Perhaps an underwhelming suggestion, but I have used the Cobalt profiles instead of the Adobe ones, ever since switching to Sony five years ago. A7R6 is the third time around and very pleased with the results. It also has a slight benefit of colour consistency over the three models.
I notice that no-one is saying anything about the image qualities of the new image sensor rather than the read out speed. At least, that I have seen. In the announcement there was supposed to have been improved AWB ("by combining a new visible-light and infrared (IR) sensor with deep learning processing. This hardware and AI combination fixes historical issues with cool colour casts in shaded or complex lighting, delivering more even, consistent, and true-to-life colours"). And, of course, there is now 67Mb. Is there any noticeable difference? The pictures I am taking look great, but I have not taken enough yet, under enough different conditions, to say if it is better than the previous 61Mb which was always marvellous.
old-gregg wrote:
@rd4tile@ there are two different mechanisms to implement lens corrections. One is done by the manufacturer, and Adobe (ACR, LR and LRC) always apply it without an option to turn it off (see the screenshot below)
But C1 lets you optionally ignore it.
The second mechanism is implemented by a RAW converter, it looks at the lens ID in the EXIF and pulls its own lens profile which is stored on your computer similar to how a color profiles are implemented. This one you can turn on/off in the RAW converter. (second checkbox)
What I don't 100% understand is how these two interact with each other. Adobe's documentation simply says that Adobe's lens corrections are designed to work on top of the embedded lens profile, and that Adobe's corrections are only available if they feel that the embedded profile is insufficient....Show more →
In the spirit of exploration, it would be interesting to know whether there's any benefit of applying lens corrections, sharpening and denoising in DxO Photolab or PureRaw, followed by exporting the files as DNGs into Adobe or Capture One. I believe this approach isn't uncommon among Adobe users.
I correct raw files in Capture One, and the recent practice of correcting the raw files alongside the DNGs from DxO makes me feel split as I sometimes like the results straight from the raw, and other times I prefer the corrected (in Capture One) DNGs.
I don't have the Sony 20-70mm lens; thus I cannot test how the lens corrections in DxO affect the corner sharpness with this lens, compared to Adobe and other options.
old-gregg wrote:
What I don't 100% understand is how these two interact with each other. Adobe's documentation simply says that Adobe's lens corrections are designed to work on top of the embedded lens profile, and that Adobe's corrections are only available if they feel that the embedded profile is insufficient.
It's a great question. I did a deep-dive of embedded raw lens corrections a few years ago for the Nikon Z system (link) but rather than make everyone sort through that here's an examination I just did of a Sony 20-70 f/4.
If you click on the "i" icon in the "(i) Built-in Lens profile applied" label in ACR/LR's Lens Corrections tab, you'll get a dialog box showing which corrections were automatically applied. For the 20-70 f/4 it lists only Chromatic Aberration.
Here's an animation showing what that correction looks like in an image, along with a screen-shot of the ACR/LR dialog:
You may need to click on a given image to see it animate. Notice the magenta/green removal in the "with corrections" frame of the animation.
You can see the actual details of the built-in correction by converting the Sony raw file to a DNG, then using an Adobe developer app named "dng_validate" that dumps the technical details of a DNG. That yields the following for the 20-70mm f/4 @ 20mm:
The WarpRectilinear transformation can perform two corrections, depending on the parameters - lens geometric distortion (pincushion, barrel distortion, etc..) and chromatic aberration. In this case it's only chromatic aberration. You can get a full list and description of all the lens corrections opcodes in the DNG Specification.
While Adobe doesn't let you disable the built-in corrections, you can work around this by stripping out the WarpRectilinear from the converted DNG using "exiftool -OpcodeList3= <dng filename>". This will copy the specified DNG, strip out the lens corrections for this opcode, then save the result in a new file. This is how I accomplished the with and without animation for the same image above.
@snapsy OMG I feel so stupid for never clicking on the "i" icon! Also, are you Horshack from dpreview? If yes, great to see you again! Years ago, before abandoning digital in favor of film, I was super active there and we had quite a few great convos. Unfortunately I don't even remember my login there. Small world
old-gregg wrote:
@snapsy@ OMG I feel so stupid for never clicking on the "i" icon! Also, are you Horshack from dpreview? If yes, great to see you again! Years ago, before abandoning digital in favor of film, I was super active there and we had quite a few great convos. Unfortunately I don't even remember my login there. Small world
Yep, that's me! What was your username on dpreview?
snapsy wrote:
Yep, that's me! What was your username on dpreview?
Great! I thought it was the same as here, but I couldn't recover the password, so I'm assuming I used something else. Or maybe they deleted my account due to years of inactivity, who knows.
I'm going to buy the A7R6, just waiting for DXO to support 12 bit compressed RAW before I buy it.
I need more pixels than my A7V delivers, I'm used to 45mp and 33 doesn't deliver the cropping ability I'm used to...
I'm ok with A7V's sensor readout speed (had the Canon R5 before typical the same speed)
The Viewfinder in A7V is ok but not good for checking AF.
biggles2002 wrote:
I'm going to buy the A7R6, just waiting for DXO to support 12 bit compressed RAW before I buy it.
I need more pixels than my A7V delivers, I'm used to 45mp and 33 doesn't deliver the cropping ability I'm used to...
I'm ok with A7V's sensor readout speed (had the Canon R5 before typical the same speed)
The Viewfinder in A7V is ok but not good for checking AF.
*Are there any known issues with the A7R6 ?*
You mean other than 67mp being really hard on lenses, especially at the edges and corners?
🤣🤣🤣
Seriously, even though I’m relatively new to Sony, I’ve been around digital since the beginning and I am confident saying the A7R6 is about as close as I’ve seen to an all-around do-it-all camera. Oh, and a plug for the new battery — it has excellent life.
Jack Flesher wrote:
You mean other than 67mp being really hard on lenses, especially at the edges and corners?
🤣🤣🤣
Seriously, even though I’m relatively new to Sony, I’ve been around digital since the beginning and I am confident saying the A7R6 is about as close as I’ve seen to an all-around do-it-all camera. Oh, and a plug for the new battery — it has excellent life.
Well, I almost allways cropping so the corner performance is not an issue.
I'm going to use both the A7V and A7R6 so if some of my lenses do worse with the A7R6 I use them with A7V.
Just wondering if any issues has been revealed by users....
The A7V is no slouch by any means.... the AF is really good, battery life is great etc. but I miss the benefit by higher resolution cameras.
And the A7R6 ability to make more saved "presets" C1-C10?
biggles2002 wrote:
I'm going to buy the A7R6, just waiting for DXO to support 12 bit compressed RAW before I buy it.
I need more pixels than my A7V delivers, I'm used to 45mp and 33 doesn't deliver the cropping ability I'm used to...
I'm ok with A7V's sensor readout speed (had the Canon R5 before typical the same speed)
The Viewfinder in A7V is ok but not good for checking AF.
Are there any known issues with the A7R6 ?
I don't know of any serious defects, but the image processing is a huge problem. PS is slow and I don't like the output. DXO is uncertain. Anything but the lossy 12-bit raw slows down the camera notably. It's either the lossy RAW for action or the MS and DGO at low ISO for high IQ with not much in between.
The readout speed is a little better than the R5 in ES, but Sony does not have that blocky look as much so it is better. I wish the a7rVI MS were 12 or 14FPS rather than 10.
biggles2002 wrote:
Well, I almost allways cropping so the corner performance is not an issue.
I'm going to use both the A7V and A7R6 so if some of my lenses do worse with the A7R6 I use them with A7V.
Just wondering if any issues has been revealed by users....
The A7V is no slouch by any means.... the AF is really good, battery life is great etc. but I miss the benefit by higher resolution cameras.
And the A7R6 ability to make more saved "presets" C1-C10?
My comment was more tongue in cheek than serious. Obviously your lenses are no different regardless of the camera you use them on — it’s just that it’s easier to find the warts on a high mp cam.
EB-1 wrote:
I don't know of any serious defects, but the image processing is a huge problem. PS is slow and I don't like the output. DXO is uncertain. Anything but the lossy 12-bit raw slows down the camera notably. It's either the lossy RAW for action or the MS and DGO at low ISO for high IQ with not much in between.
The readout speed is a little better than the R5 in ES, but Sony does not have that blocky look as much so it is better. I wish the a7rVI MS were 12 or 14FPS rather than 10.
EBH
I know about the 30 AF calculations when shooting 14bit files in ES.
And some issues with VF lagging with some settings.
There's some talk about DXO will support 12 bit compressed raw later this year, so this will be a deal breaker for me if that support not comes.
biggles2002 wrote:
I know about the 30 AF calculations when shooting 14bit files in ES.
And some issues with VF lagging with some settings.
There's some talk about DXO will support 12 bit compressed raw later this year, so this will be a deal breaker for me if that support not comes.
Use the Adobe DNG converter to convert the lossy compressed raw files in the meantime. It seems to work fine although a few of the thumbnails sometimes have weird colours.
DxO told me they will support these new formats in the next release - I assume that means the next major release so that will be an upgrade cost for existing owners.
The lossless format seems to work fine - I don't see any noticeable slow down and AF remains excellent but I don't use the highest quality EVF setting as that does seem to be affected.
I find the DNG to TIF results terrible whether NR is DP3 or XD3. That is using the latest Adobe DNG and DXO 9 latest version as of this past weekend. It's like the image has been downsampled and them upsampled with gross sharpness but not fine detail. If I process a lossless ARW directly in DXO the image looks great. Even if DXO does approve a lossy RAW format for DP3 and XD3 there is no telling if it will be any good.
The only practical solution is to downgrade to the 15FPS lossless and worse AF, so a lot fewer keepers. I don't know what Sony was thinking with this new "compressed" ARW format. Maybe they are saving some costs or something. I feel like abandoning Sony altogether at this point.
Yeah, pretty mind blowing that they release cameras without getting full file support from at least 2 or 3 main editing software companies. And now I'm totally confused as to what formats specifically work, when, and how.
EB-1 wrote:
I find the DNG to TIF results terrible whether NR is DP3 or XD3. That is using the latest Adobe DNG and DXO 9 latest version as of this past weekend. It's like the image has been downsampled and them upsampled with gross sharpness but not fine detail. If I process a lossless ARW directly in DXO the image looks great. Even if DXO does approve a lossy RAW format for DP3 and XD3 there is no telling if it will be any good.
The only practical solution is to downgrade to the 15FPS lossless and worse AF, so a lot fewer keepers. I don't know what Sony was thinking with this new "compressed" ARW format. Maybe they are saving some costs or something. I feel like abandoning Sony altogether at this point.
When I convert the lossless compressed to DNG and process them in PL9 they come out identical to the original ARW processed in PL9 so not sure there is any loss in the conversion to DNG format.
I don't see any real difference in performance shooting at 30fps in lossless compressed raw format - buffer slightly smaller but I don't really run out of buffer very often. Why do you have to drop to 15fps ? AF with swallows/ falcons etc doesn't seem to be any different than with the lossy format - either way you really have to look hard to find any oof images.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Yeah, pretty mind blowing that they release cameras without getting full file support from at least 2 or 3 main editing software companies. And now I'm totally confused as to what formats specifically work, when, and how.
I am using compressedHQ for now because careful scrutiny so far I cannot see any difference to lossless even with deep cropping and/or pixel peeping. No problems with Adobe software.
I always used to convert to DNG on import to LRC but I stopped doing that because I found that the ARW files are about 30% smaller. The conversion actually increases the size despite Adobe having their own compression algorithms.
