A7's JPEGs

I'm pretty much decided on getting the A7. I shoot m43s now and the Olympus PM2 does a beautiful job even with the highest compression 'Normal' JPEGs. I very, very rarely post-process because I can turn up saturation or sharpness in camera if I ever need to (I only do saturation on cloudy days and rarely adjust anything because it doesn't need it--except exposure, of course, because no camera can guess what I intend to be the subject). I manually focus all my shots (I can afford new AF lenses) and shoot aperture priority. I have good lenses too: Vivitar 28, Hexanon 40 and 50, Rokinon 85, etc. The lenses are great on m43s (higher ppi), so I'm assuming they'll be even better on FF (except corners).

So, my question is, am I going to be disappointed with the A7s jpegs? I simply won't shoot RAW.

If any of those lenses were made specifically for cropped sensor cameras, then you will have a lot of vignetting. But that can be controlled by setting the camera into APS-C Crop mode. lenses that are FF will be fine.

I personally always shoot in RAW or RAW + JPEG. Why buy an expensive FF camera and the shoot exclusively in a highly compressed JPEG? I don't trust any camera to turn out a JPEG the way I would PP a RAW. Yes, the a7 has nice JPEG rendering, but it cannot compare to a good RAW when PP. A FF camera is not going to be the same as those APS-C and M4/3 cameras which are designed for consumers and pretty much hold your hand throughout the photo process. A FF camera will show you your mistakes and amplify them!

--
An astrophotography hobbyist and amateur radio instructor and examiner. Sony a7, Canon EOS 60D, and Canon Powershot G1 X. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackswinden/

I think you will be fine with the A7 jpegs. At least I was, coming from the APS-C A57. You can change the white balance in great detail including picture effects. Also NR level can be set.

tjdean01 said:

I'm pretty much decided on getting the A7. I shoot m43s now and the Olympus PM2 does a beautiful job even with the highest compression 'Normal' JPEGs. I very, very rarely post-process because I can turn up saturation or sharpness in camera if I ever need to (I only do saturation on cloudy days and rarely adjust anything because it doesn't need it--except exposure, of course, because no camera can guess what I intend to be the subject). I manually focus all my shots (I can afford new AF lenses) and shoot aperture priority. I have good lenses too: Vivitar 28, Hexanon 40 and 50, Rokinon 85, etc. The lenses are great on m43s (higher ppi), so I'm assuming they'll be even better on FF (except corners).

So, my question is, am I going to be disappointed with the A7s jpegs? I simply won't shoot RAW.

Click to expand...

I see you started three threads about this choice already, so I think that you have already convinced yourself about your decision

As to the A7 OOC JPEG, I think that you will be more than pleased. Conversations about 'poor JPG' were specifically about handling noise versus NR at basically low-light/high-ISO conditions. Sony has gone the way of allowing image noise with more detail versus the (over-aggressive) noise reduction which removes details. The original A7 (see DPR's review) used an area-aware NR algorithm (which came from the A99) but which blotched out some details (at 'normal' NR level). This has since been corrected with a SW update.

A 24Mp JPEG will impress you, consider these shots:

• http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3613748

As to manual lenses with MF - you will be very impressed with the A7. The A7 puts less demands on the lenses due to the wider pixel pitch and produces more sharpness with each lens than a crop camera does. Just remember that 100% in 24Mp is more zoomed in than 100% in lower resolution images.

As to your lenses versus m43, especially when using stopped down, you are effectively using 56-170mm FF equiv at f/4 or higher on the m43. This is perhaps nice on the m43, but you are mostly doing 'medium telephoto' shots.

On the A7, the FOV becomes the actual FL - so your range goes to 28-86, and you will start seeing things a lot 'wider'. Remember to get closer to your subjects with the A7, both for detail and more interesting compositions, and to stop down, a lot. Apertures f/4-f/8 on the m43 correspond to f/8-f/16 on the A7, in terms of DOF.

I don't think it will take you very long to realize that the A7 gives you a much wider range of options than you are used to: in terms of focal range, ISO range, aperture range, image detail, and so on.

And like others have said, focusing will become very critical on an FF camera, at most apertures. Take time to get used to it -the results will be rewarding!

I'm a big fan of the new generation JPEG engine, having previously found the old one (used in NEXes) to be too strong with NR (even set to low) for my tastes. WB is also much better.

Here's an A7 SOOC JPEG (resized slightly because DPR hates 24 MP) at moderately high ISO. NR is set to low, this is a must for any Sony camera - in fact, turn it off if you prefer film grain-like quality.

tjdean01 said:

So, my question is, am I going to be disappointed with the A7s jpegs? I simply won't shoot RAW.

Click to expand...

which indicates that you aren't serious about picture quality... you'll never see what the camera is really capable of.

sony jpeg compression is some of the best there is, but it's very inefficient when it comes to compressing iso noise... you need raw for that.

quezra said:

NR is set to low, this is a must for any Sony camera - in fact, turn it off if you prefer film grain-like quality.

Click to expand...

Ditto. NR set to low is a must for me too. I really hated the OOC JPEG images of the A7 at first. NR to off allows to save some detail in post, but it looks much worse if you don't do any post at all/don't plan too.

tjdean01 said:

I'm pretty much decided on getting the A7. I shoot m43s now and the Olympus PM2 does a beautiful job even with the highest compression 'Normal' JPEGs. I very, very rarely post-process because I can turn up saturation or sharpness in camera if I ever need to (I only do saturation on cloudy days and rarely adjust anything because it doesn't need it--except exposure, of course, because no camera can guess what I intend to be the subject). I manually focus all my shots (I can afford new AF lenses) and shoot aperture priority. I have good lenses too: Vivitar 28, Hexanon 40 and 50, Rokinon 85, etc. The lenses are great on m43s (higher ppi), so I'm assuming they'll be even better on FF (except corners).

So, my question is, am I going to be disappointed with the A7s jpegs? I simply won't shoot RAW.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a tough call. The jpgs of the EPM2 are stellar. The jpgs of the A7 are ok for non critical applications, but the noise handling, detail, and color accuracy are simply much better on the RAWs from this camera.

If you absolutely will not shoot RAWs, then you really are limiting what you can get from this camera. Only you can decide, though, if the jpgs are good enough for your uses.

-J

Don't worry, all those lenses were originally designed and sold for full-frame 35mm format cameras.

24MP is going to show more imperfection at the pixel level than 16MP. Things like JPEG compression and noise will be more evident zoomed in to 100%. If you resample down to 16MP like your E-PM2, that'll resolve itself.

Also keep in mind, default settings differ from one camera to the next. If you want to replicate the look of the Olympus JPEGs, you may have to familiarize yourself with the relevant variables in camera. In the end, though, you should see an overall improvement if you learn how to get the most out of your A7.

When I want quick and dirty, I shoot Auto and keep the camera in RAW+JPEG mode. I don't get Extra Fine JPEG that way, but I can do better than that in Lightroom, anyway, if I get 'that shot' I really want to work on.

...and am currently losing. This isn't a huge deal for me, honestly, as I shoot RAW and process for everything I'm serious about. However, the difference between the OOC JPEGs and the RAW files is stark...worse noise handling, worse colour, bizarre contrast shifts, muddy fine detail, crunchy handling of subtle tone shifts especially in skin, etc. I've only been using my RX1 for about 8 months and my A7 for about 6 weeks so I'm not very familiar with any of the JPEG settings yet. I haven't bothered because the RAW files are so damn nice :-D Personally, I'd love it if someone could give some direction on how to manipulate JPEG settings to get a more faithful reproduction. The JPEG engine, at least from my initial impressions, is crude compared to Olympus' and Fuji's. Opening a RAW file and looking at it, even unprocessed, side-by-side with a JPEG is like someone removed a film. The 24mp Sony sensor is simply a thing of beauty and RAW sets it free.

If I have time, I will start another thread tonight showing 100% crops form OOC JPEGs and those created from RAW files as I'm hoping to get some real advice on JPEG settings. I'm quite sure that someone has done better than I'm doing as I'm a Sony JPEG neophyte.

norman koren from imatest compared jpeg images of reviewed cameras, as shot by imagingresource.com:


his verdict on the a7r jpeg: "No sharpening peak, as claimed. Outstanding MTF"

"Regarding Sony’s claim of an excellent sharpening algorithm with no (significant) halo, we know from slanted-edge analysis that MTF (spatial frequency response) peaks above 1 correspond to halos near edges, and that the strength of the halo is well correlated with the strength of the peak. Halos corresponding to MTF peaks under 1.1 (10% above the low frequency MTF) are generally too weak to be objectionable. So the verdict on the Sony A7R is yes, it lives up to its claims, but it’s hardly unique in that regard: the Pentax 645D, the Nikon D800 and some others (but notably not the Canon EOS-6D), also have excellent sharpening without a significant sharpening peak."

lower is better... i see no evidence that fuji has better jpeg compression:

Fuji X-E2 1.03

a7r: 1.05

EOS-6D: 1.68

osv said:

norman koren from imatest compared jpeg images of reviewed cameras, as shot by imagingresource.com:

http://www.imatest.com/2013/11/sharpness-texture-log-f-contrast-imaging-resource/

his verdict on the a7r jpeg: "No sharpening peak, as claimed. Outstanding MTF"

Click to expand...

osv said:

"Regarding Sony’s claim of an excellent sharpening algorithm with no (significant) halo, we know from slanted-edge analysis that MTF (spatial frequency response) peaks above 1 correspond to halos near edges, and that the strength of the halo is well correlated with the strength of the peak. Halos corresponding to MTF peaks under 1.1 (10% above the low frequency MTF) are generally too weak to be objectionable. So the verdict on the Sony A7R is yes, it lives up to its claims, but it’s hardly unique in that regard: the Pentax 645D, the Nikon D800 and some others (but notably not the Canon EOS-6D), also have excellent sharpening without a significant sharpening peak."

lower is better... i see no evidence that fuji has better jpeg compression:

Click to expand...

...is of minimal importance in JPEG rendering, IMO, as it can be easily controlled. All of my original criticisms stand. Open a JPEG and an unprocessed RAW from the A7 side-by-side and tell me that you can't see a very obvious difference. Do the same with your Fuji, Olympus and Nikon files. The difference is not as great. This could also be because the RAW files from the Sony are so good that the difference seems greater ;-)

And to nitpick, we're talking the A7, not A7r, though I have no idea if that makes a difference. I suspect it does as AA-less cameras tend to sharpen better as you are starting with stronger edge definition.

the d800 was 1.01, so the aa filter improved it very slightly, but at the expense of a 15% lower mtf score... i wonder if those 1.01/1.03/1.05 numbers are within the range of testing error.

those numbers are obtained under perfect lighting, which makes a huge difference... if you shoot jpeg with the iso turned up, it'll look bad no matter what the jpeg settings are.

jpeg vs. raw differences are very noticeable, and in your case it'll probably be worse, because you are shooting at the sony factory jpeg settings.

--
dan

osv said:

those numbers are obtained under perfect lighting, which makes a huge difference... if you shoot jpeg with the iso turned up, it'll look bad no matter what the jpeg settings are.

Click to expand...

Base ISO is where I'm really noticing a difference as I always use RAW for high ISO. My choices are better than the camera maker's...at least in my opinion haha.

osv said:

jpeg vs. raw differences are very noticeable, and in your case it'll probably be worse, because you are shooting at the sony factory jpeg settings.

Click to expand...

My tendency is usually to say 'user error'...years of experience of this user being the source of the error ;-)

I'd love to get some advice on proper JPEG settings. I like Olympus JPEGS because they are infinitely configurable, including the ability to make curves adjustments on the fly. Interestingly, I find that sharpness has to be turned down or they get quite 'crunchy' or 'gritty'. Perhaps the same holds for the Sony? Fuji's film simulations are actually quite nice and I've not seen much need to move away from those on the X100s. I know nothing about messing about with Sony's JPEGs. Haven't tried, actually...back to the RAW files being so damn good agian.

Here's a quick example of what I'm talking about. These are 100% crops and the JPEG is set at...whatever I had it set at...'Standard' perhaps? The RAW is straight up ACR default...no further adjustments.




JPEG






RAW at ACR defaults

I specifically find the hair on my father-in-law's temple and eyebrows to be rendered poorly, ditto his eyelashes and the wrinkles on his upper cheeks and around his eye, especially the inner corner. The detail gets quite murky and digital looking and I'm not a fan of how his skin has been rendered...he doesn't look like the JPEG. The RAW is much more 'true to life' even without appropriate colour adjustments. To me these differences are obvious, even when fit to 1920X1080 rather than at 100%.

These issues with rendering lead me to believe that they can be fixed, or at least improved upon greatly. Any suggestions?

--
Dave Sanders

What I understand about modern sensor is that they have at least 12 or 14 bits color deepth by channel but jpeg has only 8 bits/channel. So shooting jpeg is killing the sensor capability.

If someone use a FF camera only in crop mode with APSC lens, he would kill the resolution of the FF camera, my understanding is that if someone use only jpeg with a FF camera, he would lose a lot of informations delivred by the sensor, that's why TIFF is better than jpeg (for color) : TIFF format support 16 bits by channel.

Maybe I'm wrong but in my understanding today everybody is watching to dxomark score : "oh this camera has 14.2 it is better than this one that is only 12.3" ... and then we use jpeg 8 bits/channel only ...

Link : read that

I am struggling to understand why anyone even bothered to respond to the OP. He wants the best camera for his needs but "refuses" to shoot RAW?

Forget it, OP. If you are so lazy and care so little about your photographs, then why on earth would we bother to answer you?

shutterbud said:

I am struggling to understand why anyone even bothered to respond to the OP. He wants the best camera for his needs but "refuses" to shoot RAW?

Forget it, OP. If you are so lazy and care so little about your photographs, then why on earth would we bother to answer you?

Click to expand...

Wow, that's harsh!

The A7 can produce great JPEG if used properly. Of course RAW gives you more latitude and control, but we shouldn't forget that the A7 is one of the cheapest way to enter the FF world (not to mention the size advantage of this camera) and it's normal that it attracts also people who prefer to limit their photography to JPEG.

Also, it takes a while to get the best out of a RAW file. Personally, it took me a while before I could do better than the JPEG engine of the NEX5N back then and the learning process can be frustrating at first. If photography is a hobby, I don't see why we should force everyone to shoot RAW. Especially if considering that photography should be more about taking photos than manipulating pixels

My car can go 220 Km/h and German highways often have no speed limit. This doesn't mean I'm always speeding. I actually prefer to cruise slow and low

shutterbud said:

I am struggling to understand why anyone even bothered to respond to the OP. He wants the best camera for his needs but "refuses" to shoot RAW?

Forget it, OP. If you are so lazy and care so little about your photographs, then why on earth would we bother to answer you?

Click to expand...

You did

This smart-alec reply shows exactly how seriously you take yourself and the members of this forum, many of whom have spent thousands of hours in painstaking effort to become exceptional photographers. You will obviously not be one of them.