mogul wrote:
The EVF on the new Leica Q is the cat's meow...wonder who makes it since Sony has pretty much cornered the market (after buying Epson's plant).
Whats the magnification? And for $4250 it better be...
That's my problem with this conclusion so far. If it's a software issue or the compression. Obviously if it's showing in other raw converters than we squarely look at the compression but if it's not showing in C1 than its a LR issue. I'm sorry to say folks LR is just generic raw converter software. C1 has if profiles built for every camera it supports and these guys are freaking geniuses when it comes to raw processing. I had 5 phase backs and the software output on those backs plus Nikon and Sony to me at least is far better than LR. That's me though, totally will hear arguments coming the other way from the LR camp.
GMPhotography wrote:
That's my problem with this conclusion so far. If it's a software issue or the compression. Obviously if it's showing in other raw converters than we squarely look at the compression but if it's not showing in C1 than its a LR issue.
It's absolutely, 100%, most definitely the lossy compression doing that. You'll get the same results regardless of the RAW converter. I see the same thing with ACR/Lightroom as with dcraw, in fact you can run dcraw through a debugger and see exactly what's causing the artifacts, first hand.
Jun 12, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
GMPhotography wrote:
That's my problem with this conclusion so far. If it's a software issue or the compression. Obviously if it's showing in other raw converters than we squarely look at the compression but if it's not showing in C1 than its a LR issue. I'm sorry to say folks LR is just generic raw converter software. C1 has if profiles built for every camera it supports and these guys are freaking geniuses when it comes to raw processing. I had 5 phase backs and the software output on those backs plus Nikon and Sony to me at least is far better than LR. That's me though, totally will hear arguments coming the other way from the LR camp. ...Show more →
If you have followed Matt's posts on this over the last few months, then you would be convinced that it is a compression issue. He has explained when and why it has occurred and has shown it in other programs than LR. There is also an add on to Rawdigger that will show exactly where it is likely to occur. If you don't push the shadows over 40 then you never get it. You also don't tend to get it unless the highlights are in pretty thin bands like on the vine bottles in the example. I personally have never pushed shadows that far so it is a non-issue for me, but I can see how it would be an issue for some. Even when it does occur as in the examples on the last page, it looks to me like it would be easy to clean up with a little cloning. Still I can see that for some people this might be an issue and Sony should fix it.
Edit: Matt beat me to the post and it is dcraw and not rawdigger with the add on.
While the overall good feeling around the new camera is justified, i find the references to 1D IV funny. Even Sony is saying its 40% faster than A7r. How fast that is? 20% extra, 30% faster, new, improved...i always divide such marketing claims by 12
* 12 is a random number
Steve Spencer wrote:
There is also an add on to Rawdigger that will show exactly where it is likely to occur. If you don't push the shadows over 40 then you never get it.
Edit: Matt beat me to the post and it is dcraw and not rawdigger with the add on.
No, you were right first time, it is rawdigger that has the add on. Someone over at dpreview (horshack I think) produced some code that generates a PNG overlay showing the most heavily compressed parts of the image.
Detecting the worst affected areas from the RAW data is very easy, you just compare the first and second 11 bits (as unsigned integers) of each 16-byte section of data.
juvx wrote:
Ammm 2,359,296 pixels is enough... Id rather have a bigger viewfinder with less lag than more pixels, which is exactly what they did. The Fuji x-t1 has a 2.36million dot OLED display and its the best i've ever used up to this point. Seems the Sony one will be even better due to slightly higher magnification.
Speak for yourself! There is no need for a supposed trade-off either between lag vs resolution now. I have used that pixel count since the NEX-7 (then later in the RX1 finder and now the A7r). It's fine unless you are using wide angle lenses and zooming in for subject matter such as landscape. Here, you can really see the need for a higher resolution EVF. For a $3200 camera released four years after Sony started using that resolution, it should be more imo. Within the next year, you can bet most higher end EVF based cameras will have close to twice that pixel count - with the Leica Q being the first.
I have not used the Q but it's notable in Sean Reid's review, where he compares the Q EVF to the RX1 EVF, he specifically calls out the noticeable improvement from the additional resolution. He says it's more like looking through an optical finder with regard to clarity. He also states he noticed no lag issues. That matters to me.
nandadevieast wrote:
While the overall good feeling around the new camera is justified, i find the references to 1D IV funny. Even Sony is saying its 40% faster than A7r. How fast that is? 20% extra, 30% faster, new, improved...i always divide such marketing claims by 12
* 12 is a random number
Sliced bread always tastes best when it's fresh. I'm sure it will stale over time.
How dare they announce the CLM FHD5 HD Video monitor to go with the A7rII, just 1 day after I finally shell out on the old low-fi CLM V55 one! Doh! Not that I would be able to afford the new HD one, but I'm pretty sure I'd have got the old one a lot cheaper now this one's announced!
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you have followed Matt's posts on this over the last few months, then you would be convinced that it is a compression issue. He has explained when and why it has occurred and has shown it in other programs than LR. There is also an add on to Rawdigger that will show exactly where it is likely to occur. If you don't push the shadows over 40 then you never get it. You also don't tend to get it unless the highlights are in pretty thin bands like on the vine bottles in the example. I personally have never pushed shadows that far so it is a non-issue for me, but I can see how it would be an issue for some. Even when it does occur as in the examples on the last page, it looks to me like it would be easy to clean up with a little cloning. Still I can see that for some people this might be an issue and Sony should fix it.
Edit: Matt beat me to the post and it is dcraw and not rawdigger with the add on....Show more →
Thanks Matt and Steve. Steve you made a point that explained about going over 40 in recovery of the shadows which why I have not seen it as I never get that high.
Too funny. The Sony camp which bangs on Canon camp about superior DR and lifting shadows, can't lift shadows above 40/100 without introducing artifacts due to their lossy compression scheme.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic and light-hearted, which I'm fine with. I've posted here a few times before; the whole reason I'm a fan of lightweight / compact cameras is not because I need to start working out more, but because I'd love to be able to carry 2-3 cameras into the wilderness if I can. Here's an expansion of my opinion on the subject:
As I've said before, I'd love to own an A7R II. But it would not be a camera that I could own two or three of, for both budget and weight / size reasons.
For that, I'll probably have to wait and see if a weather-sealed A6000 mk2 arrives in time to go on sale for $500-600 on Black Friday / Cyber Monday this year. ;-)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Too funny. The Sony camp which bangs on Canon camp about superior DR and lifting shadows, can't lift shadows above 40/100 without introducing artifacts due to their lossy compression scheme.
Yeah, but speaking from someone who used to shoot Canon exclusively and now shoots both Canon and Sony there is a huge difference in the ability to lift shadows with Canon and Sony. With Canon I never go above 10/100 (I have a 5D MKII). When I do the banding in the shadows drives me nuts and there is no easy fix for that sort of banding. I do like to use 20 or 25 out of 100 on some shots, but just wasn't happy with the results with Canon. Still, I don't like the look of more than 40 out of 100 either. I always find it looks unnatural (and not because of artifacts) to my eye. If I did want to go more than 40 I could in almost all my images with my Sony and none of my images with my Canon. With Sony it is a very small minority of my images that would be affected and even these I could work around it if I wanted that in a shot--just never have wanted it.
So, yes there is an irony that Sony users should acknowledge, but let's not get confused and not recognize that the Sony sensor can do a lot more with lifting shadows than the current Canon sensors.
This does look like the camera to get, for the holiday season. Very early announcement for an Aug/Sept release though?
I'd love the RX100mkIV too, since it could double as a very high quality on-site cam for demo videos and product videos. Have been borrowing an LX100 for that, but the RX is even smaller, and seems to be just as good with video. For that type of videos I don't need extremely shallow DoF.
The only thing I really need to get some own experience with is how much better the new phase-detect / contrast-detect combination AF system is... I don't often shoot fast moving targets, but when I do nothing beats a good DSLR, and not by a long margin.
Some of the Sony/Oly/Pana mirrorless cameras are "fast" in the meaning that they "can" theoretically at least follow focus AND rattle off a scary amount of captures per second at the same time. Unfortunately I still haven't managed to find any camera of the type that actually manages to get more than a few percent of the shots in focus though... And I could say I've tried most of them. Together with people that know what they're doing on the brand.
