philip_pj wrote:
'Personally, I see these artifacts a lot.'
Care to share with us? You hear a lot and see so little...
If you don't see it, then your workflow or the way you work does not bring it out. I suspect it is like this for the majority of the people out there.
But just because you don't see it doesn't mean the issue isn't real. The compression artifacts can be quite annoying when you start pushing and pulling the RAW files around.
I shoot professionally and use all the big three: Nikon, Canon, and Sony. I do lots of post work (you can check out my FLICKR), and see these artifacts quite frequently.
I'm not going to go into detail on my personal workflow, but I can duplicate what I see even with DPREVIEW's studio tests. And these are just simple Lightroom edits. Imagine taking a RAW file and really pushing it to its limits on what it can do.
stevez32 wrote:
I'm not familiar with the Sony system, but everyone is talking about using Canon lenses with the adaptor, but I haven't seen anyone talk about Nikon lenses on Sony, is that not possible in the same way, or is it just because Canon is more popular why I only see the Canon lens discussion?
In respect to AF and full auto aperture, image stabilization, etc., I think it has to do with where the Metabones adapter originated - Conurus.
He backwards engineered Contax N AF lenses to work on Canon EOS cameras. At that time, Canon was the body of choice for adapting various legacy lens systems because of the Canon EF lens mount to sensor flange distance accepting many other brands. My guess is since he had the Canon side of the equation already pretty much figured out, he only had to get the Sony side to mesh. Which he did in partnership with Metabones.
Could a Nikon adapter be possible? One would think so, but it would again be a matter of backwards engineering. If you're a Nikon user, and want to use Nikon glass on a Sony body with AF, aperture control, VR, etc., maybe a message to Metabones to ask about the possibility?
matthewsaville wrote:
I think the ultimate in rangefinder style will eventually be an A7S-like version of the A6000. If only Sony could go "backwards" and create a 12-16 MP sensor, they could put this into a 1.5x crop and still pull off an incredible low-light performance, while doing so in a truly ultralight package. F/1.2 and similar lenses are popping up left and right for the E-mount, as are even more compact f/2 and f/2.8 primes.
This, in my opinion, is where the future of "ultimate rangefinder" will be.
I couldn't agree more. I'm still with a couple A6000's. I went with the A7 for about 9 months, but the ergonomics and size of the lenses, pushed me back to the A6000. The body style couldn't be better, in my opinion.
juvx wrote:
There is a huge improvement in evf check the specs again. biggest evf ever made.
It's actually a bit disappointing in one major respect. The EVF resolution is the same as the previous A7r at 2,359,296 pixels.. The optics are improved to give the higher magnification. It's a bit unfortunate that Sony did not also improve the resolution to something like what Leica offers in the new Q, 3,680,000. When zooming in for magnified view, a higher resolution EVF would make a noticeable difference. I guess that will be next years upgrade for Sony as they have been using this resolution EVF for many years now and it's starting to show it's age (the higher finder magnification might even make the resolution of the EVF appear even worse/ more noticeable since you still have the same number of pixels as before)
Why I don't see any of those artifacts from my a7s pictures?
oh right.. I expose correctly, which is the easiest thing to do with these camera and don't need to push highlights and shadows to 100+
howard wrote:
If not for the smallness, then why the hell should we put up with all the quirkiness of mirorless cameras I don't understand what you are saying.
What quirkiness? Or rather, sure there is quirkiness with some cameras but it's not because they are mirrorless. It's rather because of other things that hasn't really got anything to do with the removal of the mirror, more like other decisions made by the companies for what ever reasons. But then again, Canon and Nikon have this type of quirkiness as as well although to a lesser extent much thanks to them having been in the game for longer and simply know how to get it right.
Again, for quirkiness, all cameras have pros and cons, I don't understand what you mean with quirkiness as if t had something to do with the actual removal of the mirror.
Not weightless, of course, it just should weigh less (and more compact), for the elimination of the mirror box contraption. That is just simple physics.
While removing the mirror and mirror housing will lose weight... adding an EVF and in body image stabilization will again increase weight which basically only means you've exchanged the mirror and mirror housing to electronics instead.
Ecarlino posted a very good comparison pictures showing the size comparison which could of course be an advantage or disadvantage depending on your preferences.
As for weight, I would say the A7r II holds a significant advantage over the Nikon D750 as the Nikon weight 34,5% more. That's a significant increase. Compare it to the Nikon D800 which is more closely in terms of specifications instead and that camera weights 60% more. That's a huge difference. All weights are with battery and storage card btw.
Remember, simply comparing weight in grams isn't the whole truth, compare it in % and you get a much more realistic view of things as far as comparison goes.
I am no Pro-photographer by any means, I'm just a newb/hobbyist with a serious problem with self control when it comes to buying camera equipment.
But having a workflow that consists of constantly pushing shadow and highlights to +100? I mean yeah occasionally I have had to push the shadows in one picture, or the highlights in other. But to +100? And both at the same time? IMO there has to be other problems going on other than Sony's compressed/crippling raw fiasco/disaster.
johntruong wrote:
If you don't see it, then your workflow or the way you work does not bring it out. I suspect it is like this for the majority of the people out there.
But just because you don't see it doesn't mean the issue isn't real. The compression artifacts can be quite annoying when you start pushing and pulling the RAW files around.
I shoot professionally and use all the big three: Nikon, Canon, and Sony. I do lots of post work (you can check out my FLICKR), and see these artifacts quite frequently.
I'm not going to go into detail on my personal workflow, but I can duplicate what I see even with DPREVIEW's studio tests. And these are just simple Lightroom edits. Imagine taking a RAW file and really pushing it to its limits on what it can do.
Like I said before I don't shoot Sony, not yet which is a shame cause I can't try what I would want to try but a questions John, have you tried editing the Sony files in Capture one Pro or any other converters? I am shooting m43 with olympus and C1 does a far better job when it comes to pushing the olympus files. They can be pushed harder, further and don't at all fall together as they do in Lightroom. What's even more interesting is when comparing my Nikon D700 files that I still have on the computer, the difference between Lightroom and C1 are much smaller, it's almost as if Adobe has build Camera Raw around Nikon (and I suspect Canon) files and let the "smaller" companies files "suffer". Rather, they haven't spent the same amount of time on none Nikon/Canon files.
Just a thought like I said, it would be nice to see the comparison in a different raw converter as well.
As for the need to push shadows and blacks to 100%, or even close to 100% I agree with Baiga, exposing correctly is the secret to clean files and negatives back in the old days. However, looking at your Flickr page I can clearly see why you want to push your shadows like you do in order to achieve the extreme HDR look in many of your shots. While I don't like that look my self (in fact I really dislike it), it is of course the way you shoot and in that case I can understand your concern and perhaps Canon and Nikon simply are better for you?
Ps. I always shot 14bit with Nikon, I never tried anything else. Of course I think Sony should include it if possible but it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I am shooting m43, while the quality is extremely great there it doesn't come up to a modern FF sensor or even the Nikon D700 generation BUT this also makes you both understand and accept that pixel peeping like so many do, comparing dpreview tests at 100% or doing their own test at 200% or larger is simply silly. Take a look in the m43 OM-D thread for example and you will understand that it's not the camera, it's the man/woman behind the camera.
Everything we have today easily beats out analog cameras of the past and DSLR's from just a few years ago and somehow people created stunning photos with those and they still do. For your own sakes, stop pixel peeping ALL THE TIME and concentrate on the art instead.
I use C1Pro and have been for years with all my cams. It's far better than Lightroom as a final image processor than Lightroom could ever muster. Pushing shadows 100 percent is just insane. There's limits guys to all files. This far exceeds them. I have yet to run into these issues. One might want to rethink your processes. Now I don't like these compression algorithms either but I think folks need to be fair and explain these things happen when your really pushing things around and not more normal type of processing. What we have here is a lot of Internet lure to this subject too. I'm not saying artifacts are not happening for folks but we must st be careful not to cry wolf to often either.
GMPhotography wrote:
I use C1Pro and have been for years with all my cams. It's far better than Lightroom as a final image processor than Lightroom could ever muster. Pushing shadows 100 percent is just insane. There's limits guys to all files. This far exceeds them. I have yet to run into these issues. One might want to rethink your processes. Now I don't like these compression algorithms either but I think folks need to be fair and explain these things happen when your really pushing things around and not more normal type of processing. What we have here is a lot of Internet lure to this subject too. I'm not saying artifacts are not happening for folks but we must st be careful not to cry wolf to often either. ...Show more →
It's like anything else discussed here: Amplified by turning up the Internet gain dial.
But if one steps back a bit one sees a pretty normal grouping of factions and responses/counter responses: Problem is found. Some people get bent out of shape and say the problem is the end of the photographic world. Responders say the problem doesn't really exist, except as a theoretical construct. Argument ensues. Argument grows more belligerent and personal. People are called weaklings, or bad photographers, or without the ability to discern technical perfection. Some small percent on both sides of the issue dig in and refuse to see that their own views are extreme. These people will continue to drop into threads and lash out at one another...
The rest of us sit back, take stock, and make a judgement about how issue A, weight B, or bulk C, processing output D, software E, design philosophy F impacts us personally in our specific photographic, ego, or mating needs. We realize that all these systems are compromises and not religion. There is no 'king of the hill' (to steal from another cousin argument to this one in another cousin thread) that applies universally to all of us as if Photographer was a monolithic profession or hobby...
We chill out, drink a nice imperial IPA (yes, there is a king of the hill and his name is Pliny, dammit!), go sit at the river, and let the sun and attention of the attractive (insert your favored sex, gender, gender construct, inanimate object) wash over us. And then come home and process those images we've been meaning to get to but keep putting off by logging in here, going to the river, gardening, or whatever.
The A7rII looks very impressive with relatively few downsides. I have spoken this morning to my local Sony rep, and I will be one of the first few ... hopefully when they arrive in Australia
If the A7rII lives up to the specs, there will no need for the A7II. The A7s will still stand on its own.
I have already placed my A7r Mod for sale on ebay, and possibly my A7II, with the view of only keeping the A7rII and A7s. There is no need to double up.
For travelling I would not wish to take both the A7rII and A7II, but just the A7rII and A7s.
GMPhotography wrote:
I use C1Pro and have been for years with all my cams. It's far better than Lightroom as a final image processor than Lightroom could ever muster. Pushing shadows 100 percent is just insane. There's limits guys to all files. This far exceeds them. I have yet to run into these issues. One might want to rethink your processes. Now I don't like these compression algorithms either but I think folks need to be fair and explain these things happen when your really pushing things around and not more normal type of processing. What we have here is a lot of Internet lure to this subject too. I'm not saying artifacts are not happening for folks but we must st be careful not to cry wolf to often either. ...Show more →
I personally do not practice the technique of pushing shadows too much (the most I remember pushing is 25 in C1Pro, and even then that's rare), and I certainly do not have any personal liking of johntruong's processing style as demonstrated in his flickr album, so I have no stake in this ongoing debate.
Having said that, I think simply declaring blanket statements like the underlined quote seems a bit ignorant and/or inconsiderate (apologies if I'm using the wrong term here to describe what I'm trying to say) to other's post-processing methods.
To me, this entire debate is, in its most basic form, someone saying "it's a shame Sony has such a great sensor with a lot of potential, only to be crippled by its lossless compression format", and the point of contention is over the "crippled" part of that summary with both sides of the coin trying to present their own reasons why it matters or not to them. Which is fine if presented as their opinions based on their own personal preferences, but to shoot down the methods/techniques/styles of others with blanket statements just because one doesn't subscribe to that same point of view, I think reeks of onetruewayism.
You know what i am pissed about? The fact that this camera still doesnt have usb 3.0 lol. I hated tethering with the sony a7 because the wire would come loose all the damn time when i barely touched. Every micro usb wire did the same on the sony a7 and on top of that when you shoot tethered to capture one. You would lose the files if you didn't save on card too. I have lost many shots on multiple shoots because of flimsy connection to a7.
I should have trusted my instincts because I knew posting on this thread would not be productive. I am a working photographer and have lots and lots of images to edit and deliver, but feel like I have to respond because things are just taken out of context.
You guys should just read what I originally wrote. I was just simply excited about Sony's new A7r II camera and wanted to join in on the excitement.
I subsequently posted the example of the compression artifacts because someone asked for it and said they had never seen it.
Someday, I hope we all as photographers can work together and discuss problems and issues on these forums without getting offended by other's opinions or being negative or jumping to quick opinions without reading all the information.
Consequently, "processing style" is sometimes dictated by what the client needs and not what I want to shoot at the moment. I openly share my flickr and work online, which is actually extremely diverse in both style and subject matter if you flip through the six years I have been with FLICKR. And I also love group art critiques (I have a BFA in art and photography).
However, I think if you do criticize - you should also have your work available online for others to view as well. If not, you have no right criticize others.
biggest evf ever made.
I don't understand what you are saying.
