The person who answered was the head of their mirrorless group Kimio Maki. See below quote.
"I asked this question of the main guy, said that a *lot* of people are asking for it, and that even if there were some tradeoff in operational speed, people would like to at least have the option. He said that they've heard this request, and my bringing it up helped underscore its importance. He said that they could provide this via a firmware update (I wasn't sure to what extent their image processor was optimized somehow for the compressed format), but he couldn't promise any ETA.
I think it's fair to say that they're looking into it very seriously, I think they realize that it's a sticking point for people, and a negative mark for some who are considering Sony vs other brands."
"Same lossy compression scheme, but see notes elsewhere here. I underscored the seriousness of the issue with Sony, and they clearly understand the magnitude of the issue. They didn't promise any ETA, but I do think we'll see firmware updates at some point that will address this.
The person I was talking with was Mr. Kimio Maki, the gentleman who's led Sony's entire mirrorless development strategy, since the original NEX-5. I think he's gotten the message, and is in a position to do something about it :-)"
ebrandon wrote:
As I wrote before, my understanding is that this can't be true. The compression is part of the sensor readout hardware before the CPU in the camera ever sees the raw data,
The compression doesn't bother me in the least. But people who are bothered by it shouldn't buy this camera expecting it to change with a firmware update.
Are you an engineer for Sony how are you certain that it is part of the hardware and can't be done? These types of claims are nonsensical.
I'm just a messenger and frankly I'm not too concerned about it. This question was asked at Sony's press conference and it seems that the whole uncompressed RAW thing is on their radar. Just trying to share what I've read on the internets.
second[/url] shot is an amazing DR sample, at least 15stops (plus) to get it done this way. No way, any DSLR can meter this good in action. I wished we have their raw to check the noise.
The archer photo is actually extremely easy to expose because it's nearly completely backlit. I shoot this kind of stuff every football game I do, and always on full manual exposure, because the light on the subject does not change so long as there aren't intermittent clouds passing through.
What impresses me more about the image is that it's in focus. Pretty good job here, assuming the horse and rider aren't on some huge treadmill. But what would really be a bonus would be to see the full sequence and how many of those were adequately in focus. And how many passes did they do until they were happy with the results? It's easy to show one great shot.
Not to say the camera can't perform, just that I am not that blown away by that image if compared against a decent DSLR.
Haha, I just checked EXIF and it was shot manually. Looks like the photographer knew what (s)he was doing.
Good to see it's still about other cameras, other brands, esoteric forms of photography, ever more out there 'faults'. Reassuring in a very odd kind of way - Sony will always be unworthy, no matter how great their cameras become, no matter how successful.
Tariq asked why there were two week old threads on the Sony forum front page a week or two back. It's pretty obvious..why come here to be inundated with increasingly out of place, off brand commentary rather than information and discussion on the new models?
Fred might consider removing the forum, it seems the best way 'backward' at this stage. Bye for now - and good light to all....Show more →
Keep in mind this thread is also running on the Alt forum.
Actually, I think it was Fred who merged this thread that was solely running on the Sony forum with a similar one running in the Alt forum and it's now on both. It kind of confused me at first because I was following both separately then started reading the same posts again and wondering WTH before I clued in.
rscheffler wrote:
The archer photo is actually extremely easy to expose because it's nearly completely backlit. I shoot this kind of stuff every football game I do, and always on full manual exposure, because the light on the subject does not change so long as there aren't intermittent clouds passing through.
What impresses me more about the image is that it's in focus. Pretty good job here, assuming the horse and rider aren't on some huge treadmill. But what would really be a bonus would be to see the full sequence and how many of those were adequately in focus. And how many passes did they do until they were happy with the results? It's easy to show one great shot.
Not to say the camera can't perform, just that I am not that blown away by that image if compared against a decent DSLR.
Haha, I just checked EXIF and it was shot manually. Looks like the photographer knew what (s)he was doing. ...Show more →
Hehe-- you mean running on a treadmill inside a green-screen wind tunnel. Hair doesn't usually get blown in the wind without a fan.
But more seriously: Look at the detail in the robe in the torso-pattern area. The shot is very, very in focus and very, very sharp.
I was just simply pointing out the irony. I did not make any claims about any system being better than the other. I have a 1ds3 which does not have the ugly banding of the 5d2 and 5d3. I also have a D800E and RX1. So I know how much more the shadows can be lifted with my D800E. The Nikon obviously has the plus of the Sony sensor without the lossy compression.
I did not want to mention any of this as we all know these issues but everyone has their own value system and some are more fanboyish and extremist than others. I am happy for Sony csmp to get a nice update to fix/improve the A7R's shutter and add EFC.
I am more interested in Sony making a small A7 which works as well with wide angle M lenses as the Leica M's.
I still prefer a Canikon dinosaur mirror box camera than these slightly smaller IMO A7Rs.
I love the size of my RX1 which is enough different in size and weight from my DSLRs to be useful and exciting to me.
Last, all brands get blasted by others in the various forums and not just Sony. Leica, Canon and Nikon haters exist just as the Sony haters. And then there are the other side, over-zealous defending fanboi's.
I just filter out the non-technical bias BS and look to learn from those posting the true tech issues and info.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
pdmphoto wrote:
Too many are pushing Sony by putting down other systems, and ignoring current issues. For instance, there been some talk about how bad Canon pattern noise is in the shadows. You could only expect someone to respond to that type of post, to clarify what is actually possible with the latest Canon gear.
Then there's the "14bit Sony RAW files" that are actually 11+bit lossy compressed RAW files. You get Sony users saying it doesn't matter. Again, someone is going to respond - and that response might include personal experiece working another camera maker who is using lossless 14bit RAW files (since no Sony camera do!).
I try and stay as neutral as physically possible, I certainly wouldn't think of myself as a "Sony fanboy" - in this thread people have both over-stated and under-stated the lossy RAW issue, and I've argued against both points of view. I'm really just interested in the truth.
Having owned six Canon DSLRs and having shot the 5D mkIII and α7ʀ II in parallel, I can say with all objectivity that when it comes to shadow recovery (and by extension protecting highlights) and in general handling difficult exposure situations, the freedom from committing to an ISO setting when shooting, that the issues with RAW compression artifacts are nowhere near as problematic in general as the level of shadow noise from a Canon sensor.
They are making some progress which is really good to see, and the sensors perform very well in low light, and I really do hope they can beat Sony's dynamic range with their next generation as competition is good for everyone.
That said I just don't see how posts about 7DII thermal noise are relevant to any of the points at hand
charles.K wrote:
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.
The sony interchangeable ff system keeps getting larger. A compelling sensor, but built around a huge body and huge lenses. I am not an engineer, but at no point in the future can a truly small body be made, the 90 FE macro would stress the torsional rigidity too much. It seems to me that the point of mirrorless would be that it would offer similar performance to a DSLR in a smaller package. Why on earth would I go back to huge expensive cameras and huge expensive lenses? I got into the Sony system because it represented the NEX 7 as the future of what a camera should be... Not to be a negative nancy, but Sony has lost all direction in its obsession with FE quality.
A $3300 system camera from a company that has created and abandoned two systems in the last 5 years! If Sony thinks a pro is going to invest in such a track record, they are freaking nuts. If I may say so, this camera may be the death knell for the entire system.
A $500 barebones FE mirrorless is what they should have produced, unfortunately by the time they realize this, it will be time for the next mount.
taran, though I agree with you that the the new full frame bodies are getting closer to dslr is size and weight, they still remain smaller, and thats not the only point to them. as a combination of photo and video quality, nothing can touch the a7IIR in one camera. the only dslr which has decent video AF on a dslr is the canon 70D. No full frame ones. and non offer 4K at this point yet. for stills it offers great DR, great resoluion, and likely one of the best high ISO performance.
It additionally takes all canon lenses, reportedly with good AF, as well as many legacy lenses.
It may not meed your specific needs, but I am fairly certain it will be a resounding success, and camera of the year.
I am not sure which two mount systems you are referring to that sony has abandoned.
. . . It seems to me that the point of mirrorless would be that it would offer similar performance to a DSLR in a smaller package. . . .
/
It seems then that you missed the "point" of mirrorless by a mile. I think you need to do some research on the advantages that a mirrorless camera body can have over a DSLR body and then come back for a constructive conversation.
i have and found little to sway me to one at this point in time.
possibly the RX100 IV because as an "unmodified" P/S its got some possibilities even though its still rated under 300 shots on a charge. almost tolerable for what it really is.
Will the ISO be much better than my 5DIII?
Will the AF be better than my 5DIII?
Battery life sucks but being used to take pics with a Sigma DP2 MErrill I guess I could manage.
But I like the fact that this technology could be used for a new A7s II with let's say 16MP and ridiculous ISO capabilities and I hope great AF at -4EV
