uhoh07: Earth to Sony: really?
We've cried about the issue since 2010. Now you offer real RAWs in the A7SII?
Take responsibility, respect your customers, and give, at least, support to all A7 cameras. Already.
I've owned three other Sony mirrorless and SLT cameras since around 2012 and never once did I hear anything about 'not real RAWs' or any talk of compression artifacts before the whole 'star trails' thing and Digilloyd's freakout rants about the A7 series.
KAMBIC: So a $3200 FF camera does worse with a 6 stop push than a $1200 apsc? I'm not getting what people are freaking out about.
Is this your 50th Alias, yet?
fenceSitter: @dpreview editors:
I'm a bit confused about the first page (1. Introduction), where the comparison table contradicts dpreview's own test of the a7 II.
Said test claims that "The body of the a7 II is [...] comprised entirely of magnesium alloy like the a7S", in line with Sony's own product description, to wit: "a top cover, front cover, and internal structure constructed of rigid magnesium alloy"
In the aforementioned table, the a7 II's front plate is said to be made of "Composite" all of a sudden? Is that a mutation, or was Sony defrauding their customers all the time?
People so hasty to call Sony 'fraudsters' and 'defrauding people'.
The A7II has always had a front magnesium plate. It's what sets it apart (materials wise) from the A7. The A7RII has a magnesium back plate as well. Sony hasn't lied or shot your dog, sorry.
RichRMA: Well that's odd. In Exposure Latitude, The Nikon D810 is worse at +6 than the Sony but the Olympus E-M5II matches (except for some blotching) the grain of the Sony with the Sony at +6 and the Olympus at +5. I'd have expected it to be a lot wider divergence there. Shockingly, the Nikon D7200 (APS) clobbers the Sony at +5 stops.
When in doubt and your most-hated brand looks to pull ahead of your preferred brand(s), just make it up.
Randy Veeman: Ouch. Sony still can't match the old D810 and in these tests the D7200 and NX1 when pushed 6 stops look as good and at a few points better (Don't forget to compare at equal sizes or print sizes).All the money for a body that completely lacks any weather sealing is strange. Maybe Sony is hoping for voided warranties and replacement sales.At least the camera can shoot at 5 FPS like old $300 entry level DSLRs.
Ouch - Mr. Veeman prefers to discuss Sony cameras far more than his beloved NX1. Irony! And the relevance of these frenetic bulletpoint critiques! The A7RII doesn't come in pink. Sony doesn't have a Pizza Friday at their Tokyo office. There's no LTE phone functionality. It makes a lousy lathe.
How's that 'Full Frame Killer' NX1 DR treating you, Randy? How's that 4K video performance? :)
ttran88: While you wait for DPR's final review check out TheCameraStoreTv's review. It is very long and comes in two partshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yottoM_P1o"Blows the Canon 5DRS out of the water" they also do a short head to head shoot out with the Canon. A lot of people are genuinely excited about this camera.
So it can't withstand a quick light rain because the Samsung fan said so? The one that, like the Canon fan, spends the majority of his time on DPR posting how superior Samsung cameras are?
You and marshwader should get a room. Or did you two not share your recently posted views on how Samsung is many years ahead of Canon? Some of your recent fun quotes:
"Something Canon and Nikon won't match for 6 years. (well, more like 10 for Canon(...)"
"Samsung is bigger than Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Canon combined."
"Well that is a bit embarrassing for Sony. FZ1000 is still the KING."
"You can't replace information that has been lost.This solution is simply further "cooking" the RAW files." (no, it isn't)
"Awesome! There are more than 11 lenses one can use on a Sony! Forget everything else nuke12 mentioned which are important to those willing to spend $3400 on a camera body."
Unfortunately, the character limit precludes scratching the surface of your rabid Samsung fanaticism.
You most assuredly have sour grapes. One look at your posting history and the ongoing raging Sony bashfest in the Canon forum is proof of that.
Got a body durability test to cite?
There's a lot of 5DSR hype, also - so what? It's a big new Canon model and deserves attention. Just like the A7RII and A7SII. They're big name cameras with noteworthy new features. This is how the product and media cycle works. With all the talk about the limits and flaws of these Sony cameras by some DPR staff, I wouldn't guess they're 'funded by Sony' any more than Nikon or Canon. Try Amazon.
There aren't 'lots of problems' with adaptation on the A7 cameras and I seriously doubt you have any interest in buying an A7RII based on your many, many posts on the subject. If you do, it'll be as many other bashers-with-money in this forum -- just to make a few offhanded criticisms, claim ownership and the authority that implies (to you) and then dump the thing for a refund. Happens all the time.
Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"-----------------------------------------
Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?
Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.
To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.
As Richard said:
"(the artifact sample is)...a close-up image of our dynamic range wedge, so it's not very exciting. These are 100% crops of images that have been pushed a lot in ACR (I'm not sure of the settings, off the top of my head)."
"The point is that you can push the files even to the point of seeing this much noise without any risk of encountering the oddly-coloured artefacts."
The point is, no huge issue was made of this before because it isn't a huge issue. Iliah and DPR staff have said it is a fairly minor and infrequent effect that usually requires heavy PP to reveal.
There's a balance we should seek in either approach, here. On one hand, we want Sony to address problems, even infrequent ones. On the other hand, the current level of hype may be distorting things to the point of wrongly dissuading some from buying into the system, people who wouldn't ever have even detected such artifacts if they didn't know to look for them.
PhotoRotterdam: There is a very interesting video on the Luminous Landscape website where the A7IIR is pitted against the Nikon D810, the Canon 5DS and the Canon 1Dx when it is about Dynamic Range.
But the real test I am waiting for and that nobody has ever done is to take well lighted images from different camera's, print them on A3 or A2 and let them be inspected by a bunch of respected photography reviewers and photographers from the appropriate viewing distance, without them knowing which picture is taken with what camera. I would really like to hear the discussion ...
So then DPR would need to have all their prints done on the same day, from the same printer, for all comparisons... Sure, that's doable.
marshwader: Is this the review of the previews or the preview of the review?
Whichever: Anyone wanting to move to this camera from Canon should be aware of all the metabones firmware woes and have a good look at the relevant Sony forum.
Thankfully, Metabones is one of several Canon AF adapters for Sony cameras. As opposed to the Canon body AF adapters for other brands.
But by all means, keep tilting at the Sony windmill. It's entertaining.
The A7 series, like most other cameras, isn't weather-sealed or IPX rated but it can certainly withstand a quick light rain. There's a YT video of someone running a tap over their A7.
Sounds like some bitterly sour grapes, judging from the multitude of other posts you've made touting the new Canon models over Sony. Does it ever get old, being a slave to a disembodied ego, insisting Canon superiority at all costs?
There are too many variables in this metric: Who considers whom 'respected' will vary. The printing quality will vary subject to several factors, even with the same printer. There is no 'appropriate viewing distance' for a print, at least not that everyone agrees on.
You could print the exact same image file at two different print firms (or even the same one) and get different results.
Correction to the spec comparison chart: The A7II has a magnesium alloy front panel construction. It's one of the improvements they made over the A7. It's the back panel that's metal on the A7RII vs. composite on the A7II.
I would agree the luma noise looks near identical other than the artifact effects, but there's some color blobs or bands that the uncompressed image lacks, from what I can tell. Whether that falls within normal variance I couldn't say.
sensibill: @richardbutler Did Sony say which other Sony models, specifically, would get a FW revision to allow this new 'uRAW' - and is it a new ARW rev?
Thanks for the reply and for asking them!
This was the actual press release in context with the announcement of A7SII uncompressed RAW option.
"Additionally, they have announced plans to add user selectable compressed or uncompressed 14-Bit RAW still image capture via firmware update to additional cameras beginning with the recently introduced α7R II full-frame mirrorless model."
I'd say that very specifically indicates other firmware upgrades to other models. Which those are and whether they actually do it remains to be seen, naturally. Sony has never been 100% true to their word.
That makes sense, if it's just a non-compressed output of the same file as the similarities in noise testing indicates.
Naturally, as an A7II owner I'm mostly interested in how this affects my camera, as well as the other Sony models like the A6000, RX1, RX100, etc.
@richardbutler Did Sony say which other Sony models, specifically, would get a FW revision to allow this new 'uRAW' - and is it a new ARW rev?
IdM photography: Lossy compressed RAW is NOT RAW... A RAW file must contain the unaltered data as coming out from the sensor. It's just unbelievebable that Sony could invent lossy compressed RAW files... I hope they correct this soon, and implement a lossless compression.
RAW files are all altered. They aren't a bit by bit readout of the ADC, after all. Never have been, with any camera.