WHy is dpr showing such poor quality raw shots for the A77?

[mike_2008]

I'm starting to wonder what is going on here. I see the A77 studio comparison shots, and with jpeg iso3200 the A77 wipes the damn floor compared with the 7D and D7000, much better performance.

Then I look at the raws and they suck . Why? because they are using a crappy alpha version convertor from adobe. Why are they doing this? They know people make decisions on what to buy using such tools, so releasing such poor images is producing a real lasting impression on the perception of the a77. Just look at the comments.

I compared the nikon d7000 jpeg and raw a77 jpeg and raw, and they are mirror images, with the A77 jpeg much better than the A77 raw, and the D7000 raw much better than the D7000 jpeg.

It's a very effective way of making the A77 look bad, and undeservedly so, based on the quality of the jpegs. Why dpr do this is beyond me, if the raw conversion is not ready, simply don't use it.
--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[bendispo]

I'm posting this in a couple other threads too, but agree that dpreview's RAW images seem worse than they should.

I've downloaded the RAW files from dpreview and processed them through Capture One. They look MUCH better.

Minimal Processing:

All sharpening and noise reduction settings decreased to zero. Saturation at 10.

ISO 1600
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MgpjH5F/0/O/i-MgpjH5F.jpg

ISO 3200
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-C66wBTr/0/O/i-C66wBTr.jpg

ISO 6400
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-prprVDC/0/O/i-prprVDC.jpg

 

[George Evans]

I'm starting to wonder what is going on here. I see the A77 studio comparison shots, and with jpeg iso3200 the A77 wipes the damn floor compared with the 7D and D7000, much better performance.

Then I look at the raws and they suck . Why? because they are using a crappy alpha version convertor from adobe. Why are they doing this? They know people make decisions on what to buy using such tools, so releasing such poor images is producing a real lasting impression on the perception of the a77. Just look at the comments.

I compared the nikon d7000 jpeg and raw a77 jpeg and raw, and they are mirror images, with the A77 jpeg much better than the A77 raw, and the D7000 raw much better than the D7000 jpeg.

It's a very effective way of making the A77 look bad, and undeservedly so, based on the quality of the jpegs. Why dpr do this is beyond me, if the raw conversion is not ready, simply don't use it.
--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

That's been my experience. I can't process a decent image from RAW using either IDC v4 or Rawtherapee and I've been wondering which RAW converter all of the review sites are using.

Perhaps some-one from DPRevew can shed some light on the RAW images and the processing software they are using.

George Evans
http://www.wirralpix.com

 

[npires]

I think this better be raised to DPR as it's given an unbiased representation like you said, and I agree about the comments. Even look at the news section there are threads slating the A77. If it truly is better than a 7D etc then it needs to be seen.

 

[mike_2008]

I think this better be raised to DPR as it's given an unbiased representation like you said, and I agree about the comments. Even look at the news section there are threads slating the A77. If it truly is better than a 7D etc then it needs to be seen.

Look for yourself, the jpeg performance at iso3200 is excellent imo. The raw is much much worse. It's ironic that finally the in camera conversion is working great, but dpr manage to make the camera look bad by using a crap convertor.

--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[mike_2008]

Here is an example, the best image is the a77 jpeg and the worst the a77 raw.

I'm much more positive about the A77 seeing these jpegs, they really do look excellent.





--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[mike_2008]

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.





--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[dennismullen]

If this is the problem, which seems reasonable, lets hope it doesn't come down like the A900. It took several years to get Adobe to admit there was a problem and it wasn't until the latest version of LR/ACR that the nice Raw images we have now were possible.

Cheers,
--

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

 

[JPMontez]

Perhaps some-one from DPRevew can shed some light on the RAW images and the processing software they are using.

dpreview says that:

"The visualisations of RAW data (and the accompanying downloadable JPEGs) are based on a standard development process using Adobe Camera Raw"

"(...) a non-public pre-release version of a forthcoming build. We know a guy who knows a guy..."

"When we process the images in Adobe ACR we set all noise reduction to 0, which is why the converted RAW images tend to be noisier than the corresponding in-camera JPEGs. The aim is to show sensor performance rather than processing (although we know that ACR still applies some noise reduction, even when set to 0)"

 

[mike_2008]

Perhaps some-one from DPRevew can shed some light on the RAW images and the processing software they are using.

dpreview says that:

"The visualisations of RAW data (and the accompanying downloadable JPEGs) are based on a standard development process using Adobe Camera Raw"

"(...) a non-public pre-release version of a forthcoming build. We know a guy who knows a guy..."

"When we process the images in Adobe ACR we set all noise reduction to 0, which is why the converted RAW images tend to be noisier than the corresponding in-camera JPEGs. The aim is to show sensor performance rather than processing (although we know that ACR still applies some noise reduction, even when set to 0)"

Makes no sense at all. Using a crap convertor just shows that your using a crap convertor, says nothing about the sensor. When have you ever seen better jpeg than raw from a camera? It's a bloody joke.

--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[Midnighter]

Move the compare tool down a smige below that to show 'Product of Italy' and a few paper clips and your observation turns on its head.

 

[JPMontez]

Makes no sense at all. Using a crap convertor just shows that your using a crap convertor, says nothing about the sensor. When have you ever seen better jpeg than raw from a camera? It's a bloody joke.

I tend to agree with you... It is not the most professional and accurate approach from dpreview...

 

[mike_2008]

Move the compare tool down a smige below that to show 'Product of Italy' and a few paper clips and your observation turns on its head.

Look at the overall image, I've studied it carefully and the a77 is performing much better than the D7000 in nearly all the image, the area you point out is one of the very few ehere the d7000 approaches the A77. You have to remember when they are printed at the same size there will be a further imporvement in the A77 performance relative to the D7000, not that it needs it.

--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[TrojMacReady]

If this is the problem, which seems reasonable, lets hope it doesn't come down like the A900. It took several years to get Adobe to admit there was a problem and it wasn't until the latest version of LR/ACR that the nice Raw images we have now were possible.

Agreed. Adobe messed up royally with Sony RAW files in the past. It wasn't just the A900, the same was true for all Sony cameras back then. Sure, the RAW NR in some of those didn't help, but it wasn't until LR3 that we saw the huge difference between Sony and competitors using the same sensors, disappear.

Interestingly enough, the A35 shows the exact same problem as the A77. DXO measurements showed the A35 giving the same performance as the A55, which isn't too surprising since they use the same 16MP sensor and both have a pellicle mirror. Yet the RAW results, especially in Adobe, look very different, with the A35 doing considerably worse. Is it the new ARW 2.3 format giving problems? Or is it Sony doing something under the hood again?

 

[RussAdams]

I don't think it's fair to beat up on DPReview when the problem really is Sony's.

IDC is a joke. Look at George's attempt to get a usable RAW conversion:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=39438719

Are we really supposed to ignore the camera's RAW capability? Or the lack thereof?

If you're a pro, relying on RAW workflow, you NEED to know that you can't rely on Sony's RAW files.

I'm NOT a pro, and I'll be quite happy with the JPG quality until RAW support materializes.

But right now, Sony are only getting what they deserve in the RAW arena.

It looks bad because it IS bad. And I want honest reviews. Don't be hiding bad 'stuff' because it will be better 'soon'. I want to know what I'm getting today, not potential vapor ware of the future.

Now if you said DPReview used abc converter, who does a cr@p job of converting, when xyz converter does a great job, then I'd say you would have a valid complaint.

Why is Sony incapable of working with Adobe/Capture One/whoever (not to mention their own cr@p converter IDC) to get a great RAW converter on the market until a year or more after introducing a camera?

IMO that's the real issue, not that somebody (DPReview) used a cr@p converter, it's there there currently only are cr@p converters.

Russ

 

[mike_2008]

I thought capture one was doing OK. In any case, the adobe convertor is not even a beta version by dpr's own admission, I can't understand why that don't just look at the results, say, no, they're rubbish, can't use them (as is obvious after 5 secs of inspection) and not publish them. Instead its full steam ahead, and the predciatble 'LOOK THE A77 SUCKS' comments... They couldn't do more to harm the perception of the camera if they tried.
--
IQ is not judged exclusively by high iso noise performance

 

[TrojMacReady]

A55 ISO 3200, Adobe conversion:





A77 ISO 3200 Adobe conversion @ 16MP:





A77 ISO 3200 Capture One conversion @ 16MP:





Now it's obvious the A77 Adobe conversion stinks in comparison to the A55. But the Capture One conversion actually looks very similar to the A55 regarding noise. Mucht tighter grain, less colour noise. And Capture One was never the benchmark at high ISO. That used to be LR/ACR's forte...

 

[dennismullen]

Russ makes a fair statement.
It's hard to blame anyone but Sony for this situation.

Cheers,
--

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

 

[Midnighter]

I don’t want to compare it to the D7000 because Sony mirror technology does not make it a fair ISO comparison, so I looked at the A580 sample instead.

After careful observation of the JPEGs I will say....

At 3200 I would prefer the lower resolution 16MP sensor.

At 1600 I would prefer either the 24MP or the 16MP according to the light and scene situation. If the lighting was low but evenly lit with limited dynamic range in the scene I would go for the 24MP, if the scene descended into deep shadows or was more point source lighting it would be the 16MP.
At 800 I would prefer the higher resolution 24MP sensor.

 

[jlamesa]

Just take a look at JPMontez recent comment... now where's the Cr@p, Russ ?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092610sonyslta77studio.asp

--
Josep Lamesa i Andreu
[email protected]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marimbajlamesa/