Something you don't understand about Nikon JPEGs default settings is that they are set to soft and contrast is low while Sony and Canon default settings add more contrast and sharpening by default settings. It makes a big difference in the apparent image quality. When sharpness and contrast is added to the D7000 JPEGs they will look much better and similar to the RAW files. For JPEG shooting Nikon D7000 owners typically set the in camera sharpness to 6 and up contrast as well.
Maybe you should ask them to appologize to the A77...!
Based on the bad halos around the reds it seems Sony has tweaked the sharpening quite high. 7D seem to have somewhat high sharpening as well while Nikon and 60D use softer settings.All jpegs at iso3200. Here the A77 looks the best, D7000 sucks, 7D is not as good as A77. 60D looks OK but small. Perhaps I'm wrong but any unbiased observer would conclude that the A77 was performing very well based on this comparison, but look at the raws and the story is reversed.
Take home message though that in camera jpegs at iso3200 are better from the A77 than the 7D and D7000, its closest rivals.
While I agree with blaming Sony for releasing a camera with grossly-inadequate RAW software, my complaint with DPReview is that they have succumbed to the pressure to get the "samples" online ASAP... just so they can "stay competitive" with other photo-review sites.
Can't blame Sony for DPR using pre-alpha version of Lightroom, it's not Sony's product.
Really ?
Maybe so, but IMO, DPReview should have left out the RAW comparisons at this point. The JPEGs look good, so why bother with the crummy RAW images? Imaging Resource never did update their a700 JPEG images beyond version 2 firmware, but people are still using them for comparison. Once the bad stuff gets out there it seems to linger far too long.
--
How you know they didnt ?
"It doesn't apply to the rest of the cameras because they are not having raw conversions done with an alpha or beta version of ACR by DPR.
Sony released IDC with the A100 in 2006. I think it is version 4 now. People for all that time have said it is no good. If dpreview waits until "Sony gets off their lazy butts and produces a decent RAW converter" then they may never publish any raw results.
Exactly. This is a Sony failure. They are a big company and just like Canon and Nikon they could work with Adobe and others to get early raw support. Time after time they don't though.
+1
+1
How is DPR showing what we should see using a RAW converter no one else can use and is a beta version of the program?
In the real world Sony, Nikon, Canon, Oly, Pansonic and others all have propriety RAW formats so they do not think DNG is a better choice.
I just look at the evidence but, of course, there is no way for me to know for sure. I get your point though. Sony may in fact work closely with Adobe way out front of a camera's release but over and over Adobe decides to screw Sony by taking a very long time to provide good quality support. How long did it take for the A700? 2-3 years? I am trying to imagine the motivation for screwing Sony when Sony works so hard to help them?
Why not? It is just software that processes data stored in a format they know about to produce files in another format which is a well understood standard i.e. normally JPEG.
