HowaboutRAW: Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
That's a claim I've read, but I've seen no evidence of it except similar claims.
And if you'd read what I wrote above, you'd note that I'd made clear that Sony's color problems could come from elsewhere, but I left implicit that the A900, without raw compression, didn't have this problem.
So I'm guessing Sony is removing some colour data, skipping steps like a jpeg, and that what makes the washed out out color in recent Sony raws comes from. There I said it.
And in your response to nathho you look to be saying something similar.
There have been alot on instances in the history of computer representations of things where engineers have insisted things are seen or heard one way, "so compression has no perceptible effect and you see/hear no different".
You've posted something very similar, and I'd have thought we'd gotten beyond this kind of "mistake".
Actually you asked one question. And it was answered.
But the problem is Nikon, when using the same sensor as the A7, produces much bigger raws, and with a good Nikon lens the colour is not washed out once the raw is extracted to tiff. Then with a Zeiss on the Nikon the results are even better.
fisherman_lol: To DPR Moderators; This jpino79 guy is been flooding this forum all day with his inflammatory comments and you are not doing anything about it? I think if he was bashing CANIKON he would be banned for life. ;)
What does problems with recent Macs (and some of the deficiencies have been well noted by others) have to do with the excellent K3?
Unlike Apple, Pentax/Ricoh isn't driving away serious photographers by introducing the 645Z and the K3 and better lenses, and then now the K3II.
Igor Adamovic: This is almost perfect APS-C mirrorless camera, except implementation of H.265 codec for video. I'm not against H.265 codec, that codec is the future, but heavy compression of that codec in this camera is killing video low light performance.Loose compression would probably lead to larger files, and it's against philosophy of new codec, but who cares. Perhaps this could be fixed in firmware update.
What are you defining as low light?
I've not seen much trouble with challenging shadows I've shot, but no I've not been out doors at night, say on a country road sans artificial illumination.
Is it the A7S for lowlight video? No. But it is akin to things like the NX30 and the A77II, and A6000, and close to even the A7II. (Yes I realize those only shoot 1080p internally.) I've used the NX20 in very challenging light, and the results were very good.
The thing is at low ISOs with a good SonyZeiss lens I've never noted color problems with samples from the Sony A900.
Whereas the problem sure shows up now, and it corresponds to compressed raws.
refillable: I am honestly perplexed now... I don't think this camera is much different than my a6000, yet it is more expensive. There is no clear advantage from my camera to this, as far as I know. Except 4K recording which is not that important to be honest. Can someone explain to me what justification the '87%' rating is opposed to a6000's 80%? Thanks
Have you handled a NX1? Or say a Fuji XT1, or Oly EM1?
I bring up those last two because like the NX1 they have a higher build quality and a better EVF than the Sony A6000, even if yes Sony is the supplier for the EVF on at least the Fuji.
The NX1 is a remarkable camera. The A6000 is remarkable for what the price gets you--and has big native APSC lens problems that the Fuji, Samsung and Oly/Pan don't.
Instead of just posting look into the problem. It's claimed by some, not me, that raw compression can't affect the washed out color problem. But Sony sure has it, with all the recent cameras that shoot compressed raws.
You can research the other, start with the A7S compared to the 5DIII by DPR.
lacikuss: I hope the best for this camera, now is this the FF Pentax they promised 15 years ago? BTW it looks like a Nikon indeed.
I can't speak for every commenter here, but many in these comments have used, and tried, and owned, gear from various camera makers.
Sony colour sure is washed out. And the compressed raw artifact problem has been demonstrated, well.
dodgebaena: I too am not a Pentax shooter but I know friends who swear by Pentax, and have heard glowing testimonials. What I don't understand is why more manufacturers don't incorporate an articulating/tilting/swiveling LCD. After I used one with the Canon 60D (I'm now a Sony a99/a7II/RX10 shooter), I can't see myself shooting without one.
perhaps "wheather" sealing means something, like sealed against dust from the agricultural hybrid wheat/heather.
A PC of 25 years ago is closer to a current PC than a SLR of 1990 is to a DSLR of 2015.
Smartphones didn't exist 25 years ago. Nor did flat screen TVs. And a tube TV from the year 2002 bears nearly no relationship to a flat screen, even though they are both used for the same end purpose.
digiart: I may be wrong but it looks like Apple is yet again copying other companies technology...
Do you expect Xerox to make smartphones?
Those are well sealed bodies, but I suspect not up to D4+K3 sealing.
And articulated screens make for more body penetrations.
What is this thing you have against Pentax?
What do you mean "show" that Pentax can make high quality gear?
The K5? The K3? Several good, well made lenses? Do these well documented facts no somehow count?
All digital camera manufactures have had quality control problems. A 2015 DSLR is vastly more complex than a film SLR from 25 years ago.
Yes, those are well sealed, probably not to the level of the K3 though. Perhaps the A99 is, but there's that articulated screen issue.
You don't know of what you speak. You see DSLRs, amongst other digital cameras, have openings for batteries, data ports, cards, lens mounts, and this is not going to change. On a K3 etc those openings are well sealed but if open water gets in.
Did you just start using electronic gear in the year 2014?
Harry Shepherd: I've spent several hours trying to purchase an upgrade,all to no avail every link I try takes me to a brick wall. I guess I'm a little luckier than Rbrt at least I It's not cost me any money
Upgrade from what to what?
Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
No, there's not an absolute guarantee against water getting in the camera for X number of years. But the K3 is much more sealed than say a Sony A7II.
The sealing on cameras like the D4S, K3, EM1, 7DII and D810 is far from "marketing speak", and note one of those has an articulated rear screen.
No, I've never heard of an articulated screen being snapped off, but I've sure witnessed failures of articulated screens, and it's not hard to imaging the screen/body connection being broken.
The Sony A7 isn't a particularly well sealed line of cameras, it's okay, but it's got nothing on the K3.