M Jesper: Since Sony apparently won't be offering a lossless compression option themselves for a while, you can save a lot of space on your HDD's by doing the Lossless compression yourself using Adobe's DNG Converter (or during import in Lightroom). The size difference compared to uncompressed is huge. While not as much as Lossy compression, it's close! Though it won't help save card space on the road.
*And no you don't lose anything or limit compatibility, it's actually more like the opposite. The data does not change, it is simply packed in a different container. Currently using it for my Fuji RAF files that are also uncompressed, never had any problem with the DNG's anywhere. Probably saving about 40% with it.
Adobe has it's own lens and chromatic corrections in Lightroom, so it'll never use Sony info for that.The advantages of using DNGs are huge, I switched to them many years ago, with no regrets.Someone could please calculate the medium size of DNGs from A7RII uncrompressed ARW, without saving previews and quick open info?
Digitalglobe, the main Google Maps supplier, has much more resolution:https://www.digitalglobe.com/30cm/
Military sats has already 10cm resolution, and the next generation will reach 5cm.
SonyAAA: HAH the comments here. Blah!!
Too many of you are snobs.
If this photographer used photoshop and/or filters, it doesn't make her less of a photographer or less talented.
When we photographers use lights, and reflectors and backdrops, is that cheating? Does that make us less of a photographer?
Photography is not just setting your camera correctly, it is setting up a shot, getting the lighting right, using reflectors outside, using studio lights inside. All of that is photography.
There is no difference between manipulating images before they're taken to after they are taken.
There are some nice people here but too often the snobs who think they are better than every other photographer here make stupid comments criticizing others out of shear jealousy. They're ones that ruin Dpreview forums.
What do you think if I confirm you that most are studio shot of paid models, photoshopped inside fake backgrounds, and that there is a professional team behind the "just a mom with a camera" claim.
These are awesome images, but she is a professional full time photographer, that sell her work and do seminars:http://500px.com/blog/980/interview-with-elena-shumilova
I'd like to see a real world images comparison between Sony A7R + Sonnar 55/1.8 and Nikon D800 + Nikkor 58/1.4G.
rfsIII: I WANT my test photos shot in auto-everything mode. If the photographer starts jimmying around with the controls I will never know whether it is Sony engineers or the photographer who are responsible. All cameras will look good if you shoot, adjust, shoot, adjust, shoot until you get a reasonable shot. But I don't really have time for that kind of monkeybusiness anymore. I have a life to lead and an artistic vision to follow.
It takes a great camera to deliver well-exposed, well-focused photos with no human intervention, and that's what I want. If I wanted to fool around with exposure meters and loupes and all that, I'd shoot with an 8x10 view camera.
So as usual, you DPReviewers just keep on doing what you're doing. You are the best.
Just show me a 24Mp( or 36Mp) camera that could produce a sharp picture of a moving horse at 70mm and 1/160s... it's not a question of well-exposing and well-focusing the image, you should also choose the deep of field and the related shutter speed you need.
Wenetu: Just look at the original jpgs with Exiftool, settings reveals that they used the camera as a point and shot: program auto, AF area and point auto, metering auto,... it's normal you got just point and shot results.
I've packed a zip with Exiftool (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) and the Windows GUI app (http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/exiftoolgui515.zip):
Just extract the folder and run ExifToolGui
You can also see, for Sony cameras, the real image count, useful to check an used camera.
Just look at the original jpgs with Exiftool, settings reveals that they used the camera as a point and shot: program auto, AF area and point auto, metering auto,... it's normal you got just point and shot results.
Johnsonj: I'm not opposed to it. I'll give it a look over. Would love a full frame P&S. RX1 needs to come down a bit in price and add an electronic viewfinder and now we're in business.
Are you speaking about the new A7R?
Just wait few months for new windows 8.1 tablets...The first will be the Acer Iconia W3 for 299 dollars.
michaelbs: I installed (on my macbook retina) the 4.3 update as well as the camera raw 7.3 update. Now I can't see my VSCO camera profiles any longer from within Lightroom Camera Calibration tab where they used to be. The profiles are gone even though they are still present on my HD same place as before. (Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles) They are still physically there but LR can't "see" them after the 4.3 update.Can anyone help me out?
ACR 7.3 and LR 4.3 wants all the custom profiles located on your roaming folder:
MAC OS:"HD/users/yourusername/LibraryApplication Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfile"
nikoj: Looks very much like d700 at ISP 6400
But you have 100% more pixels!
For me there is just a back focus problem (that could be fixed by nex-7 function), at f/1.8 and 24Mpx a little amount of BF will smear every detail, just wait for a production camera and lens to make your sentences.
Thank you for your comment!