HowaboutRAW: Cool, now about the compressed raws on the various Sony A7 camera bodies.
You said the lossy compression: "makes the color look washed out", which is clearly false.
It might be *your* best guess because you don't have all the facts, but that doesn't make it true.
What you're saying is like listening to an mp3 with the swearing bleeped out and saying "that must be a result of the MP3 compression, as it's not like that on the CD" despite it being impossible based on how the compression works.
There are other factors that could contribute to differences in colour between Nikon and Sony RAW files **BIG HINT**: different colour filter array!
Each manufacturer has a different philosophy with regards to colour, Sony have always aimed for accuracy, Canon use a weaker CFA for better sensitivity that's better under fluorescent lights. Fuji produce a film like response which is more pleasing but less accurate. But with a bit of profiling you can get the results you want out of nearly any sensor these days, with or without lossy compression.
mike kobal: those Otus lenses would make so much more sense on mirrorless cameras with high def EVF, manual focusing one of these properly through the OVF - even on the best DSLR's - is going to be quite frustratingnot a problem for the lucky ones who actually can afford to buy one of these, they can surely afford to hire the best focus puller in the world ;) and a second shooter using an af lens as back up, just in case :)))
Sangster "practical professional photographer can just buy the top of the line Canikon 85mm offerings."
The axial colour (longitudinal CA) of the Canon 85 f/1.2L is pretty atrocious. That lens is not a bargain Otus alternative.
These are medium format quality lenses, at medium format prices, aimed at, wait for it, medium format photographers (who may wish to shoot 135 for speed / convenience / dynamic range)
The D600/D610 sensor produced by Sony for Nikon has different dyes in the CFA and a different filter stack to the sensor in the A7, which is almost certainly the cause of the colour being "washed out" compared to the D610 output.
Yes the Sony RAWS are smaller, yes that's because of lossy compression that you can't currently disable. But that in no way means the difference in saturation *must* be due to compression. In fact it's not possible for it to influence colour on an image level (the artifacts you get are localized to a horizontal line of 32 pixels wide surrounding a very high contrast edge, and even then will only show up if you push the shadows hard).
You can take it from someone who knows exactly what the compression does and does not do, or you can carry on making assertions with no evidence, it's up to you.
What you're seeing is obviously something else, the lossy compression does nothing that could affect colour saturation, I've read the source code, and coded a test implementation of Sony's compression, so I know a little bit about it.
There's some useful info here:
The Nikon Df doesn't use a Sony sensor so there are bound to be differences.
It's not "easy to see" not does it really affect colour. What you get is a high degree of posterisation when you have a vertical edge with an extreme luminance gradient.
You are only likely to see it if you're shooting star trails or really push the shadows in a high DR scene.
Ruy Penalva: Avoid. I bought a Mark IV to my a7s, and AF does not function at all. Horrible and amateur support if we can call that of support. A guy named Alex try to deceive you as being an specialist. No way to access adapter function (green & advanced). Pricey.
Ruy, there's some useful information to be found on the Metabones website support section, specifically:
It explains how to switch between Green and advanced mode, you do it by pressing a button on the adapter, there's no message on the camera LCD!
Randomly I was in Vianden a few weeks ago and instantly recognised it from the thumbnail!
Summit_pg: GoPro > that thing ;)
Sadly the ability of a Nokia phone to survive atmospheric re-entry was a feature they scrapped when moving into the smartphone era.
The Name is Bond: Big Dynamic range? That's the only reason I didn't go Canon.
Lan Dual ISO mode gives extended dynamic range, at the expense of halving your vertical resolution and introducing other artifacts and difficulties.
I don't know what the "normal mode" that you refer to is, but unless you mean "ISO 800" then I'm afraid the sensor in the D800 and A7 completely blows away the 5D mkIII in terms of dynamic range.
Disclaimer: I own both.
Something "big" to get your camera ready for, that'll be the 24-70mm f/2.8L with image stabilization then!
Why am I suddenly reminded of the opening scene of "The Terminator"? ;)
mgrum: The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:
*** It all depends on what lenses are actually available ***
A 24mm f/1.4 full frame lens is equivalent to a 12mm f/0.7 lens for micro four thirds. But no-one makes one so there is no equivalent to the 24mm in the real world. Likewise Hasselblad's claims of medium format offering shallower depth of field due to the larger sensor is nonsense, as the required lenses simply don't exist.
My point was just that when deciding between formats you **have to** take lens availability into account. Equivalence says that any system gives the same depth of field if you keep the entrance pupil the same size... but in real life it's not that simple, and due to lens availability there are genuine differences in the depth of field and light gathering abilities of different formats.
@Kipplemaster no camera with phase detect AF will be able to focus an f11 lens, hence the lack of such lenses for DSLRs. Also the optical viewfinder would be pretty dark.
Mirrorless full frame would work better but I still think it would be hard to sell an f/11 lens.
@BorisK1 I'm well aware of the speedbooster, the micro 43rds version would convert the lens into a 17mm f/1.0 (it's 0.71x and only 1 stop)
What about the M-mount 21mm f/1.8 Voiglander lens, you would need a 10.5mm f/0.9 in m43rds, and there's no space for a focal reducer.
The bottom line that everyone always misses when the whole equivalence thing comes up is this:
Jonathan371: A drone is a flying fan which can easily go out of control and hit a person or overhead wires etc. The smaller the drone the more susceptible to light breezes, unexpected gusts, etc you are. When you factor the above in plus the anxiety the general public has regarding privacy you realize there is hardly a time or place you can use a drone. I found that in aerial photography you need to have different solutions for different environments. kite photography, mast photography, or simply getting a camera up on a pole are often better solutions that a flying fan blade drone.
A car is a rolling battering ram which can easily go out of control and hit a person, demolish your living room etc. The larger the vehicle the most susceptible to box roll, under-steering, snaking or jack-knifing. I found in life you need different solutions for different situations, walking or using a bicycle are often better solutions than driving a metal death box.
Seriously, I don't understand how society has become so risk adverse whilst billions of people pile into their cars every day with no idea of the risk they pose to themselves and others.
Drone piloting is comparatively a walk in the park.
b craw: What a bloated and laborious dialog over such negligible difference.
I found both the article useful and the difference non-negligible (did you even look at the results above ISO 102400? I can only assume not).
Joachim Gerstl: No thank you for posting these. Now I know it makes no sense to produce low resolution sensors like 12MP on full frame anymore.
Try pulling decent video from a 36 megapixel sensor. You're going to need an ultra heavyweight processor (and serious active cooling to match) or subsample to give horrible aliasing and loss in resolution.
A7s is a low light video camera, that doubles as an ultra low light stills camera for when you need fast shutter speeds in the dark.
abluesky: If it weren't for the subscription model, I would never have been able to afford Photoshop and Lightroom. For me, it's more economical to pay the subscription fee. I also appreciate all the updates. If you really want Adobe products, they are all pirated anyway, even CC. If you are going to blame anybody, blame the pirates.
How about giving people the choice, pay X upfront to own the software forever or pay Y per month.
gianstam: Too low resolution for too small advandage
When shooting in dim conditions in the real world (I'm thinking specifically of shooting bands, here) I can rarely produce a shot detailed enough to justify a megapixel sensor.
In other words, noise, SA from fast lenses, small focus errors all mean you get nowhere near enough detail to exploit 36MP, compared to say, an ISO100 landscape shot at f/8 on a tripod.
Given this I'll happily take 12 megapixels and the ability to pull off just about reasonable images at very high ISOs (some gigs just aren't really lit at all!) oh and 4K video to boot.