rattymouse wrote:
*Absolutely* agree. The near nonstop whining about weight really makes me wonder about the demographics of the photography hobby. I have seen posts after posts where authors split hairs down to the nearest 10 grams trying to prove something has less weight!! It's absolute madness. Are people really that old, that weak, that unable to carry around a few pounds?
When I travel, I carry around 10 pounds or more of gear. I never try to drop my bag's weight to super low levels. In my bag I have 3 cameras, 2 of them are medium format rangefinders with another SLR. It's not the most efficient gear. If I could start over again I'd get a Mamiya 7 where I can carry lenses instead of multiple bodies. But the weight is not bad at all and I carry it easily, very very easily, all day long on 8+ hour hikes in urban areas as well as up decent size mountains.
I'm nearly 50 and not the strongest guy in the world.
I am fortunately in a good shape and can carry quite some gear around with me - but I prefer to avoid carrying around too bulky/heavy gear! Why? When I travel or hike, I like to minimize the bulk of my gear as good as possible. On hikes I rather carry two more bottles of water with me instead of lugging around two more heavy and bulky DSLR cameras with DSLR fitting lenses. Everybody who travels and/or hikes knows very well that size matters - you will carry all kind of other stuff with you, for example food, jackets/clothing, sometimes additional footwear, water supply, rain coat, etc. Now try to fit in two DSLRs and 3-4 DSLR-sized lenses and a small tripod maybe. It's no fun! This was and is one of the biggest plus for me with mirrorless - smaller size especially and limited weight. I further reduced the size with suitable rangefinder lenses instead of carrying around twice as big DSLR lenses. Huge benefit! Especially on longer hikes or city walks the benefit is undeniable.
atwl77 wrote:
"Your style is shit" is a personal attack.
I don't think it is, as long as it's honest. Sure it's not as productive as a comment with an explanation, however bear in mind that being a good photographer is one thing, but writing meaningful things about photography is actually a whole different art form in its own right.
Sometimes a comment like that from someone whose opinion matters sounds cruel but it might actually be the best thing (again, as long as it's honest). Lots of people get trapped for years in meaningless photography exactly because nobody bothered to tell them, because they are too polite or purely because they wanted to be "nice" to them so they can add them to their army of like-givers on flickr of FB
Wow, long text
Sorry for butting in, I was just randomly reading on the new camera and happened to stumble upon an interesting subject. I'll leave you to it now
retrofocus wrote:
I find it interesting, too - what confuses me here is the zoom/crop area, why is it not the same for each of the full photos on top? For a better 1:1 comparison I would like to see the same crop from each of the above photos for better comaprison. Just a suggestion!
Retro - are you referring to the top three rows of photos? They are the same crop area, but if you'd like I can zoom in more and show you a specific area. It took me awhile to make that comparison image (thinking people would appreciate the time and work I put into making it, but instead some attacked my work and flickr page haha).
I have it saved in photoshop PSD file now and can quickly edit it for a closeup.
If you click on the full size link here you can get a better view of the artifacts:
The posterization and artifacts always appear near high contrast (super light and super dark) areas that are juxtaposed against each other. In this case it is near the specular reflections in all bottles.
pdmphoto wrote:
When shoting landscapes, there can be a lot of contrast and dynamic range in areas like the sky. I have seen similar problems without unusual processing. I often wonder if tonal graduations are also getting compressed in Sony's lossy RAW? Sometimes I get unusual color banding (for 14bit RAW) during post processing.
The issues surround very high contrast boundaries only, there is no way for lossy compression to generate banding, that must be the result of something else.
Spyro P. wrote:
I don't think it is, as long as it's honest.
I can see where you're coming from, but personally "shit" is a swear word (well, not as bad as the f-bomb, but still a mild one) and anytime a swear word is involved, chances are it is more an attack than an honest opinion. But I suppose depending on region or culture, your mileage may vary though.
---------------------------------------------
Matt Grum wrote:
The issues surround very high contrast boundaries only, there is no way for lossy compression to generate banding, that must be the result of something else.
Being a forum owner sometimes I see images posted that maybe the comments are too polite. Everyone likes to be a nice guy and nothing wrong with that, I do myself but sometimes it does not teach or inspire the person shooting the images to do better or learn from there mistakes. It's a pretty common theme in forums. Nothing wrong with this but sometimes being honest on a image may not sound well by the written word of those that may critique it too. When writing on forums the written words intent is sometimes taken the wrong way. In other words it is sometimes hard not to offend someone and than wars break out. It's very hard to write sometimes to appeal to the international community.
The posterization and artifacts always appear near high contrast (super light and super dark) areas that are juxtaposed against each other. In this case it is near the specular reflections in all bottles.
Those artifacts are a bit disappointing with such a lovely sensor, IMHO. How much was the exposure pushed?
Matt Grum wrote:
The issues surround very high contrast boundaries only, there is no way for lossy compression to generate banding, that must be the result of something else.
I live in one of the sunniest parts and hottest parts of the country maybe the world for that matter. So high contrast scenes are the normal mode of operation. I'm in Arizona the Sonora Desert and it's very bright almost always but still I seem to get around without to much recovery modes in C1.
We should start a thread about color management and monitors and such so folks understand that whole process. When we talk about banding look for what color space these images are in and work with real photographic wide gamut monitors. This is a big topic here that would help a lot of folks understand color management
rattymouse wrote:
*Absolutely* agree. The near nonstop whining about weight really makes me wonder about the demographics of the photography hobby. I have seen posts after posts where authors split hairs down to the nearest 10 grams trying to prove something has less weight!! It's absolute madness. Are people really that old, that weak, that unable to carry around a few pounds?
When I travel, I carry around 10 pounds or more of gear. I never try to drop my bag's weight to super low levels. In my bag I have 3 cameras, 2 of them are medium format rangefinders with another SLR. It's not the most efficient gear. If I could start over again I'd get a Mamiya 7 where I can carry lenses instead of multiple bodies. But the weight is not bad at all and I carry it easily, very very easily, all day long on 8+ hour hikes in urban areas as well as up decent size mountains.
I'm nearly 50 and not the strongest guy in the world.
GMPhotography wrote:
Being a forum owner sometimes I see images posted that maybe the comments are too polite. Everyone likes to be a nice guy and nothing wrong with that, I do myself but sometimes it does not teach or inspire the person shooting the images to do better or learn from there mistakes. It's a pretty common theme in forums. Nothing wrong with this but sometimes being honest on a image may not sound well by the written word of those that may critique it too. When writing on forums the written words intent is sometimes taken the wrong way. In other words it is sometimes hard not to offend someone and than wars break out. It's very hard to write sometimes to appeal to the international community.
I just woke up first espresso, need a second. Lol...Show more →
Ok, can I suggest politely that you check the spelling and grammar in your posts please?
twoeye wrote: Fengniao has full size version of the Sony samples. (At least the last one is full size)
The opera interior with itīs many point light sources show no signs of ugly sensor reflections as someone else pointed out earlier in the thread. The lamps are probably not very bright and I do not know if they would have caused issues on the A7, but so far the A7rII might seem to be better in this regard.
I missed this earlier, thanks for posting this.
I have to say, I am very impressed with the performance of that FE 16-35. I don't shoot wider than 28mm very often, and when I do I either use the VM 15mm on the Leica M or adapt the Canon 16-35/4L on the A7R..... but this sample image makes the lens a very tempting proposition...
Spelling and grammar are not in my wheelhouse to be honest. Besides spell check sucks on these iPads. I write any diffrent people won't think it's me. Sorry but this will not change. Lol
Stoffer wrote:
Those artifacts are a bit disappointing with such a lovely sensor, IMHO. How much was the exposure pushed?
Exposure was not pushed at all. I moved the shadows and the blacks up in Lightroom by +100. A very basic edit.
Just to reiterate - the reason I posted this earlier was because someone asked - and I was hoping with the new A7r II, Sony would have addressed the compression issue.
There is a long comments section over at imaging resource at the very bottom of the page where they asked Sony about this, and Sony said they were very aware of this request from users. They are looking for a firmware update that will address this issue. I hope it is true!
johntruong wrote:
Retro - are you referring to the top three rows of photos? They are the same crop area, but if you'd like I can zoom in more and show you a specific area. It took me awhile to make that comparison image (thinking people would appreciate the time and work I put into making it, but instead some attacked my work and flickr page haha).
I have it saved in photoshop PSD file now and can quickly edit it for a closeup.
If you click on the full size link here you can get a better view of the artifacts:
The posterization and artifacts always appear near high contrast (super light and super dark) areas that are juxtaposed against each other. In this case it is near the specular reflections in all bottles.
I referred to the last row with the details in your comparison - they show different crop areas which I find confusing. I looked at your link above and I have a hard time seeing any difference other than the 5D MkIII which appears a lot more noisy. Could you maybe make a red circle around the areas which you refer to? I might miss something.
johntruong wrote:
Exposure was not pushed at all. I moved the shadows and the blacks up in Lightroom by +100. A very basic edit.
Just to reiterate - the reason I posted this earlier was because someone asked - and I was hoping with the new A7r II, Sony would have addressed the compression issue.
There is a long comments section over at imaging resource at the very bottom of the page where they asked Sony about this, and Sony said they were very aware of this request from users. They are looking for a firmware update that will address this issue. I hope it is true!
retrofocus wrote:
I referred to the last row in your comparison - they show different crop areas which I find confusing. I looked at your link above and I have a hard time seeing any difference other than the 5D MkIII which appears a lot more noisy. Could you maybe make a red circle around the areas which you refer to? I might miss something.
Right. The last rows are just closeup detail shots of the artifacts. The reason they are not the same crop area is because I did not normalize the resolution. I did this so you could see the trouble areas more clearly. The first two rows of images are normalized to 12MP (using A7s as baseline).
I can make another image if you'd like showing the trouble areas. I think it is pretty clear though.
I would love to see the firmware regardless of what or what we are not seeing. I honestly don't like the idea of there compression algorithm. There really is no need for this type of compression. Granted camera needs fast processors to push data fast but as far as storage space. Memory cards are dirt cheap and big now. The days of spending 300 dollars for a 16gb card are over. I'm not joking on that one either.
Right. The last rows are just closeup detail shots of the artifacts. The reason they are not the same crop area is because I did not normalize the resolution. I did this so you could see the trouble areas more clearly. The first two rows of images are normalized to 12MP (using A7s as baseline).
I can make another image if you'd like showing the trouble areas. I think it is pretty clear though.
Actually the differences, if any, are not obvious to me either. Or, put it this way: if this is the worst from the compression, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
However, I do think that camera manufactures should always give the untampered files to the users as an option.
howard wrote:
Actually the differences, if any, are not obvious to me either. Or, put it this way: if this is the worst from the compression, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
However, I do think that camera manufactures should always give the untampered files to the users as an option.
Retro, Howard... here you go:
Notice how there is the usual shadow noise in the Canon 5DM3, but no compression artifacts. All the A7 series cameras exhibit this.
howard wrote:
Actually the differences, if any, are not obvious to me either. Or, put it this way: if this is the worst from the compression, then I wouldn't worry too much about it.
However, I do think that camera manufactures should always give the untampered files to the users as an option.
Like I said earlier, the issue may be moot for a lot of users (which is great), but unfortunately I am not one of them.
I see this more often than I care for. Most of the time I am clone stamping it out in Photoshop.
