I don't need links, I have the videos already, the whole files that, I shot.
And the NX1 is better in lowlight by a good bit than the LX100.
HowaboutRAW: Good for Sony, now reconsider compressed raws in general.
"macroblocking "= skipping=the algorithm putting in blocks of one blue, where it should shade the blue.
Okay, I look forward to the tweaked Nikon raw. My mistake, there, "add drop" be odd phrasing.
Unfortunately every low ISO jpeg that I can find from the A900 doesn't have this washed out colour problem, telling me that something is wrong and it's related to compressed raws in later Sony cameras. (But I've not found raws from the A900 yet.)
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.
I don't need links, I have the videos already, the whole files that I shot.
xoio: I feel it makes a bit of a mockery of their 'flagship' bridge FZ1000, when they steal the sensor from it and bung it in a phone...
Seems i'm NOT the only one who thinks so either..http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/why-the-panasonic-lumix-dmc-cm1-is-a-bad-idea-1265639
One is a camera with an optical zoom, and the other is a smartphone.
I don't see how that's mockery. The smartphone sure costs more than the camera.
That TechRadar review is pretty ignorant, and only seems helpful with the comment about bad battery life. And it says nothing about the FZ1000.
It's tiresome to read lines about this smartphone camera not being noticeably better for things like FaceBook and Instagram. Obviously the reviewer isn't interested in digital cameras and probably shouldn't have done the review. Aint his bailiwick.
It's very likely a Sony 1" sensor in both, so "steal" seems an odd word.
Petrogel: Those were really great high iso photos, for a smartphone.
Because of the 1" sensor.
worldcup1982: from previous samples i've seen, the lens is not that good...
That's not how DoF works, and DoF increases with the decrease in aperture and decrease in sensor size.
1" sensored cameras don't have famously thin DoF, even with f/1.4 lenses.
Thanks I did see those some weeks ago. I just want to see more examples. It is after all one of maybe 5 smartphones that shoot raw.
Great, can we get about 10 real world raws for download too?
Sharp in the center and has excellent colour.
As a video camera, shooting 4K, the Samsung is better than the LX100 in lowlight at higher ISOs, by a good bit. And the LX100 uses the same sensor as the GH4.
I'm basing this on having tried both in the same bad lighting. I'm not speculating.
FiveForm: Hmmmm....Let's see. Fifteen Hundred for an NX1 body and I paid four-fifty for my new a6000 from Adorama this past holiday season. So, this body is worth more than three times an a6000? It is that good? I'm really not seeing where in this review that would be substantiated....One reason for not changing brands is familiarity and lenses. I feel that all cameras are now at the point where you can buy one and settle on it for a bit, even with the sirens calling from the shores of other brands and models...
The A6000 is an excellent camera body, but the Sony APSC lens selection for that mount is weak. Though there are better bigger FE mount lenses--they also cost more. (There are also good aftermarket lenses for the Sony from Zeiss and Sigma.)
The NX1's EVF is much better than that in the A6000.
Then there's the weather sealing and 4K thing.
Finally Samsung doesn't have the washed out colors problem. Also the Samsung is a tiny bit better as a high ISO body.
The actual reference point is the washed out colors from compressed raw shooting Sony cameras in comparison to Nikons using the same sensor, and even jpegs from the Sony A900, which didn't compress raws as "lossless".
I see you didn't bother to read more in the thread.
In fact, I've never claimed that it's a fact that the Sony color problems are caused by raw compression, but it sure bears investigation--thorough investigation.
So try not to misuse the word "fact".
I wish I had access to a Sony A900+a Zeiss, I'd try that and the resulting raws.
But I don't have an A900 to try.
The ISO 200 DPR sample jpegs from the Sony A900 don't have the now typically washed out color look of images from newer Sonys that also shoot raw.
I can download these jpegs later and look at them on a 10bit monitor.
DPR isn't clear if they were shot as out of camera jpegs or as raws.
But the problem is that you've already confirmed my point, if what you wrote is an accurate summary of what Sony's raw compression does.
In other words you've made my point for me.
You can easily see skips in jpegs--sometimes even big blue bands in the sky.
You can't readd in the subtracted data, unless you have that data stored somewhere. What you've described is making educated guesses and adding those guesses back in. That can work, but not always.
The more you post on this subject the more you make me surer and surer of my original guess, and further points.
Fazal Majid: Manfrotto finally sees the light and adopts Gitzo-style leg locks. Too little, too late to stem the tide of Chinese knock-offs?
Gitzo is owned by Manfrotto.
So I'm guessing Sony is removing some colour data, skipping steps like a jpeg, and that's where the washed out color in recent Sony raws comes from. There I said it.
We've heard this all before. And it's been often wrong, an example from a different field: "Organic vegetables taste no different from those raised with conventional agriculture, and they are chemically the same, well except for a few chemicals you'd never taste."
Jylppy: Just tried NX1 briefly in a store. It has the best EVF I have ever tried and it starts to be at acceptable level (for a user used to FF OVF ). The NX1' EVF is far better vs. Fuji XT-I or Sony Alpha 7 II. However, the lag is noticeable and the view is nothing to compare e.g. Nikon D810's superb OVF (which is far better than in my Canon 5DII's, btw).
Another notable thing is its mechanical construction. It did not feel a high-end camera at all, but a poorly build plastic toy. I do not know is this impression due to low weight or not, but compared to Nikon's D800 and Canon 5DII the camera felt like a toy. Not a serious, robust photographic tool.
Try the OVF on the D4S, or the Sony A900, if you happen to see one.
Yes: Magnesium bodies are often mistaken for plastic. I owned a Contax N1 film body, excellent OVF, so got used to the feel years ago.
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.