p.2 #1 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
realVivek wrote:
They have so many "artisans", most are on the net (it is a requirement). They ought to be looking out for what is lacking in the gear they sell.
p.2 #2 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
Yes they fixed a lot but this might be tough nut to crack. It may be all about minimizing noise their circuit design generates and The Management have decided such weakness must be hidden at all costs.
How many stars do you have to lose before the differences become huge?
And after all this isn't a complex issue to fix - all we are asking is for Sony to deliver us raw files that match their online description of 'raw' - i.e., that haven't been altered in-camera before being written to storage.
p.2 #5 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
It is amazing to me that Sony listened but then still managed to get this one wrong.
All the owners were asking for was the ability to turn off the newly added NR ; instead of doing that easy fix Sony tweaked the algorithm instead. Which I imagine took many more man hours to do and now still needs to be further tweaked if they go that route vs. an on/off user controlled feature.
A real head scratcher.
On the bright side, for those using Bulb mode for various reasons, it seems like the new baked in NR maybe a slight improvement compared to previous firm wares.
p.2 #6 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
chez wrote:
Huh? You make no sense.
His point is that the Sony Artisans are not giving Sony honest feedback and Sony is apparently (a) unaware of issues people outside this group are saying about their cameras, or (b) doesn't care.
I don't necessarily agree that Sony doesn't care because I think they recognize that in order to build their user base, they need to keep their current users happy, and steps they need to take are to improve service, update camera firmware, and build products that will get folks to upgrade. They have demonstrated this through the recent firmware release. My recent camera service was a very positive experience, and it seemed that they wanted feedback as to whether they provided a positive experience.
p.2 #7 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
Thank you!
It is also amazing to me that none of the sony artisans seem to use their cameras where they would encounter the star eater problem. Quite extraordinary!
p.2 #8 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
scrappydog wrote:
His point is that the Sony Artisans are not giving Sony honest feedback and Sony is apparently (a) unaware of issues people outside this group are saying about their cameras, or (b) doesn't care.
I don't necessarily agree that Sony doesn't care because I think they recognize that in order to build their user base, they need to keep their current users happy, and steps they need to take are to improve service, update camera firmware, and build products that will get folks to upgrade. They have demonstrated this through the recent firmware release. My recent camera service was a very positive experience, and it seemed that they wanted feedback as to whether they provided a positive experience....Show more →
My recent interaction with one of the Sony Artisans suggested that he had limited ability to do anything beyond passing on the message - in other words his role was a bit like that of a 2nd Lieutenant - no say on the orders, but responsible for keeping the troops happy regardless of what came down from above - I felt a bit sorry for him.
p.2 #9 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
navmannz wrote:
Well, in my most recent comparison using one of Sony's filtered images (exposed for 4 sec at F/4) DeepSkyStacker identified 60% fewer stars than in an equivalent exposed (2.5 sec @ F/2.8) unfiltered image - see https://petapixel.com/2017/06/13/sony-mirrorless-cameras-still-eat-stars/.
How many stars do you have to lose before the differences become huge?
And after all this isn't a complex issue to fix - all we are asking is for Sony to deliver us raw files that match their online description of 'raw' - i.e., that haven't been altered in-camera before being written to storage.
-John
I agree, of course. Sony should let the user choose.
However I just wanted to show that the differences are void if you shoot anything other than star sky...
p.2 #10 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
There is no option between 1 and 0. No 0.5 or "quite okay, almost okay, 99% there..." RAW is RAW is RAW. This device with modern firmware stops giving such thing after 3.2 seconds.
Those folks owning R2 with original manufacturing FW from 2015 have a treasure in their hands. Value of those old used bodies compared to new unboxed cameras with current FW is significantly higher for some applications. Do not sell them! They will become collector's edition cameras soon.
p.2 #11 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
Sony Artisans are paid sponsors of the brand. They are not employees and if they only go back to Sony management with complaints they may find they are no longer asked to be paid sponsors.
I don't feel bad for them in that role but would also take most of what they say with a grain of salt because of it.
p.2 #12 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
That may be the case but they are also supposed to be photographers (atleast some of them, perhaps many are there for their youtube channels shooting videos). It is quite astonishing that none of them shoot beyond 3.2s with their cameras.
It is the money that sony makes by selling gear to their customers that allows for any renumeration of the brand ambassadors.
mreynolds767 wrote:
Sony Artisans are paid sponsors of the brand. They are not employees and if they only go back to Sony management with complaints they may find they are no longer asked to be paid sponsors.
I don't feel bad for them in that role but would also take most of what they say with a grain of salt because of it.
p.2 #13 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
navmannz wrote:
My recent interaction with one of the Sony Artisans suggested that he had limited ability to do anything beyond passing on the message - in other words his role was a bit like that of a 2nd Lieutenant - no say on the orders, but responsible for keeping the troops happy regardless of what came down from above - I felt a bit sorry for him.
That's not surprising. I suppose their chosen audience are those who don't know or understand the inherent conflict of interest that exists with that relationship. I couldn't do it. Free trips and early access to gear isn't worth it to me.
p.2 #14 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
I remember the first exposures I took with R2 in October 2015. Long exposure noise was discussed back then but Fred (sorry if it was someone else) also found out that it was strongly temperature dependent. I could not find any issue with bad noise then with night photos taken @ 0C temp. Also liveview was more pleasing to view in dim light, noise was not coarse but fine grained and the screen refresh was noticeably less laggy. That "noise" fix before uncompressed RAW fix ruined the User Experience somewhat.
p.2 #16 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
realVivek wrote:
That may be the case but they are also supposed to be photographers (atleast some of them, perhaps many are there for their youtube channels shooting videos). It is quite astonishing that none of them shoot beyond 3.2s with their cameras.
It is the money that sony makes by selling gear to their customers that allows for any renumeration of the brand ambassadors.
I think most of them are supposed to take photos of pretty girls.... apparently using a camera to take pictures of pretty girls makes people think that 1) the photographer must be talented and 2) that they should buy that same camera and perhaps lots of pretty girls will start hanging around, just waiting for photos
p.2 #17 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
realVivek wrote:
That may be the case but they are also supposed to be photographers (atleast some of them, perhaps many are there for their youtube channels shooting videos). It is quite astonishing that none of them shoot beyond 3.2s with their cameras.
It is the money that sony makes by selling gear to their customers that allows for any renumeration of the brand ambassadors.
Do you really think it's any different with the Canon or Nikon or Fuji ambassadors? Do you really think none of those Canon ambassadors encountered the focus issues with the 1D3? The only one that stood up and said there was a problem ( Rob G. ) was quickly stripped of his ambassador status. What about the oil splattering Nikon cameras...none of those ambassadors found any issues?
p.2 #18 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
None of my money goes to any of them as i do not use nikon or canon, etc gear.
I do own a Samsung TV. They are out of the camera business.
chez wrote:
Do you really think it's any different with the Canon or Nikon or Fuji ambassadors? Do you really think none of those Canon ambassadors encountered the focus issues with the 1D3? The only one that stood up and said there was a problem ( Rob G. ) was quickly stripped of his ambassador status. What about the oil splattering Nikon cameras...none of those ambassadors found any issues?
p.2 #19 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
chez wrote:
Do you really think it's any different with the Canon or Nikon or Fuji ambassadors?
Probably not. I recall David Hobby saying that Fuji walked them through a lot of iterations of their body designs to get feedback and to discuss the trade-offs. It seemed that Fuji really listened to the feedback that they were getting from their ambassadors. Zack Arias swears that Fuji doesn't tell him what to say, and he doesn't seem to have the personality to take direction.
p.2 #20 · Sony's star-eater algorithm not fixed by f/w 4.0
realVivek wrote:
None of my money goes to any of them as i do not use nikon or canon, etc gear.
I do own a Samsung TV. They are out of the camera business.
I'm just pointing out that this is how this world turns. Do you really think any of the "paid" ambassadors are anything other than advertisers for the product. They take nice pictures, they generate hype...they get photogs excited about the product...just like George Clooney and Nexpresso.
