p.8 #1 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
I was just about to reach for the "BUY" button on B&H when I watched some informative videos regarding the RX10MkV and learned it does NOT offer a UNCOMPRESSED version of RAW. Just compressed. We all know that any compression will indeed harm the ability to recover some shadow information. I had a MKIV some years ago and used exclusively the uncompressed RAW and it was marvelous. I simply do NOT trust a compressed image to render my ability for the most control with the wonderful programs I use to process with. Oh well........guess I'll just have to pass on this one as a 2nd camera. I'm a bit spoiled with my R5MkII I guess and don't like too much compromise. IF this version had the uncompressed RAW I have little doubt it would have met my needs. Oh well.........
p.8 #2 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
traveler wrote:
I was just about to reach for the "BUY" button on B&H when I watched some informative videos regarding the RX10MkV and learned it does NOT offer a UNCOMPRESSED version of RAW. Just compressed. We all know that any compression will indeed harm the ability to recover some shadow information. I had a MKIV some years ago and used exclusively the uncompressed RAW and it was marvelous. I simply do NOT trust a compressed image to render my ability for the most control with the wonderful programs I use to process with. Oh well........guess I'll just have to pass on this one as a 2nd camera. I'm a bit spoiled with my R5MkII I guess and don't like too much compromise. IF this version had the uncompressed RAW I have little doubt it would have met my needs. Oh well............Show more →
According to the manual the RX10 V offers lossless compressed and compressed (lossy) ARW formats.
Compressing data itself does not necesarily indicate a lossy data storage type.
Lossless Comp
:
Records images in lossless compression format with high compression ratio without deterioration of image quality. Thefile size of the image will be larger than if it were recorded in
[Compressed]
.
This setting is only available when
[Shutter Type]
is set to
[Mechanical Shutter]
.
Compressed
:
Records images in compressed RAW format.
p.8 #3 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
I’m believe Sony dropped uncompressed raw from new cameras. Pretty sure it’s not in the r6 either. Now that there’s a lossless compressed there’s no need for uncompressed raw. All it does is make files larger with no improvements to IQ. Lossless is the way to go.
traveler wrote:
I was just about to reach for the "BUY" button on B&H when I watched some informative videos regarding the RX10MkV and learned it does NOT offer a UNCOMPRESSED version of RAW. Just compressed. We all know that any compression will indeed harm the ability to recover some shadow information. I had a MKIV some years ago and used exclusively the uncompressed RAW and it was marvelous. I simply do NOT trust a compressed image to render my ability for the most control with the wonderful programs I use to process with. Oh well........guess I'll just have to pass on this one as a 2nd camera. I'm a bit spoiled with my R5MkII I guess and don't like too much compromise. IF this version had the uncompressed RAW I have little doubt it would have met my needs. Oh well............Show more →
p.8 #4 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
OK so I spent the day doing a TON of research. Indeed, the new "Lossless RAW" used in the newer Sony cameras is superior to their former "compressed RAW" One of the only limitations on the RX10MkV is if one wants to shoot in 14bit RAW they need to consider the subject being shot and use the Mechanical Shutter. It's best to do it with a more static or at least very slow-moving subject, NOT what one would shoot like say a flying bird or fast-moving subjects in general such as sports. It's a bit of a bummer that it is limited to 1/1000th sec in using the recommended Mechanical Shutter as well.at most desired apertures. I suppose in most case in reality it's not a big deal. I'd have to admit when I'm shooting perched birds (typical for me), landscapes and portraits the shutter speeds are most often below 1/500th and most often around 1/250th sec. I may be making more of that limitation then it deserves attention to for my style of shooting anyway.
It is surprising if not shocking to find that in Electronic Shutter the limitations are even worse. The bit depth takes a hit lowered to 12bit. The 15ms it has is a bit dicey to avoid any potential warping of a fast-moving bird wing, baseball bat or such. The dynamic range of course will take a slight hit at 12bits as we all know. Since I don't use flash the advantages of the Mechanical Shutter for that is a washout for me. I owned a RX10MkIV some years ago and it delivered shockingly wonderful images at that time. What I didn't even realize is THAT camera, when I typically shot in RAW, was using the old Compressed RAW which is not equal to today's Lossless Compressed RAW option on the MkV.
As is so often the case, my curiosity is killing me. I'd love to have a walk around lightweight companion when I don't wish to lug my R5MkII and 100-500L around. The 600mm reach sure would be delightful to use again without that weight. I guess the only thing I can do is try one out. I may give B&H a call and get one for Wednesday put it through its paces. I've read that converting the Lossless RAW image into DNG and importing it into my Luminar NEO should work just fine for now, as my DXO Photolab 9 has not adopted the camera as yet. Probably a few months down the road they will. If I do get one in a few more days, I'll be sure to let y'all know my impressions and if I'll keep it.
p.8 #5 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Jeff Kott wrote:
Correct - if someone wants an all in one solution that will give decent results in good light, the RX10 is a good way to go. My point above is that for people that already have a FF camera but want the 600mm reach, there are better options that will result in less of an outlay (e.g., just get a Tamron 50-400). That would cost about $1,000 vs. $2,300. Imagemaster says the reach with the 400 on FF or APS-C isn’t as great as the RX10, but that is only true if you have no understanding of equivalencies.
The arguments being made that Photogapher A may be able to take better photos with a 1 inch or m4/3 sensor than Photographer B with an APS-C or FF sensor are totally non-sensical. When you evaluate a camera, the issue should be does the same photographer in the same conditions get better results with Camera set up A vs. Camera set up B.
For me, this is not theoretical. I have had a RX100vii for 7 years and have a lot of experience with the 1 inch sensor. In really good light, it can take decent photos, but the quality deteriorates quickly when you have to turn up the ISO as light drops off. If you don’t believe me, read the reviews.
p.8 #7 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Lossless compression harms nothing. That's what Lossless means.
No Loss. If you want Loss, look elsewhere. Here, no loss. Loss, no.
If you have seen the movie Chopper, you'll know I'm quoting Neville Bartos.
(yes, that is Eric Bana)
?si=hdeGfK3VJPguuyvQ
traveler wrote:
I was just about to reach for the "BUY" button on B&H when I watched some informative videos regarding the RX10MkV and learned it does NOT offer a UNCOMPRESSED version of RAW. Just compressed. We all know that any compression will indeed harm the ability to recover some shadow information. I had a MKIV some years ago and used exclusively the uncompressed RAW and it was marvelous. I simply do NOT trust a compressed image to render my ability for the most control with the wonderful programs I use to process with. Oh well........guess I'll just have to pass on this one as a 2nd camera. I'm a bit spoiled with my R5MkII I guess and don't like too much compromise. IF this version had the uncompressed RAW I have little doubt it would have met my needs. Oh well............Show more →
p.8 #8 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Hasn’t really been on my radar but with an upcoming Antarctica tour and some other travel booked it could be the ideal backup to the A1 II + various lenses and the perfect thing to grab on a quick dog walk.
Have some little used kit laying around that I should flip and this will replace a bunch of the casual stuff.
Can probably sell off nearly all the m4/3 stuff aside from the 150-400 Pro.
The demographic discussion surrounding this camera is pretty amusing.
No grandkids that I know about
I've never been a test chart kind of guy but the whole focus issue at 600mm has got me a little concerned so I ordered one of those pop up test charts that folks are using to see if it is actually focusing behind the green box depth.
p.8 #9 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Update. Quick and dirty test shot. I've never actually tested any of my lenses with a chart. Either I like the images or I don't. That said there was enough noise about the RX10 V pseudo back focusing issue that I picked up one of the el cheapo test charts for fun.
Shot at roughly 25 ft. E shutter (which is how I plan on using this camera).
ISO 100, tripod mount, SteadyShot off, remote trigger, F4 1/250.
SOOC HEIF.
Looks fine to me even though I didn't completely get the target in plane.
My use cases for this will be casual dog walking duty and backup travel camera. Very casual.
Early days but AF seems very good. Haven't tried to shoot any birds yet so will test tracking when I get an opportunity.
Quick dog walking shot on the lake. Nothing interesting flying so bird on a rock handheld at 600mm. Very flat, grey lighting.
I think it'll be fine for the job. Not great but way better than a phone.
p.8 #10 · I Don't Understand the Sony RX10 V Release
Still not set up exactly how I'd like it. Need to fiddle with the C1 / C2 / * settings a bit more but I think for a backup camera/casual out for a walk with the pooch it'll be just fine.
So far haven't even shot RAW yet - just HEIFs and run through Topaz or Photos.
