Tariq Gibran wrote:
Sony's choice here will definitely affect this customers future Sony loyalty/ purchases decisions.
Absolutely agree. If Sony decides to desert first-time Sony A7 camera users in favor of only the latest camera models, many including me would think twice about investing into a new Sony camera too early.
And here I am, saying that I didn't think they would do it...
Oh, well.
I'm also wondering how far back they will go. I have the A7R and the A7 II, but I'm probably going to sell the A7 II soon as I don't see much use for it now that I've finished my Europe travel.
stevei wrote:
That's what you get when user requests have been for uncompressed raw. I've read article after article going on about the demand for uncompressed raw. I've always thought that what people probably really want is lossless vs lossy compression rather than uncompressed vs compressed, but they're just responding to what people have asked for, even if those people maybe didn't really understand what they were asking for.
No. There is literally no possible way anyone smart enough to get a degree in engineering could be that stupid. They absolutely, positively, unquestionably, 157% knew that when customers were asking for "uncompressed" raw they were referring to the elimination of lossy compression. If they're not offering lossless compression at least as an option, it's because they're too lazy to implement it or because they're intentionally being assholes, no other reasons.
I don't see other companies listening to their customers the way Sony has recently. The A7R>A7RII changes were pretty much taken from these and similar forum pages. Kudos to Sony for listening to customers and making this most recent change in the first place.
Chris_88 wrote:
........
However, I'm curious about two things: 1. How long will it take for the first guy to bitch that his computer can't handle those files.
.......
Steve Spencer wrote:
.......
Answer to no 1 - five minutes
......
I don't understand this. For storage and file transfer maybe maybe, but I think most people's computers struggle (or not) to do the PP functions on the file. When this happens the file is open and uncompressed (and likely 16 bit in Pro Photo), so it makes no difference if the file is uncompressed or compressed.
Lee Saxon wrote:
No. There is literally no possible way anyone smart enough to get a degree in engineering could be that stupid. They absolutely, positively, unquestionably, 157% knew that when customers were asking for "uncompressed" raw they were referring to the elimination of lossy compression. If they're not offering lossless compression at least as an option, it's because they're too lazy to implement it or because they're intentionally being assholes, no other reasons.
Lee, as the perennial "most abrasive poster" around here (me, not you) I like your style, but have to suggest that the most likely explanation for uncompressed rather than lossless compressed has something to do with hardware that can't be modified. Hopefully this small step forward is an indication that the next gen of hardware may offer lossless compressed.
They all may have copied official site.
I hope it's taken down to correct something or that it was released prematurely. But a hack is certainly a good possibility.
Stoffer wrote:
Hmmm, are you sure that CA correction is always baked into the raw file?
I ask because I can turn this feature off under Lens Comp. (Chro. Aber. Comp. = Off) when shooting in raw only and with a native FE lens. Or are we not talking about the same thing?
It appears a form of chromatic aberration correction is applied to every RAW file. It's different to the correction applied to JPEGs (which does obey the Chro. Aber. Comp. setting) as it has to work with undemosaiced data.
I haven't confirmed this myself (on my to-do list), but it's been reported by several sources:
These idiots can't even role in the button customizations from the A7RII into the A7II, they are going to role in RAW changes? I'll believe it when I see it.
Also, I wonder why no lossless compressed option - could be related to people requesting the wrong thing Regardless this option will shut up those who are picky.
JohnJ wrote:
I don't see other companies listening to their customers the way Sony has recently. The A7R>A7RII changes were pretty much taken from these and similar forum pages. Kudos to Sony for listening to customers and making this most recent change in the first place.
Really? Fuji has always done this. Olympus has just announced another major firmware upgrade for its E-M1.
Sony charges an arm and a leg to upgrade the A7R to the camera it should have been in the first place.
And they haven't told us how far back they will go: A7 II? A7S? A7R? A7? Fuji and Olympus go way back with their updates. We still have to see what Sony does.
And now Sony apparently introduces uncompressed RAW, while others offer lossless compressed RAW. I've never been bothered by this RAW issue, so I wasn't one of the complainers. Still, even with this step, Sony isn't matching what others offer in terms of a combination of optimal file size and optimal image quality.
In short, I beg to differ with your high opinion of Sony listening to their customers.
secondclaw wrote:
They all may have copied official site.
I hope it's taken down to correct something or that it was released prematurely. But a hack is certainly a good possibility.
johnvanr wrote:
Really? Fuji has always done this.
LMAO!! Fujifilm hardly listens. People have been asking for exposure bracketing greater than +/- 1 ev ever since the very first X100. That's how many years ago? Fuji *STILL* has not made this very simple fix. That's really listening to your customer base.
People have been asking for a *REAL* flash system for the X system since day 1. A flash system that would be similar in capability as Canon or Nikon. Fuji's response? A set of very poorly made knock offs made by a 3rd party with the Fuji name slapped on it.
Dont forget the whole X10 sensor fiasco which Fujifilm resisted fixing with enormous effort. A truly abysmal effort from Fujifilm.
Fuji did issue a firmware update for the X100, several in fact that eventually fixed the over 35 bugs found by DPR in its review. So many bugs were found in the firmware that an entire page was devoted to them.
johnvanr wrote:
Olympus has just announced another major firmware upgrade for its E-M1.
Sony charges an arm and a leg to upgrade the A7R to the camera it should have been in the first place.
And they haven't told us how far back they will go: A7 II? A7S? A7R? A7? Fuji and Olympus go way back with their updates. We still have to see what Sony does.
Nonsense. Fujifilm fixed the *broken* in-camera raw converter for the X100S but left the X100 owners high and dry. You know, the very people who helped put the whole X system on the map. Fujifilm shafted them. Big time.
johnvanr wrote:
And now Sony apparently introduces uncompressed RAW, while others offer lossless compressed RAW. I've never been bothered by this RAW issue, so I wasn't one of the complainers. Still, even with this step, Sony isn't matching what others offer in terms of a combination of optimal file size and optimal image quality.
In short, I beg to differ with your high opinion of Sony listening to their customers.
Regardless this option will shut up those who are picky.