A7(r) jpg why?

Not trolling - I'm trying to understand why there is so much discussion about the jpg engine/quality on the A7(r). What are the conditions that would lead someone to shoot jpg with these cameras? To me one of the main points of going FF (and I have A7r and RX1r, along with 6D as well as GH3) is to have files that you can work with to get usable final images, often under bad conditions. I'm assuming that someone who invests into these systems would also have software for cataloging and conversation (LR, Aperture, C1, etc), and large SD cards are relatively cheap now. The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

So why even shoot jpg? I get it with Fujis due to some of the issues with raw conversion and their film modes. But I don't get it with these Sonys or for that matter 6D/5D3/800/etc, but maybe I'm missing something.

Not everyone has the time or desire to PP all their images so provided the JPEG output is very good and gives the results one would crave from their RAW workflow it makes sense. That and the files are smaller and more manageable.

npires said:

Not everyone has the time or desire to PP all their images so provided the JPEG output is very good and gives the results one would crave from their RAW workflow it makes sense. That and the files are smaller and more manageable.

Click to expand...

But there really is no "raw workflow" unless you want there to be one. LR/etc does it automatically to a default profile. No extra clicks. So there isn't any more work unless you want there to be. There was a time in the past where it was more work - but not any more.

Maybe I'm trying to understand how others work to make sense out of this. I sense that some are working under old notions about workflows. For me:

1. shoot raw

2. put sd card in laptop

3. import into LR (or Aperture)

4. pick photo I like

5. resize (often to 800px for web) and output jpg for final use

I can add a step 4.5 to tweak the file but I don't have to. However shooting raw gives me the option to fix things or change them later on if I have a different use for the file.

I understand file size difference, but given the cheap price of SD and HD space, that seems like less of an issue for the ability to have options later.

nostatic said:

Not trolling - I'm trying to understand why there is so much discussion about the jpg engine/quality on the A7(r). What are the conditions that would lead someone to shoot jpg with these cameras? To me one of the main points of going FF (and I have A7r and RX1r, along with 6D as well as GH3) is to have files that you can work with to get usable final images, often under bad conditions.

Click to expand...

Maybe the times have changed, and the ooc jpegs are better than in the past ?

nostatic said:

I'm assuming that someone who invests into these systems would also have software for cataloging and conversation (LR, Aperture, C1, etc), and large SD cards are relatively cheap now.

Click to expand...

Somebody can spend his money in a way you don't understand nor approve...
You are right, who bought A3000 can buy a PP software.. so the answer is elsewhere..

nostatic said:

The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

Click to expand...

If you let Lightroom, or another PP software to apply a preset to all your photos... I don't know why you consider that it would be a crime to let your camera to decide about each of your shots ? I am talking about a tweaked and variable setting that you are able to adjust ?

nostatic said:

So why even shoot jpg?

Click to expand...

Because it is faster, because you can trim in the camera what you can trim in your PP software, because nowadays jpegs are not like yesteryears's jpegs, and allow a lot of PP, because your final product is jpeg anyway, because either you don't have the time for PP, or decide to spend it shooting, because your photos are not so critical, you are not loosing anything if one shot is not perfect, because you choose to do so.

nostatic said:

I get it with Fujis due to some of the issues with raw conversion and their film modes. But I don't get it with these Sonys or for that matter 6D/5D3/800/etc, but maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

You are missing that most PP software has some trouble in pixel level quality with Sony ARW files... it is not the case with Canon, or Nikon files.

I have NEX-5N, NEX-6, NEX-7, I will buy A6000, and 7000.

I don't have A7/7r, and I will not buy them, because I like the APS-C advantages more than the full frame advantage.

5nex7 said:

Member said:

The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

Click to expand...

If you let Lightroom, or another PP software to apply a preset to all your photos... I don't know why you consider that it would be a crime to let your camera to decide about each of your shots ? I am talking about a tweaked and variable setting that you are able to adjust ?

Click to expand...

Because you're throwing away data that you might want later on.

Member said:

Member said:

So why even shoot jpg?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Because it is faster, because you can trim in the camera what you can trim in your PP software, because nowadays jpegs are not like yesteryears's jpegs, and allow a lot of PP, because your final product is jpeg anyway, because either you don't have the time for PP, or decide to spend it shooting, because your photos are not so critical, you are not loosing anything if one shot is not perfect, because you choose to do so.

Click to expand...

You cannot push a jpg file around as easily as a raw file. They are not at all equivalent.

And again, there is no time difference unless you want there to be one. So I don't understand how jpg is "faster" unless you're talking about buffer speeds for shooting bursts.

People indeed can buy whatever they want and use it however they want. I'm just trying to understand *why* they would do things a certain way. They may be doing it based on incorrect assumptions or preconceived notions. And that's...OK I'm just curious. No judgement intended - shoot what you like. I do.

there was an other thread quite a considerable time ago already regarding this question where my most favoured posting was this

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41823700

(saying "...I only shoot in JPEG. I do minimal post processing and don't try to "rescue" every shot and it works for me...")

There was also this statement

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41804988

(saying "...I could not replicate the OOC JPG quality, which was improved even more after a bit of adjustment in LR

I discovered the same thing with the 5N (purchased after the A65). The advantages of shooting JPG, for me, now outweigh RAW. ...")

As far as I'm concerned, my opinion on that didn't change since then. I think, we should see this question as a "question of faith", we should tolerate each others conviction and we should not try to converse the other half of manhood...

nostatic said:

5nex7 said:

nostatic said:

The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

Click to expand...

If you let Lightroom, or another PP software to apply a preset to all your photos... I don't know why you consider that it would be a crime to let your camera to decide about each of your shots ? I am talking about a tweaked and variable setting that you are able to adjust ?

Click to expand...

Because you're throwing away data that you might want later on.

nostatic said:

nostatic said:

So why even shoot jpg?

Click to expand...

Because it is faster, because you can trim in the camera what you can trim in your PP software, because nowadays jpegs are not like yesteryears's jpegs, and allow a lot of PP, because your final product is jpeg anyway, because either you don't have the time for PP, or decide to spend it shooting, because your photos are not so critical, you are not loosing anything if one shot is not perfect, because you choose to do so.

Click to expand...

You cannot push a jpg file around as easily as a raw file. They are not at all equivalent.

And again, there is no time difference unless you want there to be one. So I don't understand how jpg is "faster" unless you're talking about buffer speeds for shooting bursts.

People indeed can buy whatever they want and use it however they want. I'm just trying to understand *why* they would do things a certain way. They may be doing it based on incorrect assumptions or preconceived notions. And that's...OK I'm just curious. No judgement intended - shoot what you like. I do.

Click to expand...

In another post you say:
"resize (often to 800px for web) and output jpg for final use"

I don't understand why do you need a RAW capable camera ? and more than 1Mpx ? WHY ?!?
It was just my opinion, I stop here.

fip said:

there was an other thread quite a considerable time ago already regarding this question where my most favoured posting was this

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41823700

(saying "...I only shoot in JPEG. I do minimal post processing and don't try to "rescue" every shot and it works for me...")

There was also this statement

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41804988

(saying "...I could not replicate the OOC JPG quality, which was improved even more after a bit of adjustment in LR

I discovered the same thing with the 5N (purchased after the A65). The advantages of shooting JPG, for me, now outweigh RAW. ...")

As far as I'm concerned, my opinion on that didn't change since then. I think, we should see this question as a "question of faith", we should tolerate each others conviction and we should not try to converse the other half of manhood...

Click to expand...

Not trying to "convert" anyone - just understand the "faith" of others

If someone likes the OOC jpg files and has to take time to get that from raw in PP - that I *totally* understand. Thanks for the perspective. And I've seen plenty of Fuji OOC jpgs that have been spectacular. But when people are complaining about jpg files, especially from a FF camera, well that's when I scratch my head.

nostatic said:

Not trolling - I'm trying to understand why there is so much discussion about the jpg engine/quality on the A7(r). What are the conditions that would lead someone to shoot jpg with these cameras? To me one of the main points of going FF (and I have A7r and RX1r, along with 6D as well as GH3) is to have files that you can work with to get usable final images, often under bad conditions. I'm assuming that someone who invests into these systems would also have software for cataloging and conversation (LR, Aperture, C1, etc), and large SD cards are relatively cheap now. The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

So why even shoot jpg? I get it with Fujis due to some of the issues with raw conversion and their film modes. But I don't get it with these Sonys or for that matter 6D/5D3/800/etc, but maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. BUT, there are a lot of times when it's preferred to shoot raw+jpg and drop the jpgs off with a service bureau or friends or family members.

That being said, I've not processed any jpg out of my A7 yet. But I think one can easily set things up to produce nice jpgs. You just have to override the default image settings with your own tweaks. IE - decrease the contrast, sharpening and noise reduction being applied.

5nex7 said:

Member said:

In another post you say:

Click to expand...

"resize (often to 800px for web) and output jpg for final use"

I don't understand why do you need a RAW capable camera ? and more than 1Mpx ? WHY ?!?
It was just my opinion, I stop here.

Click to expand...

Because for some uses I need to heavily crop, often I'm shooting in low available light, and I also sometimes need much larger/higher rez output (print posters, etc).

"Often" and "always" are two different things Part of the problem is that I don't necessarily know what my final use will be. Shooting raw gives me the most options but ymmv.

I also own the FF camera and I must not complain about JPEG

For. This. Camera.

For other cameras, including professional level rigs, jpg may be a perfectly legitimate file type. An argument could be made that a real pro of a certain type is best served by dialing in her/his camera to produce files that require zero post. Journalists, sports photogs, event photogs---anyone on a tight deadline would fall into this category, plus the files are smaller and send easier. Lots of other pro shooters could also benefit from this type of workflow.

But the A7r is really not that type of camera at all. It is a slow, contemplative shooter, the closest thing to a digital medium format experience most of us will ever have. See many medium format cameras on the sidelines these days, or at news events? They used to be there, along with large format Speed Graphics. Not anymore. Because their "files" are bad? Far from it---they had the best IQ. But they were slow. The newer 35mm gear worked better and the "files" were good enough. And that is a lot of what jpg is all about: good enough, small, and because of that speedy. So, MF and LF moved into niches----weddings, fashion, landscape, fine arts. Weddings are gone from that list now, and fashion soon will be.

The question must be asked: what is this camera for? For Sony, it's a demonstration unit, the first of what we hope will be a string of new, interesting bodies that are compact yet powerful. This first iteration gives the IQ power, and I would bet later versions will add speed specs to make a far more well-rounded camera.

For those of us who have bought it, as I have, or will buy it, it should be your "thinking camera", the one you use when you seek the very best IQ you can achieve, and have the time to do that, working around the camera's innate slowness and several current (and I certainly hope we get some firmware help on this...) quirks/problems. The smallness of it is a boon, and allows for carrying it places that carrying a bigger rig would be awkward or arduous. And clearly that is part, a big part, of its technical innovation. But that wouldn't be a big deal were it not for the size and IQ of this sensor.

So, I have to agree with the OP's question and implied suggestion: why use this camera to shoot jpg's?

nostatic said:

So why even shoot jpg? ... maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

IMO one thing being missed is that several shooting modes, panorama for example, are jpeg only, so with those modes the in-camera jpeg settings may need to be adjusted to shooting conditions for best results.

I rented an A7r for a week just to see if it was all that and was quite happy with the jpegs. I did note some infinitesimal posterization in a couple of sky shots, but turning DRO off solved that.

--

JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.

JohnK said:

nostatic said:

So why even shoot jpg? ... maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

IMO one thing being missed is that several shooting modes, panorama for example, are jpeg only, so with those modes the in-camera jpeg settings may need to be adjusted to shooting conditions for best results.

I rented an A7r for a week just to see if it was all that and was quite happy with the jpegs. I did note some infinitesimal posterization in a couple of sky shots, but turning DRO off solved that.

--

JohnK
Take a picture, it'll last longer.

Click to expand...

All the "smart jpeg modes" ... or almost all will not let you choose anything. Panorama, AMB, Twilight... etc.

tex said:

For. This. Camera.

For other cameras, including professional level rigs, jpg may be a perfectly legitimate file type. An argument could be made that a real pro of a certain type is best served by dialing in her/his camera to produce files that require zero post. Journalists, sports photogs, event photogs---anyone on a tight deadline would fall into this category, plus the files are smaller and send easier. Lots of other pro shooters could also benefit from this type of workflow.

But the A7r is really not that type of camera at all. It is a slow, contemplative shooter, the closest

Click to expand...

Slow? Have you done any work with it? It's not slow - autofocus is very fast, frames per second aren't slow (albeit, not as fast as some). The features that it contains actually speed up your shooting considerably.

And what is a contemplative shooter?

I shoot raw and jpeg, and do LR5 on a mac.

I copy every SD card into a dated/named directory on a 3TB drive. I then scan the images in the folder, and I can click on the jpeg, see it full screen almost instantly.

And if I like it. import the ARW into LR5.

For me, it's faster than using LR to import everything into its backup structure.

I rarely use them otherwise.

I love my A7

Mel Snyder said:

I shoot raw and jpeg, and do LR5 on a mac.

I copy every SD card into a dated/named directory on a 3TB drive. I then scan the images in the folder, and I can click on the jpeg, see it full screen almost instantly.

And if I like it. import the ARW into LR5.

For me, it's faster than using LR to import everything into its backup structure.

I rarely use them otherwise.

I love my A7

Click to expand...

I shoot mostly jpeg, usually A mode, and all possible settings tweaked ...

I use Digital Photo Professional - Canon's software for DSLR

IT IS FAST,

with hundreds of photos at a time, whatever you do to them... I recommend everybody to try it,

you don't need to choose where and what you load, like with Lightroom or DXO.

I have licensed Lightroom 4, 5 , Adobe Cloud.. all stars, and DXO9.. but I use them rarely..

nostatic said:

Not trolling - I'm trying to understand why there is so much discussion about the jpg engine/quality on the A7(r). What are the conditions that would lead someone to shoot jpg with these cameras?

Click to expand...

With Nex-5 for example I may shoot RAW+JPEG because in some cases I might need RAW to get most of it, like raise shadows or else. With A7/R I will mostly shoot JPEG since camera capabilities are much greater (e.g. better DR, better detail and so on). Basically I don't even need to touch RAW, since shadows are already much better. So my logic is opposite of yours. It's P&S cameras when one needs most use of RAW's (of course if it is supported). Higher capabilities = higher IQ = better overall image = less need to tweak anything.

nostatic said:

To me one of the main points of going FF (and I have A7r and RX1r, along with 6D as well as GH3) is to have files that you can work with to get usable final images, often under bad conditions.

Click to expand...

It's even more so with any other cameras, like APS-C or m43. Do you think people buy them because they don't want to get usable final images? They do. I do. Conditions are never perfect. 99% of time something is not ideal. So your statement is equally true for all formats, not only for FF.

nostatic said:

I'm assuming that someone who invests into these systems would also have software for cataloging and conversation (LR, Aperture, C1, etc), and large SD cards are relatively cheap now. The workflow shooting raw is essentially no different for me than shooting jpg.

Click to expand...

So what? What does it prove? Absolutely nothing. Workflow may be very different for someone else. Without even going deep into details let's take simple situation: my wife is shooting camera and she wants to share photos instantly from her camera (Wi-Fi) or just put SD card to her friends Tablet or laptop. Do you think every single person in the world uses LR or Sony ARW software? That's just 1 out of 1000 other possibilities.

nostatic said:

So why even shoot jpg? I get it with Fujis due to some of the issues with raw conversion and their film modes. But I don't get it with these Sonys or for that matter 6D/5D3/800/etc, but maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

Because it's easier to just copy jpegs from SD card and be done, rather than go through LR and then convert it to jpegs. I have quite powerful PC (let's say only SSD array is worth more than A7/R). However, I find it too slow to work via LR. I can copy jpegs much faster. Most of them are of IQ that I need. I don't need more - it's enough for me. I'm not a professional, I'm enthusiast. That's why. i have a privilege to work as I chose and I don't have to process my photos from RAW only. I use RAW when I need it, but no more than that.

Donny out of Element here said:

Donny out of Element here said:

To me one of the main points of going FF (and I have A7r and RX1r, along with 6D as well as GH3) is to have files that you can work with to get usable final images, often under bad conditions.

Click to expand...

It's even more so with any other cameras, like APS-C or m43. Do you think people buy them because they don't want to get usable final images? They do. I do. Conditions are never perfect. 99% of time something is not ideal. So your statement is equally true for all formats, not only for FF.

Click to expand...

I assume in general people buy cameras because they want to get good images. However, once you get above a certain price point, there often is more to it. While some want the newest and coolest (and that is fine - I've certainly been guilty of that), others are trying to solve a particular problem or get a tool for some situation. In my case, I shoot a lot of low light, need to grab video as well, and want reasonable portability. I still have a GH3 which does all of those fairly well. However I got the A7r to do low light better, and to give me the ability to crop more aggressively and still get a high rez image.

But part of shooting *is* post processing. Just like with film - you could drop it off at the local drug store to get developed, or take it to a good lab. I tend to be a pretty lazy shooter, and in fact the Oly EM5 spoiled me with good IBIS and good OOC jpgs. I could just put it on P and snap away without really worrying or thinking about much. And often I would get what I was after. But sometimes you want that extra 5%. And like any sort of level of performance, you pay more for the last 5-10% than you did for the 85-90% solution. And that payment is in more than just $, but also time and effort.

Moving to the A7r actually has made me rethink my shooting, and as tex indicated, I'm working more deliberately, often shooting manual and paying closer attention to the whole process. That extended to my PP, which I used to rely on Aperture for, but switched to LR for better (to my eye) raw processing and tools. Either way I certainly want to use a DAM solution but I get that not everyone wants to work that way. It is interesting to hear how others deal with their images and workflow.

None of these are necessarily right or wrong. But there are better and worse solutions for certain people. It just seems to me that in general the A7r wouldn't be the ideal choice for someone who intends to shot jpgs. If you're willing to pay the extra money and deal with the quirks, presumably it is to try and extract every bit of IQ you can - which means raw. If it is just the convenience and portability that is attractive, then APS or u43 is frankly probably a better choice imho. I know - I've shot (and still shoot) both.

And again, if you like the OOC jpgs, then it is a total non-issue. But most of the discussion seems to be around people not liking the jpgs, hence my question. Not trying to convert anyone to my "religion" - I'm just getting a better understanding of other people's worship practices. Amen.

I can boost the dynamic range up in Jpegs. Like an in camera HDR. Sometimes it's easier than post processing a RAW file. Not always but sometimes the camera nails it better than I can process it.