DPREVIEW - Sony RAW info

GaryLH

GaryLH

Veteran
Local time
10:37 AM
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
6,141
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/28...the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

I never realized Sony was doing a two stage compression on their raw and that in certain situations, they go from 14 bit raw recording to 12.

While I personally have never noticed the artifacts they mentioned in the article, I have noticed over time I cannot work the raw as hard as other RAWs.

For me..not sure it really matters, given I can use other cameras depending on need.. I would think there is enough people that c this as a concern.

Gary
 
As a guy who shoots, mainly, "people" (weddings, portraits etc.) and has an A7 RII, I don't personally notice nor do I currently have an issue with their RAW. I know this may matter more to some but to me, this camera does all I need and more.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Yikes. I tend to push my RAW files pretty hard, this could be a problem for me if I were to go A7.

I'll have to ask my A7 (first version, 24MP)-toting friend if this has been a problem for him in real-world shooting.
 
Hmmm not good news. I have been thinking about the Sony line as my Nikon keeps gaining weight (or am I losing energy). Hopefully this will be corrected in future models.

Does Fuji compress RAW files as well?
 
Last edited:
Kate-the-Great said:
Yikes. I tend to push my RAW files pretty hard, this could be a problem for me if I were to go A7.

I'll have to ask my A7 (first version, 24MP)-toting friend if this has been a problem for him in real-world shooting.
Click to expand...

I've owned every camera in the A7 series with the exception of the A7r, and I don't think this has ever been an issue. In the real world other things are much more likely to constrain your output, and if you're under ideal conditions and must push your files to levels that show compression artifacts, bracketing is usually a prudent thing to.

On another note, the A7rii eye-tracking is truly an unbelievable achievement. I can shoot with a F1.8 lens and nail the pupil on every frame of a 10-shot burst, with the subject walking around. As far as I know, no other cameras comes close to tracking for portraits at this level.
 
Interesting article. The article concludes that Sony does this simply because that's how it's always done it in its consumer grade cameras. Perhaps it's time for those who are expecting more from Sony to stand together and ask for it.
 
Here's Some Data

Here's Some Data

This summer Jim Kasson published a series of data-driven posts evaluationg the SONY A7RII. The link leads to the raw file compression (low-pass filtering) issue.

There are almost 30 other posts evaluating the A7RII covering a wide variety of topics... including performance with M mount lenses.

Jim's conclusions are objective as they are based on statistical evaluation of raw data and carefully designed comparisons of rendered images. Some of the posts are rather technical, but the conclusions are easy to digest.
 
Lossless compression is what most (if not all) other camera makers use. It just reduces size of the files. Sony uses lossy compression, it reduces filesize and information. Please mind the difference.
 
It's always interesting that engineers and commercial photographers are thinking about these things, just means cameras for everyone get better.

But I have always been lucky to pretty much ignore this level of worry.

I always shot images for collectors who would not have noticed if I used a Kodak Pony or a Hassy. Even when I did street work for magazines or newspapers, they were printed at most a half page, I just used a Nikon F because I liked the viewfinder. I could have used a disposable - quality-wise.

Mine's the Charlie Brown approach to photography, it has served me well.
 
Spanik said:
Lossless compression is what most (if not all) other camera makers use. It just reduces size of the files. Sony uses lossy compression, it reduces filesize and information. Please mind the difference.
Click to expand...

Yes. This distinction is important.

I believe the photographer should have the option to disable any filtering of their raw data. SONY does not agree with this principle.
 
As a formerly film-based artist, who exclusively used professional labs, I find too much emphasis on digital raw data a distraction.

I'm a photographer who likes simple apps like Snapseed, rather than Photoshop.
 
photomoof said:
As a formerly film-based artist, who exclusively used professional labs, I find too much emphasis on digital raw data a distraction.

I'm a photographer who likes simple apps like Snapseed, rather than Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
 
willie_901 said:
Fine.

Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
Click to expand...

Honestly you got me there, I have no idea what camera clubs were [or are?].

Two decades ago I was just making chromes, processing and printing at Duggal, only showing Cibachromes.

I remember the '80s discussion revolving around Metro Pictures, not much about technical details -- I don't think I ever heard the word "emulsion."

But that's just me.
 
willie_901 said:
Except decades ago some photographers placed a lot of emphasis on the technical details and new developments in film chemistry and emulsions. The thing is, these discussions were usually isolated to camera clubs and unavailable to many people.
Click to expand...

That may to some degree have been true for black and white, but where colour was concerned, technical details were pretty much inaccessible to photographers. It was not until the whole industry standardized on E6/C41 that internals of colour processes became accessible to people that were not industry insiders - and by then, the lack of alternatives made it rather pointless discussing them...
 
Sony RAWS are second rate, and have been since Nex-5 in 2010.

It's pretty obvious from the overall results that it's not a show stopper. You learn to use them.

But I far prefer my M9 RAWS which push hard with minimal noise. SOny Raws create noise fast in LR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom