MariusM: So...these are made specially for the Fuji X-PRO cameras? ; )
Seems like apples and oranges. 22lb load capacity vs 6.8lb.
RichyjV: If you are shooting critical stuff in difficult light then uncompressed will be better than lossy compressed, so its an improvement.
But surely the target is lossless compressed, why go the step of allowing non-messed up files if the size is going to be massive? I get it, we have bigger computers etc, but thats a lazy argument, of course we can use them, but its loads of extra storage space, slower transfer etc.
Nothing to do with 'cant please everyone', thats like saying your car has a puncture and someone repairs it but only half inflates the tyre. Yes it works, yes its better, yes its fixed the problem of the puncture, but its still not operating at normal levels (and lossless compression is pretty normal in the industry). For a camera thats way ahead in some areas, this one could at least hit industry standard? Maybe its a very tricky technical fix?
This feels like they have done half the fix, for practical shooters few will want the big increase in file size.
Because Sony isn't implementing a technological advancement. Nikon has been doing lossless compressed for years and years. This is simply implementing well understood, and easy, lossless compression.
I applaud Sony for starting to smell the coffee on this particular subject. But really... you can't put lossless compression in the firmware??
Shirozina: The issue with compression artefacts is way overstated. Anyone doing a normal looking processing job on that test image would not boost the sky that much and the artefacts don't show. 99.9% of image are the same that are exposed correctly and not processed with extreme shadow lifting. It only happens with very, very high transitions from light to dark across a sharp line which is also quite difficult to achieve with many lenses in real world situations as they can't create this contrast change anyway. Noisey shadows from limited DR are a far greater real world issue with Canon RAW files that don't have lossy compression so for 99.9% of users the Sony RAW file has a major advantage and not a disadvantage. Most of the people who get agitated about this issue seem to be non A7 owners and the examples posted are few and far between. If it were a real problem the forums would be full of 'samples' and they are not............
That's beside the point. It's stupid for a company that (I think) aspires to creating "pro" level cameras to not provide better RAW file options. Don't forget the 11 bit RAW format that files are saved in. Simply stupid. Nothing wrong with having Sony's 11 bit lossy compressed format as an option. But the only option??? Dumb to not have a true 14 bit non-lossy format as an option.
Richard Murdey: How can you possibly cancel out an AA filter? Is that even physically possible?
Yes, it is. And that is how the D800E does it.
One of the dumbest products I've ever heard of. It's not really that difficult to print out a negative of a digital file on a sheet of transparency film. Lay the transparency film on top of a sheet of photographic paper and turn a light bulb on for a few seconds. Much better quality, far fewer dollars.
zorro4: If they really insist on renting, Adobe should at least use a rent-to-buy scheme, rent at $9.99 per month, after a minimum of two years the customer can keep the last versions he has forever if he decides to close the subscription.
Now that is actually an idea I can agree with. I like it a lot. Lease as long as you like. With a minimum lease period you can opt out at any time and remain with the version you were at when you opt out. Just knowing I could opt out at any time and then own what I had paid into over the years would be a huge plus.