Um, what's so great about the A7 except that it's smaller than this Canon?
It has washed out colour in raw, and a very very audible mechanical shutter. And with its 24MPs, it has about the high ISO performance of this 50MP Canon. It's good for video though.
And I like using EVFs in lowlight shooting, but the A7S is better for that than the A7.
No, I just tired of typing "washed out color", means the same thing as colour weakness.
You claiming that I'm "talking nonsense" doesn't make your claim valid. You'll have to do the test with many raws and cameras if you want to be taken seriously on this point.
Again: I'd avoid the word "debunked"; it has a sorted history. And has been used by frauds to dismiss several valid challenges to conventional "wisdom".
It depends on who/what was doing the recording to digital--and I'm not saying no one was paying attention in the early 1980s, I'm saying that those distinctions took 15 years to be well and broadly applied to CDs audio.
Right, when well executed 24bit/96 khz is somewhat better, and then comes DSD.
Right volume spikes would be a big place the usefulness of the Nyquist theorem breaks down.
Good digital audio shouldn't have pops and hiss, but it should still have noise.
Do you not apprehend the reason for DNG?
East Germany isn't famous for computer viruses.
cdembrey: If Leica had it's own Raw format, the problem would be solved. Simple as that.
The kidz in former Eastern Block countries write the best viruses, get a team from east Germany to write a Leica Raw file. An exclusive camera deserves an exclusive Raw.
Photoman: The question Sigma should be asking is..."Does my bum look big in this?"
I trust what I can see repeatedly.
Don't redefine "debunked" to suit your ends.
Also debunked is a shelter used by some not real inquisitive types--there are some famous examples, one of whom has been more than once proved a fraud. Oft, as is the case with you here, what you're claiming "debunks" my point in fact supports my point.
I'm not going to drop this point about current Sony raws, perhaps there is a different explanation for the colour weakness, say for example a problem processor for Sony, but it's consistent--and has been since the switch to compressed raws.
Bob 1: At ~$175, or less, whats not to like? I've seen worse image quality in cameras costing 2X this amount! When I shot film, I could easily spend more than $175 for 35mm film, development and printing just on a week-end vacation :)
Perfect camera for my wife and grandchildren. Also, I like the technology of the BSI sensor... http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012961/article/FAQ-Whats-a-Backside-Illuminated-Sensor
BSI sensors have been around for some years.
It would be good if you stopped calling the problem a "myth". It makes you read like a lot off defenders of less than strong technology--say for example audio CDs in the 1980s (here's where the myth of the Nyquist limit be cited by many to defend CDs--and that theorem even has it's uses.).
It's not that I don't like Sony cameras, but they have this washed out colour weakness--the recent ones--despite some excellent lenses.
And generally Sony is a bit scattered in its approach, though this seems to be changing.
Sorry, mgrum may not like it, but the tiffs back up my point.
Pat Sajak, nuff said.
I'm not seeking credit for this verity.
I'm not clinging to my gear and saying "it has to be best".
HBowman: Please, stop comparing those cameras with the D800 or 645Z. It come nowhere near in every IQ therm. It might lure the spectator sometimes, on rez only (and after extensive PP), but that's all.
Those are special cameras. Comparing it with any other brand (especially FF and MF) is just wrong (either for the ones defending it and for SIGMA, who just passively endorse it).
I'm still not seeing any evidence that you've worked on Sigma Quattro files.
I really suggest that if you can't get your hands on a Quattro to try, or can't get ahold of raw files from any Quattro, that your comments about image quality from Quattros aren't worth much.
You were given a website to download excellent Quattro raws from, and as best as I can tell you simply ignored that advice.
NB: Flash being the majority of a website's images is so 2004 and was a bad idea back then.
kfahlman: LR is the preferred software, a free download is packaged with the camera.
It's not as limited as you may think, and it is shipping, I received mine last Thursday.
I don't imagine LR real limiting for B+W.
mgrum's tiffs show it. It's easy enough to see between 1 and 4; 4 being from a full 14bit raw.
Right, it's in the lighter areas, clouds specifically.
As you say: "doesn't impact [high] quality [colour representation] much"; it's that "much" at the end that gives away your position.
Mgrum's tiffs and jpegs support my point. And mgrum grudgingly admits as much.
The line was something like "that's surprising", in that it was a surprise how easy it was to see the difference between 1 and 4.
Sure more testing is needed, but it will very likely confirm what is easy to see.
I would be one of the experts--since I have the collection of raws, from the same sensors under the same lighting but from different cameras.
No one in this series of comments has called me out for being wrong. People, like you, have claimed that I am wrong, there's a difference, a very big one.
(Elsewhere I've been wrong and almost always admit so, when I'm satisfied that's the case--unlike you.)
No, another member showed a link to tiffs.
And mgrum made my point for me, well.
Yeah, I did understand which was which, I didn't go through every possibility of comparison. That 1 was a good bit more compressed than 4 was the point and it was easy to see.
You're quoting from mgrum's comment about jpegs in which mgrum gave away the information in advance, you've clearly not looked at the files, so I'd avoid comment if I were you.
The further you go on the weaker your "case" gets. More misdirection doesn't help your case.
I stuck to the facts, and mgrum's test actually confirmed my point--well. Even mgrum grudgingly admits so.
Not true, all files don't always look washed out when first opened, anyhow I'm remarking on fully extracted files.
There is evidence for Sony's compressed raws dropping brighter data, and that sure would account for the washed out look. But I see you note the fact of the lost highlight tone. (Sony amongst others is pretty infamous for deciding what people as a whole can hear, and then causing real trouble for digital audio for 15 years. This deafness on Sony's part looks to be similar blindness.)
Right, you'd not note the Sony problem in shadows.
I looked up the A37, the test of the mirror would be best against the Nex 5, since that's the same 16MP sensor.
But anyway, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and Leica all get amazing results from that same 16MP sensor.
(I don't have a lot of raw examples, but I don't remember being real impressed with the results from the Nex5 even with a SonyZeiss--though it was a very good high ISO body for APSC at the time.)
dougster1979: Sigma have shown they can Kick ass in the lens world, it`s time they applied the same logic to their cameras. Art series body eagerly awaited!
Except for lots of extra work, there's nothing stopping Adobe or DXO from doing extraction software for every Sigma Foveon camera, and Adobe Camera Raw will indeed already extract files from some of the 14MP DP series Sigma cameras. This is NOT upto Sigma.
Foveon sensors will never match the higher ISO performance of a Bayer sensor--the reason is real clear. (In 30 years time this kind of thing may change, but that involves micro-manufacturing not relevant to Sigma in 2015.)
Buffer speeds increase with cheaper+smaller RAM and cheaper processing chips--all of which come with time.
Unless you're shooting sports, a 2008 AF system is fine for most purposes. Manual focus just isn't real hard either.
I'm sure that Sigma will launch more SigmaArt lenses.
As far as I know the translucent mirror doesn't cause color problems, it causes higher ISO performance trouble--a problem I see you've noted.
Did the A37 use the same sensor as the Nex7?
The point is to compare the same sensor, shooting 11bit+7 raws, in Sony bodies with ideally the same lens and same in camera processor at lower ISOs, and then look for colour differences between the version with the translucent mirror and the one that's mirrorless.