better to be fast and innovative than slow as sloth like using a jurassic old sensor in their latest camera bodies.

Listening to your customers is a bad idea when the customers are saying the wrong thing. In this case, too many people were demanding "uncompressed RAW", so that's all we get.

Oversimplified statement. It's possible to compress without loss of data. And it's always important to consider file size and the effects that come with it.

You are not a newbie here on DPR, you should know better than to make such a statement.

THis statement is kind of like saying its not the raw because its not the original electrons that were captured on the sensor. All electronic data goes through many transformations and the way its stored and represented in binary data is immaterial compared to what information it is representing.

No, its really not. I didn't mention any type of physical matter, camera parts or the way data is represented by the camera. I said if you change the RAW file, its no longer a RAW file.

Let me dumb it down for you. You take an apple and make it into apple juice ...the apple juice is no longer an apple.

Likewise, a compressed spring is no longer a spring?

The weirdest part of this whole sorry episode have been the Sony fanboys still denying that there's ever been a problem and being all butthurt that there's going to be an optional fix for some models.

Yeah, likely will not affect 99% of what I shoot, but at least I have a choice if I feel I need the uncompressed file.
So far the biggest issue with my A7RII is getting the colors the way I can with my D800, but it's likely an ACR thing . . .

@exapixel - If you can go on flickr and any other website which showcases Sony photos see if you can find ANY photo ruined by these compression artifacts.

To people who actually shoot this is a complete non issue. To people who shoot a lot of test charts and brick walls or use other systems have an issue though.

Your fanboy logic is amusing. Why would a "ruined" photo be published?

So stop with the whiny butthurt already. Sony had a problem. I'm sorry that their correction to the problem forces you to acknowledge that. What would make you happy now, anyway -- a cancellation of the firmware fix?

It's uncompressed but difference between file size is minor and manageable. Still lossless compression comes at no disadvantage so is indeed prefereable

FFS you people are never satisfied.

imsabbel - i don't know if you shoot high iso all the time (i don't), but it's actually 40-50% on average for me with DNG lossless compressed.

From Fuji RAF files that are uncompressed by default. Not x-trans, but the good old bayer X100 that uses a Sony sensor.

First off, define 'cheap nifty fifty'. Secondly, define 'still better' focusing. These are so arbitrary, and of course you won't be able to define these criteria, thus, Sony will NEVER fulfil your criteria, and even if it did, you will only 'consider' it. What, why and how should Sony bother just so you will 'consider' it?

The A7rII in good light exceeds Dslr's in terms of autofocus accuracy. It's also able to reliably track someone's eyes. While most Dslr's don't even know what an eye is.

No ofcourse the much smaller phase detect points in the A7rII won;t do as well in low-light. But then most Dslr's are getting more limited as well. Only getting that performance with the points in or close to the centre.

About that Canon nifty fifty it won't suffice on a 42mp fullframe Dslr. You will severely limit your resolution even stopped down. The Sony 55mm is sharper then any L-prime currently availeable. The 35mm F1.4 is looking promising but that will cost both arms and legs.

Why do you and other users keep downplaying this?

An A7RII, at it's price point, is targeted at professionals and advanced amateurs.

Sony approach (so brilliantly dissected in the DPR article) means that those type of users will have to inspect every single high-contrast image at 100%, if they need the guarantee the image will be OK.

It is not the number of photos they to throw out, it's the number of photos they have to inspect.

...Is it that so hard to understand?

Because it's almost never people complaining about unusable shots or damaged shots because of RAW compression we see complaining. And we never have this issue neither.

Bad focus by AF loses thousands of times more pictures on any camera.

We mostly see people who don't have s Sony camera complaining because they think it's a terrible issue hence they can't buy a Sony camera.

This was written by Jason Lanier, an Sony Artisan back in 2013, regarding shooting Raw:

"if you are not shooting for money, feel free to shoot in whatever mode you’d like, Raw or jpeg. If you are accepting money to shoot for a client, you have a responsibility to provide them with the best product possible."

Are you telling us that, now, he should forsake his responsibility to provide clients with the best product possible by not inspecting all his commercial files, searching for the kind of problems shown in that moon, on that late afternoon Space Needle shot, as shown in the DPR article?

Are you saying your requirements are the same as a paid professional?

Are you suggesting they should just let go and NOT inspect the files for artifacts?

Stop doing this.

The new Sony A7 cameras are excellent products that will now become even better with the firmware update and can stand on their own without the need to fan-burying of the few limitations they might have.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

The limitations of the AF on any camera, or the quality of the lenses, or the lack of dynamic range are far greater problems for 99% of people in 99% of occasions.

But go on and scan all you can on Google image to find these artifacts and make a better world by healing them with Karwy
http://aggregate.org/DIT/KARWY/
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3906166
It will be such a huge step for Photography.

@PhotoKhan - The limited DR of Canon files is a far greater issue than this RAW compression.

Does that mean pros should sell of their gear and move to Nikon ?

This is a non issue blown up by people using other systems. Even Sony users who I have asked to show destroyed files due to compression have been unable to show anything to me.

There are plenty of shots I have lost as the camera was too slow to respond, I used the wrong setting, the focus was off, there was too much DR, there was camera shake etc etc. But I haven't thrown out even one shot because at 200% I may see a few artifacts.

My point is simple. You don't use Sony so you are referring to 3rd party info which is a poor substitute to actual usage.

I personally use Sony for professional use and this compression hasn't bothered me. I have used Canon and its limited DR has made me throw off shots that I have taken in the same setting as the Sony.

That is far more bothersome to me.

If you don't have any substantial first hand info then basically you are blindly following examples that others have stated and your knowledge on the subject is immensely flawed and suspect

If I hadn't used Canon's files and found the limitation in the DR for certain shots I could have assumed a lot of stuff which may not be completely true at all.

I use whatever system suits me. Tomorrow if Canon comes out with a camera that is far better than my Sony I will ditch Sony and shift to Canon.

Call me a fanboi if that makes you feel good inside. I call myself a Sony user even though I also use Canon on occasion.

So in order words you ignore all my actual experience on the subject but choose instead to stick to your rehtoric based on information from 3rd party and not your own.

Fair enough but please don't call it free-thinking intelligent reasoning when all you are doing is parroting what others have said rather than anything you have actually experienced.

Thats fine. I never expected you to change your mind and I expected some more fancy words from you like free thinking and intelligent reasoning after fanboi cause people who have no substance in their arguments always fall back on such drivel to try and make their arguments look more solid. :)

Alright we can agree to disagree though I don't see how any artifact that you have to zoom into 100% to see is considered significant.

I would be far more worried about DR as blown highlights are much more visible than these compression artifacts and Canon sensors I have found pretty poor in recovering highlights compared to Nikon or Sony.

Maybe you should hit the Canon forums next to force Canon to address this far graver issue ! :)

DPR could have taken the same picture with a Canon sensor, and the whole moon would be an overexposed artifact !

@RichyjV,

Let me get this straight. When the camera launched, in never had a lossless RAW option, so now that they have given everyone a lossless RAW option but it is not compressed, you see fit to whine about the lack of compression...

So, given the fact that this is a $3,300 body, perhaps you can afford to buy a few more large capacity SD cards if you're really that worried about the lack of compression.

Don't think anyone who owns an A7RII really cares that the lossless RAWs are not compressed, the fact that we get a lossless RAW at all is a great bonus.

I'm sure that the A7R3 will have lossless compressed RAW but until then sit on the sidelines if you want.

dcolak: You slackerd. You forgot about battery life.

I have no problem with battery life. I can shoot 400+ photos with a single battery.

I turn on camera when I want to shoot a photo and then I turn it off. WiFi is off too. That's all.

No problem with 5x magnification with me.
Tested it thoroughly with Zeiss Loxia 50 last night and it is crisp sharp throughout the image in the EVF.

I do shoot RAW+JPG and use B+W profile with red peaking on medium.
Maybe it's the color display that screws it up?

Well, I'll still be happy to have the option...

"obviously, users (sony or non-sony) who don't shoot at the limits would never need worry, as lossy compression will never show up in far from limit shooting (just logical)"...!?

What...!?...DPR, themselves, showed a very day-to-day example (the moon in that scene with the Space Needle), in their most excellent article about this, that would have me running to the shop to get the my money back if I got it in a photo of mine.

Why the downplay?

Probably because of one or all of the following:
a) lossy RAW only affects a small amount of images in a visible fashion
b) users who are aware of the lossy compression have stayed away from Sony bodies or have sold/returned them
c) Sony announced that they would address this (on some models) so owners have been patiently waiting
d) owners are not aware of the lossy compression taking place and aren't aware of the effect on image quality