Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?

Started Apr 22, 2012 | Discussions
NPPhoto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,084
Like?
Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
Apr 22, 2012

Is it the DR, too much NR , not right color, not sharp enough. What is the nature of complaints?
For those that like the jpg engine, what % do you shoot raw vs. jpg?

I have shot many CaNikons and was 75-8-% raw shooter and now with the Sony, I am almost 70-80% jpg.

Can you share your best and worst jpgs?

-- hide signature --

Nick P

Ed at Ridersite
Forum ProPosts: 15,363
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

Too much NR for me. By ISO-1600, things were turning to mush.
--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/blog
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,218
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

NPPhoto wrote:

Is it the DR, too much NR , not right color, not sharp enough. What is the nature of complaints?

Dynamic range and color are good. Sharpness is acceptable. Noise reduction needs improvement.

For those that like the jpg engine, what % do you shoot raw vs. jpg?

Let's not say like . Instead, I accept the JPG engine (for now) and I shoot a tiny minority of RAW files to a vast majority of JPGs.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craigski
Contributing MemberPosts: 752
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

The only system I'd use to shoot jpeg's is Olympus. They got it right.

I shoot only RAW with my a850, as Sony is known for their overly aggressive NR.

I also like to be able to pull out blown highlights from RAW files.

So, to answer your question, I would say thumbs down for Sony jpeg engine.

But I'm not about to give up my FF for MFT. Already been down that road.

Craig

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NPPhoto
Senior MemberPosts: 1,084
Like?
RAW vs. JPG compared...
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

I believe the jpg quality to be very good up to ISO 1600. With failing light, it does get a little mushy at ISO 3200.

The first shot is a jpg crop with blown WB (my mistake) and the second one is RAW with corrected WB in PP.

The jpg apart from the WB issue does maintain some very good detail.

-- hide signature --

Nick P

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,218
Like?
Re: RAW vs. JPG compared...
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

NPPhoto wrote:

The jpg apart from the WB issue does maintain some very good detail.

Not too hard to bring the color back in line:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhotoCycler
Regular MemberPosts: 387
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

I thought there was too much NR with the A55.

The A65 and A77 were an improvement.

The A57 looks to ease off on the NR in the samples I've seen and looks better than the Nikon/Canon 5100/60D up to ISO 1600.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ray Maines
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,249Gear list
Like?
Thumbs Up
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

My standards are really pretty low, but my JPEG's look good to me. I love that the EVF shows me what the finished picture will look like so I'll never have the WB wound around to Tungsten by mistake again. My prints, up to at least 20" x 30" look pretty darn good to me. Maybe someday I'll figure out how good RAW is but right now I'm happy with the Sony JPEG pictures

-- hide signature --

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

Tacoma, Washington, USA

 Ray Maines's gear list:Ray Maines's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yorugua
Forum MemberPosts: 72Gear list
Like?
Simply put: There's room for improvement
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

NPPhoto wrote:

Is it the DR, too much NR , not right color, not sharp enough. What is the nature of complaints?
For those that like the jpg engine, what % do you shoot raw vs. jpg?

I have shot many CaNikons and was 75-8-% raw shooter and now with the Sony, I am almost 70-80% jpg.

Can you share your best and worst jpgs?

-- hide signature --

Nick P

Hello.

I very much appreciate the latest updates we have been getting from Sony. I expect the next update to have more improvements on the JPEG engine.

This page has some examples of what can be improved and how other tools converting raw to jpeg seems to achieve better results, at least for me. That does not mean that if there are people happy with the current Jpeg engine output, Sony brings the option to "customize" your jpeg profile to either one output type or the other:

http://digiphoto-prod-84399190.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/reviews/sonyslta65/page14.asp

Specially:

vs

 yorugua's gear list:yorugua's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W320 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Karl Scharf
Senior MemberPosts: 3,036Gear list
Like?
Re: Thumbs Up
In reply to Ray Maines, Apr 23, 2012

Before digital photography became the norm, I used to shoot mostly slide film. Exposure accuracy was paramount with slide film to get the best results. It was quite challenging since the processed slide film was the final product.

Darkroom work, as was required to get the best results from negatives, never interested me, just as extensive digital post processing does not interest me now. The biggest advantage of shooting with negative film was that it had a wider tonal range and was more forgiving since more adjustments could be made in the printing process, as is the case now with RAW images.

Now I mostly shoot JPEG, and just like with slide film, if the exposure is accurate, and the lighting is good, the results can be just as good or in some cases better than an extensively manipulated RAW image. I guess it all depends what you like, I personally would rather spend time behind the camera taking images than time at the computer post processing.

The in camera JPEG images as produced by the Sony A77 are more than good enough for me, and enable me to utilize all the great features that are engineered into this fine camera.
--

Sony SLT-A77 / Rokinon 8mm / Sigma 10-20 f4.0-5.6 / Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 / Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 OS / Minolta 70-210 f4.0 / Minolta 50 f1.7 / Kenko MC4 AF 1.4 / Sony HVL- F56AM flash Karl Scharf

 Karl Scharf's gear list:Karl Scharf's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zackiedawg
Forum ProPosts: 21,039Gear list
Like?
Works well for me
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

Sony JPGs have always been good to me - I find when properly set up, properly exposed, and properly taken, they come out lovely, and for me are perfect for personal display, large-print sale, publication, and online display, which are mostly the uses I need them for. I shoot 85-90% or more JPG - I shoot a small percentage of RAW + JPG for live event shooting using the RAW as emergency backup in case of mistakes...most RAWs don't get used.

I've used JPGs on my A300, A550, NEX3, A580, and NEX-5N so far...and have found nothing that makes me feel any desire to change. I've not been any more or less impressed with JPGs from any other brand - each have their own default 'look' and setup, and I never use the defaults, so that hasn't really mattered to me.

Thumbs up for me.

-- hide signature --
 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lim yau tong
Senior MemberPosts: 2,826Gear list
Like?
Sony jpeg works well
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

for me. I tried raw but not worth the effort.

 lim yau tong's gear list:lim yau tong's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A350 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony Alpha DSLR-A550 Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A77 +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Linzthom
Regular MemberPosts: 169
Like?
Re: Simply put: There's room for improvement
In reply to yorugua, Apr 23, 2012

Your horizon isn't level !!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Matix
Senior MemberPosts: 1,062
Like?
Re: Thumbs Up
In reply to Karl Scharf, Apr 23, 2012

Karl Scharf wrote:

Before digital photography became the norm, I used to shoot mostly slide film................

Now I mostly shoot JPEG, and just like with slide film, if the exposure is accurate, and the lighting is good, the results can be just as good or in some cases better than an extensively manipulated RAW image. I guess it all depends what you like, I personally would rather spend time behind the camera taking images than time at the computer post processing.

The in camera JPEG images as produced by the Sony A77 are more than good enough for me, and enable me to utilize all the great features that are engineered into this fine camera.
--

Well said Karl, I just do not have the time, I want to use the camera and I have enlarged up to A3+ and the results from the A77 JPG shots, are nothing short of excellent.

Phil

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Matix
Senior MemberPosts: 1,062
Like?
Re: Sony jpeg works well
In reply to lim yau tong, Apr 23, 2012

lim yau tong wrote:

for me. I tried raw but not worth the effort.

I agree.....

Phil
--
http://matix.zenfolio.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimmyMelbourne
Senior MemberPosts: 1,663Gear list
Like?
Re: Thumbs Up
In reply to Matix, Apr 23, 2012

When shooting special photos (such as those of my son) I shoot RAW + JPEG. However, I never do anything with the RAW files as I just dont have time nor do i reallz understand the software well enough to benefit from RAW.

I guess if i was shooting a concert, event etc then i would shoot raw and jpeg and then try and do more work with the RAW to satisfy the client.

Often i switch just to JPEG becuase I am using many of the features only available in JEPG on my A77. I am very happy with the JPEG quality up until about 1600 - 2000. If I was in a situation I needed more data from higher ISO (> 2000) I would then cross over the RAW, but this has not happened yet.

 JimmyMelbourne's gear list:JimmyMelbourne's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A300 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DaleT
Regular MemberPosts: 136
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

I have the A700 and have been looking at the reviews to decide on my next upgrade.

I have compared RAW and JPEG for the A900, A77, A580, A55, D7000, 7D, K-5 and others.

What is important to me:
Low noise for high ISO shots with good detail. (K-5)

In body stabilization. (A77 & K-5) (Pentax may have a slight edge with rotation added)
Accurate and fast focus. (A77)
Micro focus adjust for lenses. (A77 & K-5)
Lens selection. (A77)
Quiet shutter. (A77 & K-5)
Good AWB. (K-5)
Ergonomic body, great control without much menu requirements. (A77 & K-5)
Nice viewfinder. (A77 & K-5)
Usable buffer depth. (A77 & K-5)
Manual Focus Peaking. (A77)
Weather Seal (A77 & K-5)
Price (K-5)

Video has very little appeal for me.
I like the advantages of the OLED EVF, but the light loss is a bother.

Low noise and fine detail at high ISO is high on my list of useful features.

It is clear by looking at the sample images here that Sony has the worst looking JPEG images compared to the other 3 companies (dpreview agrees in the A77 summary) . It is clear to see the smearing at high ISO that is very unpleasant, and not found nearly as bad on the other cameras. I wish that Sony could match Pentax or Nikon JPEG results. Even allowing 1/2 stop for the translucent mirror light loss, Sony is in last place with the JEPG quality.

At this point I am seriously considering the switch to the Pentax K-5 which is now available for $999.

I won't rush into it because I have no Pentax lenses, and have 7 good Sony/Minolta/Tamron lenses.

I would love the A77 if it was matching the K-5 high ISO (allowing for the light lost in SLT...1/2 stop). I would be happy the 16MP sensor, but still need better JPEG quality.

Nikon/Pentax use the Sony sensor and both know how to handle the sensor better than Sony.

I just don't get that??? My A700 has the same problem, and Sony still can't figure it out after all this time.
A57 would need A77 focus system and micro focus adjust for me to want it.

I shoot JPEG + RAW with my A700.

JPEG is good to ISO 400, OK at 800, but I always use RAW only after that, and any important shots at all ISOs. I used Canon before Sony, and I was fine with their JPEGs. I wanted in body stabilization for short -medium primes so I switched to Minolta 5D/Sony A700. I like the A700 but for the higher noise and poor JPEGs.

If the Pentax K-5 had manual focus peaking and better lens selection/price I might be posting in the Pentax forum by now. There are many manual focus lenses that are available for decent prices though. The next Pentax upgrade will likely have peaking.

I would rather hope Sony offers better and save me the trouble of switching.
--
DaleT

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimmyMelbourne
Senior MemberPosts: 1,663Gear list
Like?
Re: Sony JPG engine. Thumbs up or down?
In reply to DaleT, Apr 23, 2012

Maybe wait a bit. The A77 jpeg engine is good, and when using the camera you probably wont notice any issues with Image Quality. It is true that JPEG starts to degrade above 1600, so if you do a lot of work higher than 1600, then a switch might be reasonable thought process. or alternatively shoot raw at higher ISO.

Considering your lens investment, ideally sony would be the preferred choice as replacing lenses can be a painful process.

I suggest waiting because another firmware update may iron out a little better the high iso JPEG issue, but I would not expect miracles. if we get usable 3200, then that would be a great win.

The other features of the A77 are just fantastic, best camera I have ever owned (f707, f717, a300, a35). I will never sell this camera, depsite its known limitations.

Dont buy intot he noise you hear on this forum, a lot of people do denigrate the A77 without really using it in the field. Worth trying it out for yourself if you can.

 JimmyMelbourne's gear list:JimmyMelbourne's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A300 Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
goetz48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,607Gear list
Like?
That's why I like EVF
In reply to NPPhoto, Apr 23, 2012

I can see wrong WB before release (among other benefits).

 goetz48's gear list:goetz48's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
goetz48
Senior MemberPosts: 2,607Gear list
Like?
Don't mention light loss
In reply to DaleT, Apr 23, 2012

Half a step does not bother!
That is an argument for professional whiners.

BTW: I do most of my work in JPEG wince I don't need ultimate perfection. I shoot a lot of macro in available light and therefore need hood high ISO.

 goetz48's gear list:goetz48's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads