Cheezr: Barney, since I see you used the 16-55F2.8, how did that lens feel on the camera? does it hang over the bottom? E.g., on my e-m10 a few of the bigger lenses hang over the bottom edge of the camera.
And he digs a bit deeper with the next fallacy as he purposedly omits the fact that you can turn stabilization on or off, to fit the use case at hand:"Basically a camera is better off without IBIS and with lens stabilization systems."
Argument invalid when you still have the choice not to use it on the occasions when battery life is important. Choice beats no choice.
I think you misunderstood my comment, which pointed out the fallacy in the statement from Just a Photographer.
There's a whole lot between something being annoying for missing and something being a requirement for taking good pictures.
Hence why most people here would feel stripping autofocus from a newly released body would be annoying, despite all the good pictures shot in the past and even today, without the use of autofocus. Similarly many feel the same if stabilization is being stripped/missing.
How is it annoying - Photographers have done for over hundred years without autofocus, not to say its not in any Nikon or Canon camera either.
Still people seem to be able to make beautiful and award winning pictures without autofocus.
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.
"WAV files aren't simply different in volume level. So sound reproduction isn't your thing either."We agree on the former, but your reading comprehension (...) caused you to miss the fact that this was exactly the point. Your comparison regarding output colors of 14 bit vs 11+7 bit RAW based on converted jpegs or TIFF's, makes as much sense as comparing volume levels between MP3 and WAVE. None.
"I suggest you look for the base line, mgrum .."As said several times, that is not a base line for your argument because:11 linear bits is not nearly the same as non linear 11+7 (delta modulation from 14 original) bits. At for example 8MP output, the theoretical difference in engineering DR between both is already 3 EV.
"My point remains valid no matter what you claim"If there was any point to begin with. You trying to knit several issues together that have no connection, using invalid sources as a bonus.
"And mgrum doesn't even like the fact that I could easily see the difference."First, that's not what his comments suggest (fallacy #35454), second, you didn't spot his more obvious example of compression differences (conveniently claiming you didn't focus on that one), third, it doesn't prove anything regarding the Sony used compression scheme, see above.
Again, RAW is not a visible output format, MP3 and WAVE are end products, directly audible if you wish. You have no baseline to compare compressed ARW files to, without taking the conversion (which includes profiling which differs per camera and converter) out of the equation, thus you have nothing valid to bring to the table to base your one specific claim on.
And that specific claim inserts another fallacy, when it's not related (colors don't get washed out through this compression algorithm, just like MP3's aren't less loud than WAVE files) to the compression to begin with.
I was referring to those in my post above. Read again.
And you can play 2 recordings on the same output format fine, you don't need to recalibrate to interpret the recording. That's the point. With image files from 2 different cameras you do, since RAW files don't have any output color.
Your claims in that thread just highlight more ignorance, the further I read. Such as pointing out banding in jpegs (....) as a result of RAW compression, judged on an 8 bit (....) monitor.
All you did in that thread, is show confirmation bias, followed by not being able to spot the most obvious difference in compression examples. It again proves exactly nothing regarding "washed out colors" either. Nor did it prove anything relative to the Sony algorithm, which isn't just linear 11 bits.
And your analogy regarding MP3's and WAV sounds just exposes more ignorance on the subject at hand, since we're talking about the source (camera recording/ original audio recording) here, not two different visible/audible output fomats. Besides that, *output* colors are always an interpretation from a RAW file. 2 songs or 2 recordings can be played with the same output "format" fine.
But if you insist on your analogy, it's more like claiming MP3 doesn't sound as loud as WAV. ;-)
If it has been demonstrated so many times, it should take you less time to repeat those results here, than to repeatedly post baseless claims as per above.
And I'm not dropping the key factor. Denying that, would make you or me sound ignorant instead.
The only visible data lost due to the lossy RAW compression, is that in very high contrast transitions (mostly in shadows). Which has zero to do with your claim about "washed out" colors.
The only thing I've seen posted here is OOC jpegs. Which proves exactly nothing. And again, even if there were converted TIFF's, they would still not prove anything, since that would still include the profiling of the RAW converter of choice. RAW files consist of binary data that has to be interpreted and you can't see binary data in colors.
How can you "see" washed out colors in RAW when all you can see is profiled output, profiled by RAW converter makers?
The only thing demonstrated sofar, is measurements showing that it has relatively discriminating/dense CFA's (like most Sony cameras), which in theory can allow more accurate colors due to better separation (it scores relatively well on the metamerism index). In practice, good profiling/calibration, can compensate for most of that too.
There is no valid demonstration to support your point, anywhere.
And it's not 11 bit RAW, it's 11+7 bit, not quite the same.
Gray Photography: Interesting article, but I keep thinking that DP Review is dancing around an issue without fully accounting for it. Dynamic Range. The simple fact is, the dynamic range of virtually all our display devices (monitors and printers) is going to be somewhere around 10 stops at best. Most printer papers can't even get that much range. But, they are talking about how important this dynamic range is but I've yet to see them talk meaningful talk as to how this all actually manifests itself in presentation. Monumentalizing the trivial.
Noise is the least of your reproduction concerns when it comes to digital photography if you ask me. Your typical computer monitor can barely handle a sRGB color space, which is about color space and dynamic range of a JPG file. Most laptops displays I've seen can't even come close to that. All this other theoretical incompleteness doesn't really make much difference in reality.
I have to applaud again how Rishi Sanyal manages to translate subjects that are too technical and incomprehensible for many, into matter that is relatively simple, practical and usable to/for most.
Many teachers would benefit from this trait...
Yeah, the "washed out colors in RAW" myth continues I see. ;-)
nicolaiecostel: From the pictures I get that you absolutely need to nail exposure. The second picture is 2.3 stops pushed up from ISO 100 and looks like ISO6400. The DR of the portraits is bad, skin almost washed out. Canon sensor tech is years behind everyone.
With perfect studio lighting, even some compact cameras can really shine and all we had left was perfect pictures from all cameras. What exactly would that tell us when shooting in the real world is rarely ever "perfect"?
They actually explained very well why the limitation of prints or our monitors in terms of dynamic range, does not limit the benefits of being able to capture more dynamic range in the RAW file. You must have skipped the many tonemapped examples to highlight this.
ThatCamFan: Samsung are being fools again, selling you a different product from what you were expecting, I believe the term SCAMMING fits samsung right now.
@ Peiasdf:He mentioned the iPhone 6, not the Plus (that you keep referring to), which would increase the difference.
The regular iPhone 6 is listed by IHS in the link I posted higher up in the thread. Even if preliminary, those are the numbers that are closest to apples to apples comparisons, because they're from the same source. Rather than comparing a preliminary estimate of the S6 Edge camera component price with a vaguely sourced estimate from a market analyst.
B E: 1) Create new product using superior parts from your competitor.2) Wait for good reviews to come in.3) Silently substitute parts with cheaper alternatives.4) Profit!
This is fraud, or at best highly unethical.
It's still comparing apples and oranges, because the $20 does not come from Sony (they wouldn't specify that) but from a market analyst, who won't have access to a precise list of revenues per customer, only a total revenue number for a certain period. And the customer base from Sony Semiconductors is huge and varies a lot.
@ Peiasdf You're comparing apples and oranges. Use both numbers from IHS and you have a 72% more expensive set on the S6 compared to the 6+ and a whopping 95% more than the set on the regular 6 without OIS.
But to keep it an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to take the IHS numbers for the iPhone 6 Plus too, which is $12.50 for both modules combined. The $18.50 was just for the main rear camera of the S6, add the $3 for the front camera and you have a 72% more expensive camera set on the S6 than the iPhone 6 Plus, 95% more expensive than on the regular iPhone 6.
Interestingly enough, the iPhone 5S camera set was also rated 18% more expensive that the cameras from the iPhone 6 Plus and 35% more expensive than those on the regular iPhone 6.
SergioBR: And ... S6 will shoot in RAW !!! http://www.sammobile.com/2015/05/05/exclusive-android-5-1-1-to-bring-new-camera-features-to-the-galaxy-s6-and-s6-edge/
Hmm, I'm reading similar reports on XDAdevelopers.
Seems like waiting for that update (and having those fingers crossed) is the only option left sofar.