therealthings wrote:
I wonder how and what it does improve.
It will improve artifacts that arise from lossy compression.
It will [in all likelihood] not improve any issues that have nothing to do with RAW compression, such as 12-bit conversion / noise in bulb and continuous mode, hot pixels in long exposures, increased weight due to IBIS or lack of native lenses...
What would be the improvement on a 16" x 20" print made with uncompressed raw vs compressed raw?
And if there is I would like to see a graphic example..
Gracias...
For 99% of printing, no change whatsoever. It will appear in large prints shot with very dark scenes with strong light sources. Star trails is one example. The compression Sony uses, while lossy, is quite good. There *may* be some minor color variations, but I highly doubt it will be something drastic. More like a shift in tone of the color on said star trails, as it will no longer be posterized.
r.gil wrote:
What would be the improvement on a 16" x 20" print made with uncompressed raw vs compressed raw?
And if there is I would like to see a graphic example..
Gracias...
Matt Grum wrote:
It will improve artifacts that arise from lossy compression.
It will [in all likelihood] not improve any issues that have nothing to do with RAW compression, such as 12-bit conversion / noise in bulb and continuous mode, hot pixels in long exposures, increased weight due to IBIS or lack of native lenses...
It's a possibility to help in long exposure we will have to see but sometimes things show up under the hood just not said by OEMS. Being a optimist one can hope they may have addressed a few of these things without saying anything. If they say something that's a admission something is wrong. No OEM admits there wrong.
Obviously we will all be testing things out, so will see. I'm not holding my breath though. Being close to Phase and Leica in the past , they both put things in firmware not telling the public. Nothing bad just improvements
I'm just curious though, if Fuji is vastly superior in serving its customers than any other company, why is it that it's not more popular then? If Sony is so bad at listening to its customers (probably the worst by most here in this thread saying), why is it at the top of the heap by a large margin? I don't know what it is with shooters from other systems to come here and nitpick how incompetence Sony is whenever Sony has new release/firmware update/dirty laundry list/ etc. I guess I have never been to the other fora with the intention to bash their system. I guess I'm really content with my Sony system than I don't see any strong urge to compare it to others (not that I don't follow what others are doing).
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm just curious though, if Fuji is vastly superior in serving its customers than any other company, why is it that it's not more popular then? If Sony is so bad at listening to its customers (probably the worst by most here in this thread saying), why is it at the top of the heap by a large margin? I don't know what it is with shooters from other systems to come here and nitpick how incompetence Sony is whenever Sony has new release/firmware update/dirty laundry list/ etc. I guess I have never been to the other fora with the intention to bash their system. I guess I'm really content with my Sony system than I don't see any strong urge to compare it to others (not that I don't follow what others are doing)....Show more →
because FF and on paper it has the best sensor performance.
zhangyue wrote:
because FF and on paper it has the best sensor performance.
What sold me into Sony to begin with was the extremely small size of the NEX 5N combined with the high image quality of the sensor. Still hard to beat that ratio.I might have got a Fuji some time if it was not for the X-Trans, and I would certainly have a 45 MP Sigma pocket camera if it wasn't for the Foveon.
zhangyue wrote:
because FF and on paper it has the best sensor performance.
Market share is often calculated in unit sold. Unless I see some hard data, I doubt that Sony would have sold more FF bodies than the other mirrorless players. Their APS-C sale must be strong as well. As for best sensor, I thought it would be a common knowledge that Sony doesn't know how to get the most out of their sensor anyway. It seems like Fuji can do miracle with that 16MP Sony sensor; they somehow make it as good or better than a FF sensor.
The only known specific is a 24-70/2.8GM. G we know is a top of the line lens designed by Sony, but M is unknown. Macro is the only thought, but doesn't make a ton of sense in a standard zoom today. Were it 1985, sure, as no less than 4 Minolta standard zooms (35-70/4, 28-85, 35-105, and 28-135) had macros switches.
Jimi3 wrote:
Has there as of yet been any indication of the lenses Sony plans to add to the lineup?
alundeb wrote:
What sold me into Sony to begin with was the extremely small size of the NEX 5N combined with the high image quality of the sensor. Still hard to beat that ratio.I might have got a Fuji some time if it was not for the X-Trans, and I would certainly have a 45 MP Sigma pocket camera if it wasn't for the Foveon.
Also I forget mention there is Zeiss blue logo I agree with old NEX line and think that is also the complain I am with Sony pro body, it has gadget DNA
My complain is stem from no firmware update (my RX1 sill V1.0 after 4 year). no factory US repair center, super fast refresh rate with minor change and always fundamental flaw leaving for future change....
Having said that, RX1 is almost my most used body and have one of best performance I can have from any system. and I am still looking at A7RII. No emotional feeling attach to the brand though, given how it treat its customers.
FUJI is really a nice company. I feel they are too deep into APS-C and trans sensor. Also they seems too loyal to their existing customer that they don't want aggressively push FF which might leave their current customer in cold with a set of APS-C lens.
If they have FF with bayer sensor, I will buy them. I bought my father XE2 and a few lenses two years ago, he loves it.
Other than that we are guessing. I'm looking forward to this announcement. We need some native long primes badly here 135, 200 and heck a 300 f4 would be nice. Than hoping they announce wider than there 28. I'm hoping more Batis announcements as well. Rumor has it a Loxia 21 2.8
GMPhotography wrote:
Actually I'm willing to bet a dozen donuts there is more in this firmware update coming.
But I don't want donuts
Seriously, there are likely some minor tweaks and language spelling mistake fixes, but not likely long exposure improvement. And any FM poster that I will meet IRL, I will be happy to have a coffe and whatever with
The Canon 24-70 f/4L IS is fairly new and has a macro mode...granted that's a slower lens, but I guess it's not like a macro mode in a modern lens is without precedence. (Maybe it will be back in style. :-)
-Tim
TheEmrys wrote:
The only known specific is a 24-70/2.8GM. G we know is a top of the line lens designed by Sony, but M is unknown. Macro is the only thought, but doesn't make a ton of sense in a standard zoom today. Were it 1985, sure, as no less than 4 Minolta standard zooms (35-70/4, 28-85, 35-105, and 28-135) had macros switches.
Seriously, there are likely some minor tweaks and language spelling mistake fixes, but not likely long exposure improvement. And any FM poster that I will meet IRL, I will be happy to have a coffe and whatever with
Lol. I have a funny feeling they may have made some real improvements . Will see.
I agree with old NEX line and think that is also the complain I am with Sony pro body, it has gadget DNA 
