW file shows exactly the same image size as the TIFF file that was exported from LR5.3RC. The RAW file opens at 103.4 MB at 300 pixels/inch at 8 Bits/channel. The TIFF file is 206.9 MB at 240 pixels/inch at 16 Bits/channel. So, yes, the TIFF file has been lowered from 300 to 240 pixels/inch. So there is even more information in the RAW file. But, I never print from a file that has gone through LR to PS. I send my TIFF files prepared from LR to my Printer in California. He uses my TIFF files as a guide for printing from my original RAW file. He works the RAW file to get the most out of the file but he only uses my TIFF file to know the direction that I want to go with the image. At this point, all of my my new work is being printed to Metal unless it is requested otherwise.
RichSorry, but file size, bits per channel, PPI, etc do not mean anything at all in regards to whether the RAW file is lossy or lossless. The only sure way to know is to wait for open source/GPL converters such as DCRAW to support the files, then a programmer can go look at the source code and see what algorithm was used to decompress the RAW file (or, ask the developer). Or if someone was already familiar with Sony RAW file formats, one could go examine the binary file itself and look for the compression header structure to see what...Show more →
"Pixels per inch" is essentially meaningless unless talking about the image as output on some display (e.g. ppi on a print or lcd screen).
Bit depth may or may not allow an inference about whether lossy compression has been applied. In the case of an image being converted to 16 bit tiff from the original raw, the 16 bit channels mean nothing. The original was not 16 bit, so there isn't 16 bits worth of useful information to be had. This doesn't stop the conversion process from stuffing the original data, whether it was 8, 12, or 14 bit, into 16 bits.
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost, since the camera is supposed to be 14-bit. In the case of the A7r it appears that raw files are consistently output at 36 megabytes. a.) That sort of file size consistency is effectively impossible with a lossless algorithm, and b.) pretty simple math lets us determine that a 36 meg file can only accommodate 8 bits of information per pixel.
naturephoto1 wrote
wiseguy010 wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
MaxBerlin wrote
The other issue is around the 8 bit compression the A7r uses across the board - no RAW file is above 37.4mb - the D800e can generate files twice this size on complicated photos. What is being lost in that 30mb ? Or being compressed (pixelated/banded) ?Rich
Rich
"Pixels per inch" is essentially meaningless unless talking about the image as output on some display (e.g. ppi on a print or lcd screen).
Bit depth may or may not allow an inference about whether lossy compression has been applied. In the case of an image being converted to 16 bit tiff from the original raw, the 16 bit channels mean nothing. The original was not 16 bit, so there isn't 16 bits worth of useful information to be had. This doesn't stop the conversion process from stuffing the original data, whether it was 8, 12, or 14 bit, into 16 bits.
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost, since the camera is supposed to be 14-bit. In the case of the A7r it appears that raw files are consistently output at 36 megabytes. a.) That sort of file size consistency is effectively impossible with a lossless algorithm, and b.) pretty simple math lets us determine that a 36 meg file can only accommodate 8 bits of information per pixel.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:54 PM
p.3 #14Bailing on the A7r....
Speaking of awful battery life, I'm on day four on my last charge and still have 26% less. 83 | 123 | 4 | 67 images respectively and a fair amount of fooling around with the interface on a couple of occasions.
Sure, it's not DSLR performance but I don't expect an all-live-view camera to consume power in as miserly a fashion as a DSLR.
Sure, it's not DSLR performance but I don't expect an all-live-view camera to consume power in as miserly a fashion as a DSLR.
Dec 08, 2013 at 08:56 PM
p.3 #15Bailing on the A7r....
bpark42 wrote:
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost, since the camera is supposed to be 14-bit. In the case of the A7r it appears that raw files are consistently output at 36 megabytes. a.) That sort of file size consistency is effectively impossible with a lossless algorithm, and b.) pretty simple math lets us determine that a 36 meg file can only accommodate 8 bits of information per pixel.
36 megs regardless of ISO or shooting conditions? Okay... that's not good at all....
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost, since the camera is supposed to be 14-bit. In the case of the A7r it appears that raw files are consistently output at 36 megabytes. a.) That sort of file size consistency is effectively impossible with a lossless algorithm, and b.) pretty simple math lets us determine that a 36 meg file can only accommodate 8 bits of information per pixel.
36 megs regardless of ISO or shooting conditions? Okay... that's not good at all....
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:00 PM
p.3 #16Bailing on the A7r....
So what sets Mr. Chambers apart from someone like Ron Scheffler, who also seems to be a guy who's used a lot of camera's, and who provided, free of charge, an extensive collection of RF lenses on the A7r, in full resolution, at various apertures and with a variety of subject distances ?
Or a bunch of other FM members who also have provided quite a bit of sample images in various forums ?
Why should I listen to Mr. Chambers (and pay to do so) over anyone elses opinion is what I'm asking ?
Does he have any credentials that suggest his opinion is any more or less binding than the likes of Huff, Richman, Reid, the Photoblogger guy etc ?
Why if Kai at DigRev, or Chris at TCS say something should it merely be taken as their opinion why Chambers is so often referred to by many as the final word on the subject ?
I mean if it was Dr. Walter Mandler talking about Leica optics from that era then yeah, he's the designer and that rather does make him the authority on the matter. I'd wager he knows a bit more than I do about the designs.
What makes Mr. Chambers any more informed than your typical Alt FM member who also has no doubt shot with a wide collection of cameras/lenses ?
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 09:30 PM · View previous versions
Or a bunch of other FM members who also have provided quite a bit of sample images in various forums ?
Why should I listen to Mr. Chambers (and pay to do so) over anyone elses opinion is what I'm asking ?
Does he have any credentials that suggest his opinion is any more or less binding than the likes of Huff, Richman, Reid, the Photoblogger guy etc ?
Why if Kai at DigRev, or Chris at TCS say something should it merely be taken as their opinion why Chambers is so often referred to by many as the final word on the subject ?
I mean if it was Dr. Walter Mandler talking about Leica optics from that era then yeah, he's the designer and that rather does make him the authority on the matter. I'd wager he knows a bit more than I do about the designs.
What makes Mr. Chambers any more informed than your typical Alt FM member who also has no doubt shot with a wide collection of cameras/lenses ?
Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 09:30 PM · View previous versions
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:06 PM
p.3 #17Bailing on the A7r....
atwl77 wrote:
36 megs regardless of ISO or shooting conditions? Okay... that's not good at all....
It's not necessarily bad (though it certainly isn't good unless one prioritizes file size over everything else.) My point was simply that we probably have enough information to determine that lossy compression is being applied. It is an open question as to whether that compression has any visually discernible effect.
bpark42 wrote
On the other hand, if we knew that the original raw only contained 8 bits per channel, then obviously data has been lost, since the camera is supposed to be 14-bit. In the case of the A7r it appears that raw files are consistently output at 36 megabytes. a.) That sort of file size consistency is effectively impossible with a lossless algorithm, and b.) pretty simple math lets us determine that a 36 meg file can only accommodate 8 bits of information per pixel.It's not necessarily bad (though it certainly isn't good unless one prioritizes file size over everything else.) My point was simply that we probably have enough information to determine that lossy compression is being applied. It is an open question as to whether that compression has any visually discernible effect.
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:20 PM
p.3 #18Bailing on the A7r....
sebboh wrote:
ick, from the descriptions here of his reviews i can't imagine reading them let alone paying to read them. when i want to find out about image quality from a camera or a lens i download a few raws from somebody that i'm confident knows how to focus a camera.
sebboh, not only that, Lloyd Chamber has a very weird political agenda and I once found his bicycle blog
(not sure how) when he was explaining his "diet", I thought it was a joke, but the guy was dead serious...
A really strange character, don't want him to tell me anything really....
ick, from the descriptions here of his reviews i can't imagine reading them let alone paying to read them. when i want to find out about image quality from a camera or a lens i download a few raws from somebody that i'm confident knows how to focus a camera.
sebboh, not only that, Lloyd Chamber has a very weird political agenda and I once found his bicycle blog
(not sure how) when he was explaining his "diet", I thought it was a joke, but the guy was dead serious...
A really strange character, don't want him to tell me anything really....
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:24 PM
p.3 #19Bailing on the A7r....
millsart wrote:
things that make sense
yeah I had the same questions about various online "authorities" including dpreview (which I think was founded and managed by a photography enthusiast with an IT background)
I think most people dont really care about credentials, as long as the reviewer has a consistent apporach and "strictness" so they can use him as a benchmark to make comparisons. Which makes sense... kind of.
The other thing is that people see in some reviewers something common with their own way of thinking or shooting habbits and that makes them comfortable that if something is bound to bug them about a camera/lens, it will bug the reviewer first. I know I do this a lot, and in that sense I will pay more attention to a few words written from a random street shooter guy than a formal review written by a professor of physics.
things that make sense
yeah I had the same questions about various online "authorities" including dpreview (which I think was founded and managed by a photography enthusiast with an IT background)
I think most people dont really care about credentials, as long as the reviewer has a consistent apporach and "strictness" so they can use him as a benchmark to make comparisons. Which makes sense... kind of.
The other thing is that people see in some reviewers something common with their own way of thinking or shooting habbits and that makes them comfortable that if something is bound to bug them about a camera/lens, it will bug the reviewer first. I know I do this a lot, and in that sense I will pay more attention to a few words written from a random street shooter guy than a formal review written by a professor of physics.
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:29 PM
p.3 #20Bailing on the A7r....
Lloyd Chamber is not an authority nor he presents himself as such. He is a great independent technical reviewer who says (writes) the way it is. He ain't pleasing no bad products (phrase intended) nor he forces you to go and buy through his site linked products that you may find performing differently. He rigorously tests photo gear he chooses and states what's good, bad and ugly about it. For a few $$$ (more or less) he actually sales you reality of photo gear performance. That’s my view. Yes, I did purchase his subscriptions and it was worth every penny!
Oh, don’t drag Ron Scheffler into this! He seems too nice to be named in this tossing match.
Oh, don’t drag Ron Scheffler into this! He seems too nice to be named in this tossing match.
Dec 08, 2013 at 09:57 PM