RichRMA: Nose to the grindstone RAW, sweating, labouring Hercules's will feel soooo bad if this works. No more bragging about how they can work miracles in post-processing.
"Nose to the grindstone RAW, sweating, labouring Hercules's will feel soooo bad if this works. No more bragging about how they can work miracles in post-processing."
Maybe what you wrote isn't what you meant. What that says to me is (and your other comments backed it up):
"This will mean that RAW processing is now no longer needed, and I'll be able to get results just as good from JPEG. Yah!"
"Nose to the grindstone RAW, sweating, labouring Hercules's will feel soooo bad if this works"
"I never said it was"
OK. I'll leave you to it.
No, you don't actually know what it is, how to use it, or what it is for. You really don't. It's certainly nothing to do with the filesizes of JPEGs.
I'm not sure you even know what RAW is.
Timbukto: Let me guess...patent pending? If the output is standard jpeg...and it works in all standard jpeg browsers and devices...it IS standard jpeg. JpegMini is a *brand* and is a jpeg *encoder* but not a unique *format*. This is no different from various flavors of Mp3 encoders with LAME being the best and open source. There used to be other variant mp3 encoders that costed money and well isn't that weird...they don't exist any more and I can't even remember their name.
In addition it is highly doubtful that there is truly any unique patentable technique applied in this standard format that any other unbranded run of the mill jpeg encoder cannot also apply.
It may be very well that JpegMini is a good encoder but that will require more thorough analysis than this marketing bit.
Also the bits about it using 'perceptual' encoding as unique is hogwash as the jpeg standard is all about perceptual encoding just like MP3 is all about perceptual encoding. Silly to claim this is the only one.
"Most people who care about preserving quality will shoot RAW, and most people who shoot jpeg would not want an additional conversion step!"
I'm on a slowish ADSL2 connection, and like to back up everything online in multiple places. I just threw my fullsize JPEG backups at JPEGmini and it saved nearly 15GB. That's a couple of days uploading.
So not using within my RAW workflow, but as final storage for backups, I can see a use.
What does this have to do with RAW?
(BTW, is it RAW, or Raw? Is it an acronym? Camera menus tend to use RAW for some reason ...)
JamesD28: After a close, thorough inspection with extra attention to fine details, I have concluded that people will complain about anything.
How dare you! I have flagged your comment as inappropriate. Hrumph. (sorry DPR)
meanwhile: I don't understand the people who name products.
Why, in 2015, when there are an entire range of products already called the A7 (made by a competitor in the same markets as you), would you call a new product the A7?
Markets. Electronics, cell phones, etc.
I don't understand the people who name products.
This certainly looks like step back. Odd.
Luma curve is great, and curves as a local adjustment finally. Linking brushes is a time-saver (makes the eraser the same settings as your current brush). Really like the new contrast engine.
smithling: Can this be used for focus stacking in-camera?
According to the rumor sites (I know, I know) focus stacking will be available later on, probably in the next models.
fuego6: I would not want to be a PRO photographer these days... the need for a pro are dwindling and dwindling...
That bride didn't get herself to that light source, angle, cropping, pose and timing all by herself, ready to be snapped perfectly by a casual user ...
aftab: Looks like there is focus issues with Canon 50mm/1.2 ( image 13 and 15).
"Exactly, the photographer just mixed focus on what should have been the face."
Bloody photographers, aye Dan?
meanwhile: The least expensive of the M bodies is kinda the A7.
"You mean lossy raws and a very audible shutter A7?"
I have an A7 II, so not sure what you mean. I've had lossless raws for days now, and the shutter's not too bad.
Hey, I did say "kinda". :-)
The least expensive of the M bodies is kinda the A7.
So just to clarify - Barney, are you saying that the Q looks so much sharper in this test because it sharpens in-camera and bakes that into the raw files? If yes, does that effect the editing latitude of the RX1R II raw vs the Q?
DStudio: As long as every company doesn't flock to bison leather I think we'll be OK.
I believe they would herd to bison leather, rather than flock. You're welcome.