@ Rooru S
At Canon they must be magicians then, for size AND price:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1533

That's right. Canon are masters at optics while at Sony has tried three pancake lenses, only one is worth the try (20) and the other two are just for fun lenses (16, 16-50). None of them are f2.

mediasorc:

The A7's mechanical shutter is way way too loud.

For higher ISOs it barely competes with either the NX1 or the NX30. It doesn't have the AF for the NX1.

Nice lenses, but Samsung has those too. Samsung also doesn't have the compressed raw issue--in any NX body.

The NX30's 20MP sensor and the 28MP sensor in the NX500/NX1 easily compete with the best Sony APSC sensors. (And Nikon sure knows how to use that A7 sensor better than Sony.)

yeh whatever, those new batis zeiss lenses a great price and unbelievable performers compared to the best LEICA lens, i think your quips about sony are completely unfounded, the results speak for themselves and this is proving to be a blow away system for the money, i dont doubt samsung make great cameras and im sure the nx1 is a nice bit of kit [but way overpriced] but unless you need the focus speed frankly youd be mad to buy it over say a7m2 or a7s etc, with sony releasing new a7r2 and maybe a7s2 its going to be an absolute killer system, so far the pics im getting from my a72 blow away anything ive seen from samsung and im not the only one who thinks so.ibis is unreal too, can shoot in the dark,
The a72 shutter is very quiet [ elc frnt curtain], sony has reduced price on all them there just a great bet the a7m2 focus speed/accuracy is unreal in low light, i know.i use it.
im so glad i went with this system.ibis =can shoot in the dark.
your WRONG/
this system is unreal/pfft

are you kidding howaboutinsane?
the a7s is THE BEST LOWLIGHT shooter money can buy except for 6k$+ nikons

it is the king of lowlight, you should not make up untruths saying nx series even comes close to the hi iso potential of the a7s, your making yourself look like a complete fool passing that off here, im sorry, no offence, but thats just plain untrue/

im sorry nobody believes that, but you, hahaha/

maybe samsung will catch up one day, in a few years, if they go ff they may turn out ok, but, there bodies are huge, lenses so so, and very pricey too,

you know you really get on peoples nerves espousing your nonsense on this forum, i dont even give a rats backside about sony lol, just another faceless corporation, id shoot with fuji if they made ff rangefinder style ilc no probs,

but you, your a real special case on here, u should stop making up stories/its not helpful , just foolish.

Maybe because you can use them on any Alpha series camera?

Well, I'll mention a few things:

1. I love Olympus prime glass. The 45mm f/1.8 and friends are phenomenal for overall image quality. People will point out that the Zeiss is sharper, and people will be right, but overall, color, contrast, bokeh, etc. matter a lot more, and in terms of overall image aesthetic, they're both first glass.

2. In terms of price/performance, Sony has a range of glass. I would not put Olympus ahead. Or behind, for that matter. It depends on what you do. Sony has great cheap primes, not to mention a boatload of great, cheap used Minolta glass. You can't fault them for having a few expensive lenses if they also have cheap stuff.

3. Overall, I'd still buy Olympus OM-D if I were building a system from scratch, or *possibly* A9II. The quality is good enough on the OM-D to not matter anymore, and it really is a lot smaller.

Alphoid - I'm not sure the 45/1.8 is the best Oly example (75/1.8 maybe or the 12-40/2.8). The new Pany 42.5/1.8 is lots and lots better around the edges at any of the wider apertures...
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G_42-5mm_f1-7_H_HS043E/sharpness.shtml
(Scroll down to "Zuiko Digital 45mm f1.8 corner sharpness")

to miwok,
i can see why you wouldnt be able to see the difference/
stick to facebook and you will be just fine.

Yeah i know, its a real crime the way Zeiss forces people to buy there lenses, what a cheek, they should never have made them in the first place, who needs zeiss glass afterall?
Its renowned for being real crap/ everybody knows that in the industry,

Great ! Let me get them cheap ass L lenses.

Yesterday it was: mirrorless is so good, coz it allows the production of cheaper and smaller lenses.
When they come out bigger and more expensive: I so need them, they are only 20% more expensive than the Canon version!

@arbuz;

I do not know Sony/Zeiss zoom too much b/c I need to find a suitable SONY body first.

If you are talking about low edge sharpness caused by small flange distance of mount, SONY has a new patent for that (kind of) as seen from following:

http://www.slrlounge.com/new-sony-sensor-patent-highlights-multilayer-technology-built-lens/

BTW: I do not know optical design well. DPR should know better to see the real causes and possible resolutions.

Im using a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 on my A65, nice lens on paper, but little bit soft on the edges in reality.
Pity that the 16-35 is not a bit wider and longer, as im sure that a lot of APS-C users would love that.

For crop sensor, most of UW zoom are more less just 2X even we like to see more reach. such as for mirror-less body:

- Nikon 1 6.7-13mm

- Sony E 10-18mm

- Oly 9-18mm and Pana 7-14mm

- ...

That's also more less true for FF UW zoom.

If it was me, I'd go for the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. It's tack shark across the frame wide open, and with the A65 you can use all the light you can get. Plus, it's 1/3rd the price!

Yeah, with the bokeh I don't see there being any change. But to be honest, I haven't really found a 24-70 F/2.8 that excelled in that department. The Sigma and the Tamron weren't terrible, but I've certainly seen better from other lenses (both zoom and prime). It's almost like trying to find a unicorn.

The older Canon was fantastic.

1) Not a Sony mount lens, so doesn't even apply.
2) You mention the older model. Are you saying that the newer, sharper Canon model has worse bokeh? I see a trade-off here if that is the case.

1)Someone else mentioned other lenses/sytems.

Infact it was you.

2)Yes, the newest loses the great bokeh. I think it's the 24-70mm but not sure any longer.

I mentioned other lenses that are available in A-mount. Both Sigma and Tamron make Sony mount lenses, Canon does not. So my lenses apply, yours does not.

same concern here. but maybe SONY uses better speical glass to deliever better IQ, in same fomulation. or slightly addjust the design of some glasses.

because my copy of 70200GII has show much better sharpness wide-open, comparing to GI.SONY shows the same optical-formulation as well.

mick,

Sony colour sure is washed out. And the compressed raw artifact problem has been demonstrated, well.

Eric,

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.

Troj:

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.

Eric,

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.

mrgrum how about when you extract the Sony current ARW with 11 bit only, the rest of valuable of 3 bits out of 14 bits are being lost? How do you feel about that? I think thats bad enough to me really.

mgrum:

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".

Colour data of 3 bit is a lot to lose. How many shade per bit per colour (RGB) do you know? If it is 8 bit would be 256? Well come to think of monitor does 255 in 8 bit? Actually found it in Wikipedia. 3 bits per colour = 8 shade. So total is 24 shade in RGB. Hrm. Thats not much so you might be right yes.

edit:

mgrum:

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."

mgrm:

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.

Oh yeah the JPEG one especially blue skies was not good sometimes exhibit amount of banding that is barely visible that bothers me, even make matter worse if I set NR on the banding get worsen. So I had to turn down NR or turn off all together. I rather stick to RAW and open up Adobe and I don't see banding in RAW which is much better off with.

"Eric,
Actually you asked one question. And it was answered."
No it wasn't. No one has uncompressed raw files from the current Sonys.
I have seen converted raws that exhibit artifacts, and a lot of guesswork as to what caused them, but no facts.
Stop touting your flawed guesswork as fact.
Try arguing from an actual point of reference.

Eric,

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".

Thats the reason I steer clear of Alpha with Translucent Mirror cos it just ruin the image. I am glad that I am sticking to Mirrorless for time being. I wish it does have non compressed lossless raw option though still! But the colours bit at based ISO in mirrorless from A7 I find it excellent so was in Nex 7. Not every raw software will work well with Sony. Its very tricky one. Even heck, I did compared two images one with RAW and one with JPEG exact same image. The noise reduction was turned off for JPEG. I tried noise reduction in RAW and then the JPEG. Who won the competition? JPEG! Cos incamera already converted to JPEG before saving into SD card. It always taken raw then converted to JPEG with incamera true Sony processing. But the colour maybe not as perfect but still with noise reduction is amazing.

I forgot one more thing silly me! The JPEG noise when NR turned off was less noisy than when opening RAW file in photoshop. Im surprised!

Eric,

The problem is Nikon also has better colour--that's using say Zeiss on both.

Every ISO 200 jpeg from the A900 that I've downloaded looks excellent for color--even if jpeg artifacts are obvious. And that's a Sony body without compressed raws.

Troj,

I agree that using jpegs from the A900 is problematic.

But the problem is there with recent Sony cameras.

"I agree that using jpegs from the A900 is problematic."
No more problematic than you claiming that the raws are washed out.

Nyquist? Please.
You probably have directional cables, too.

mgrum:

No jpegs please.

Thanks, mgrum.

mgrum:

So I looked at the jpegs on two different, not spectacular, monitors--meaning both files have been downloaded and opened by me on two separate computers. And yes, I can see a significant difference between the two.

It's pretty much a variation of washed out colour, though it doesn't look like a Sony, since, of course, the jpegs were Canon raws originally.

Of course later I'll check with my own much better monitor.

mgrum:

I checked on my 10bit monitor, it's slight but there still.

The spine of the white book shows it, as does the magenta into blue transition to the right+below that book spine. Meaning in both cases there are subtler colour gradations expressed in the jpeg from the 14 bit lossless raw. I'm pretty sure tiff would express this even better--of course ideally 16bit tiffs.

(This is good news for Canon lenses too, but may be increased by the use of a Zeiss. I guess the exif data only says 30mm not the brand.)

I think your job with the Canon raw is better than whatever process Sony uses--telling me that Sony in camera processing hardware adds to the mess.

Irony, where I found it hard to see was on a MacBook Retina--but those are mostly good for resolution issues.

Thanks for the work.

"I checked on my 10bit monitor, it's slight but there still."
I have a good consumer grade monitor (not as good as yours) and I see no differences worth noting.

I always thought the issues with Sony compressed Raw was outliers, pixels a long way away from the average in a block. I hadn't heard of washed-out Raws due to compression (rather than up or down-stream) before. The compression method means you are screwed with certain data types, although most people won't notice. (See my link above for examples of posterisation.)

Eric Hensel:

And I can see differences, on three separate computers, two of which don't have especially good monitors.

mgrum:

I think that counts as differences, and there's the standard compression look, albeit slight, of skipping.

I wish you well, mgrum :)
You'd have to set him (us) up with blind testing.
You will get nowhere with Mr. Raw.

Eric,

Perhaps my colour eyesight is better than yours.

mgrum,

I'll look at the tiffs, but remember I'm not saying I see some difference in the dark areas at all.

And the difference I see in the jpegs wasn't hard to find.

So I looked at the tiffs on not great monitor, not a bad one though, and I'm seeing a bit of difference in the lightest areas.

I'll look in greater detail on my 10bit monitor.

No not one has the washed out Sony look, but they're not Sonys.

"Perhaps my colour eyesight is better than yours"
No, I don't believe that, HaW.

Eric,

I'm not really basing this on belief.

m:

To my eyes, on a 13" 8bit MacBook Air, tiff A looks different than tiff D.

Another 8bit screen showed the same difference.

I've not brought the files to my 10bit laptop yet.

The difference between B and C and the others isn't as clear to me.

i dont think anythings really that clear to you,

in fact maybe you should get some help,

eyesight isnt your only problem,

"better colour" is subjective,
every single person on the face of this earth sees a diff colour/
and frankly, the way you obsessively mention it about sony on topics and posts not even remotely connected to sony tells us you have some serious mental issues or theres something very wrong with your eyes, or you are determined to bad mouth sony
hmmmm???why???

no your not basing it on belief are you,
thats painfully obvious,
your basing it on some weird obsessive mentality that no1 here understands, and you just never stop mentioning it,
then when someone shows you PROOF, you claim its there eyesight, when in reality, its all you/

all you have to do is sell your samsung and buy a sony, and everything would change, you would be a new photographer, much more contented, happier, take btter pics, with b8ful colours/ther is your cure:-] lol

mediasorcerer:

No, better colour is not subjective.

People who don't care, or know about, color say things like that.

Sony cameras have color trouble. Didn't used to.

I said perhaps it is Eric's colour eyesight, I didn't claim that's the only answer.

mgrum:

Between A and D, A has more compression to my eyes.

Tried 3 computers, including a 10bit monitor.

The others images are a bit more of a mystery for compression.

The Vortex...

HowaboutRAW:

Interestingly A is the version that was converted to 11-bit and D was the original lossless version. However in B was produced by taking the difference between A and D and exaggerating it to make it 4 times larger. If you can see the difference between A and D, the difference between B and D should have been glaring, so I'd say the results are pretty inconclusive.

My opinion is still that the differences are far too small (we're talking between 0 and 2 grey levels here for the most part) to produce any colour saturation effects, certainly if you examine the Hue Saturation Lightness values in photoshop they are identical between the lossy and lossless versions, hence I can't see how one could have "washed out colours" when the saturation is the same.

C was just D converted to JPEG, so if there was any difference there it would be JPEG artifacts.

mgrum,

I didn't look at every combination.

I thought C a bit less compressed than A, and then also C bit less compressed than B. But I didn't put D into my testing of C and B. But C was a bit of mystery, which you've cleared up-with the jpegging explanation.

The term "washed out" is my phrase, and as I've made clear there could be something else going on. But Sony should start by offering the option of full 14 bit raws, from say the A7SII.

This example of the four images wasn't likely helped by the fact that it's out of focus, and I'd guess not shot with the optically greatest Canon lens.

I didn't do any colour picking in Photoshop to test values, just trusted my eyes at the same magnification with the images next to each other. Then switched them to opposite sides of the screen. Of course I totally ignored the dark areas in the images.

" But Sony should start by offering the option of full 14 bit raws, from say the A7SII."
Most would agree with this, and I would be surprised if they didn't, given that it's a flagged issue on all the review sites. Possibly not something they could include in a firmware revision...but we shall see.

Even I hardly use continuous shot so that frame rate to me is pointless really. This A7 autofocus is pretty quick enough for a single shot of children seriously even combined with both Contrast and Phase detection. I rather see that full 14 bit raws enabled!