oh no! lloyd says that the NEX-7 uses a RAW compression that is unnoticeable and produces better detail at base iso than the 5DII! THE HORROR! you should definitely pick a camera that produces uncompressed but worse files at base iso to maintain the purity of your bytes...
sorry, i never get anti-compression arguments, especially because they\'re usually complaining about lossless compression.
A vast majority of people won\'t be able to tell the difference between CD quality music and mp3, because they play the music in crappy systems and their ears lack the sensitivity and training to know the difference. or their music is not the sort that will benefit from high fidelity.
Think of it in those terms. One has to have a criterion for \"quality\" before talking about quality.
True, but comparing mp3 to CD quality isn\'t what is happening in the Sony files. Sony\'s compressed raws are more like ALAC, which I can guarantee that you\'d not be able to distinguish from CD quality.
NEX raws are essentially the Sony cRAW that has been an option in their DSLRs from the beginning, and, having seen and read about a million comparisons between RAW and cRAW over the last six years, I can guarantee that it is very, very difficult to tell the difference between them. You can really only start to see a difference if you push the cRAW files to the extreme, like boosting the shadows +5EV or something.
p.s. I don\'t think anyone complains about the NEX-7\'s color. It is fantastic. The complaints are in regards to color shift with wide angle M lenses, which is another topic entirely.
Nov 01, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Previous versions of douglasf13's message #11084321 « Confused on which smaller camera system to invest in... »
