Raw conversions added to Nikon Z7 pre-production gallery

You know this or you think you are right?
If you know you are right, please share the source.

If you cant, this is just fake news/fake facts

I went to a launch event, the firmware was preproduction. It wasn't marked 1 yet.

0.5 or 0.9 can mean exactly the same thing.
Basically, you start at 0.1 just to show it's alpha, then 0.11 and similar increments until you get to a place where you introduce more features and begin with 0.2, and that continues until you get close to 1.0 which is release.

0.5 can be beta but so can 0.9, and as long as it's not 1.0, they can mean the exact same thing. The camera isn't ready for consumer production.

When I work on pictures, it's somewhat similar. It depends on what I have to do. So my files start with an assumed "A" at the end. DSC_100 is the same as DSC_100-A, and I'll do some typical stuff and name it B. If I do a lot more than that, C, but if not it's B2. However, there's no reason that I call it Z to be done. I'm just done when I'm done. So it might be DSC_100C2.

It's just cooking without a recipe. Nothing more. 1.0 is done, everything else is whatever they want to call it.

I used to program from within assembly machine language, a computer's native hexadecimal language. Also coded with unix, C++, HTML, fortran, cobalt, and others.

You assume a lot of things. That's what I'm trying to suggest to you. You assume you know Nikon's nomenclature style for pre-production beta firmware. You assume that I haven't ever coded, just because I disagreed with you. You seem to assume more than know. That's the problem. Now if you actually find some proof for your conspiracy theory, I'm sure we would all be interested. Until then, you're just yet another spreader of fake news.

Maybe as a technique to preserve highlights and show how much DR there is in the sensor?

really? night and day?
all I could see was some color correction and a bump in exposure.
if that is what stands between a camera and a camera with potential, I don't know...

@dtibi - The answer is simple. It's all about image quality. At first, the gallery showed only OOC JPEGs, and they were terrible. The raw conversions look much better to me. That's all. You can make all the assumptions you like about the sensor and whatever. I'm only interested in seeing how the camera performs in the real world.

Then the subatomic structure of the universe is revealed! 😎

.. and it’s sharp, at least until Heisenberg takes over.

Hhhmmm... What would Walter White say? Hhhmmm...

Nope, Rolleix...only Ken Rockwell says that, and does it that way. :>

Sorry Brian. OOC JPEG is rubbish in relative terms. I don't care what camera they came out of. I GUARANTEE you that any photographer with even modest skill with LR or PS or ACR can take the RAW from a RAW+JPEG capture, process it, and blow away the OOC JPEG.

I'm not saying that OOC JPEGs can't look really good. Of course they can. But experienced RAW processing will ALWAYS look better, typically way better. Period.

Ugh, it's exhausting seeing so many Sony shooters saying the same thing about getting "proper" exposures because they can preview final exposure through the EVF. That is SUCH a rookie thing to say! It's such clear evidence of a lack of fundamental photographic understanding, technique, and creativity. It's probably a safe bet that people who say that EVF statement have never shot a single frame of film in their lives. It's like the basic concept of "expose for highlights and lift shadows in post" completely eludes them. And what a waste of today's awesome ISO-invariant sensors' processing latitude! Throwing all that away for SOOC JPEG... as a preference!?!? People making that argument don't need FF MILC. They'd be served perfectly well by their phone's camera. It always reminds me of the very first sentence of Chapter 1 of Ansel Adams' book "The Camera":

Continued...

"The term visualization refers to the entire emotional-mental process of creating a photograph, and as such, it is one of the most important concepts in photography. It includes the ability to anticipate a finished image before making the exposure, so that the procedures employed will contribute to achieving the desired result. This much of the creative process can be practiced and learned, beyond lies the domain of personal vision and insight, the creative "eye" of the individual, which cannot be taught, only recognized and encouraged."

Continued...

And that's why I'm so sick of Sony fanboys. I call them the redheaded stepchildren of photography. An incredibly loud group of snapshooters shooting with $10,000 worth of gear who lack visualization screaming at the world that DSLRs are obsolete relics because MILCs have exposure preview and a gazillion fps and any other brand than Sony sucks because Sony's been doing APS-C and FF MILC longer than anyone else. Pppfffttt... If Ansel Adams was alive today, he'd backhand his black fingernails across their faces, lol!

Done...

Royal Majesty...

Apt name for such a pompous position to take.

Its a camera, dude. Just a camera. And this is a gear site. You won't find many artists here.

Daft Punk...

Such an apt name for such a daft punk.

Lol, you started it. :D

Do you shoot Sony?

Nice spread of gear. I really like Fujis a lot. Fantastic lenses and hands-down the best skin tone reproduction in the biz. I keep tossing around getting an XT. But i just don't need it so i can't let the cash go.

I loved my D700. Great camera. And i haven't met an 85mm Nikkor that i didn't like.

Sony though... ugh. I hate my 7RM2. I need it for FF adapted manual-focus lenses, and EVF though. Dying for the day i can replace it with a Nikon, Canon, or Fuji.

there should be a law against self-proclaimed experts that hail RAW files as the only way to go.
jpgs have a lot of leeway if don't overstrech it.
I erase my fuji raw files half of the time because the OOC jpgs are the better files to process.

Canon ExpSimLV (Exposure Simulation) LV (Live-View)

Full-Time Live Final Exposure Simulation Preview

Prosumer FF Models Available
(not counting pro-body FF 1D series with it, fully)

5DMkII
5DMkIII
6D
5DSR
5DS
5DMkIV
6DMkII

Other Prosumer FF: (partial/limited restricted versions):
(not counting pro-body D3/4/5 models with it, partially)
Nikon D800/810/850 and D750

that's it ...

Sony FF: nope ... all FF alphas ... ouch
Pentax FF: nope ... all FF K1/K1MkII ... ouch
Nikon FF Z: nope ... all FF Z7/Z6 ... ouch
not even one Med.Fmt dcam ... ouch

@SmilerGrogan:

just use "impartial" Raw to DNG converters, like free android RAW2DNG
(not Adobe ACR)

RAW2DNG ignores camera mfr specs, and accesses full raw data, uncropped, uncorrected, in DNG format

so, one can see how "perfect/imperfect" lens optics are as it projects on whichever sensor is used

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

That’s a nice theory. Too bad it doesn’t connect with reality :)
Who cares what the firmware does. Today, any solution is a hybrid of software and hardware.

"ACR default sharpening actually seems to have become more aggressive in recent versions,"

Not seems; it most certainly has.

Barney I was assuming he had done the processing and captioning.

No, that would be me and Richard. I was at the launch event in Tokyo, Richard was at the US launch in New York :)

Tough life... :)

Not me, I've never been to the Grand Canyon. I've just got one of those faces.

Strange, my browser is showing the below comment coming from me. That was not my comment to Barney.

@Barney - Did we meet in 2011, I think you were taking photos at the Grand Canyon in June I think, does that sound about right?

@PhilDunn-that's just Barney. He's basically a troll that's apparently working at DPR. Probably an unpaid intern and the free labor aspect is likely why they let him continuously harass the DPR forum. I think you'll find it wise to ignore him. Or be disrespectful to and dismissive of him, in the same way he is to everyone here, just for your own amusement and the amusement of others. :)

Oh, i don't care about Barney's opinions. It's his condescension, rudeness, and dismissiveness that turn me off. It's that troll-like behavior that makes me refer to him as DPR's resident troll.

All you have to do is disagree with him. Doesn't matter your background or that you may have been an expert or pro photographer with extensive experience across many platforms for longer than he's been alive. He'll still let you know that you can't be correct.

I figured he was 18 or 20 years old and that would explain it. You know, typical know-it-all punk kid. But seeing as how he's been with DPR for over a decade, he's gotta be nearing or even older than 30. So it's just ego.

I'd like to be able to turn to DPR staff as experts with useful unbiased info and advice. But they just write fluff to sell advertising and products. They write infomercials, not real reviews. And boy oh boy do they get testy when you bust them out...

Haha, I hear that! ;)

Also remember that mirrorless cameras' sensors are on full time, compared to DSLRs' which are flicked on for a split second. Heat generated by continuous use of the sensor results in additional noise.

I dunno dawg, the A7RIII is mirrorless and its noise levels are excellent.

I know more than a few very well paid and respected professional business portrait and actors' headshot photographers who shoot JPEGs only.

Why? I am Glad you asked since had the same question for them as well so when I interview them I have asked.

All of them stated that since they are in control of their lighting and subject matter they have found that the advantages of the larger than JPEG dynamic range is not needed for what they do.

Also their subjects generally do not have a color gamut that goes past the limits of Adobe RGB (1998) .

When you are in business, time is money and for them shooting only large/fine JPEGs (in the Adobe RGB (1998) color space) considerably speeds up their workflow

The idea that “professionals” only shoot raw is, like most conventional wisdom, 100 percent wrong.
Many newspapers and other news organizations require their photographers to shoot jpeg only because they don’t want any chance of the image being manipulated.
A Reuters photographer told me that his bosses don’t even want them to use anything but the most neutral picture profile.
Yet, despite this “handicap” these hardworking professionals produce thousands upon thousands of astonishing, beautiful, and world-changing pictures every year.

Image manipulations is possible also for jpeg, and inside camera too... 90% of newspapers of magazines when they layout photos also doing many manipulations...

Lots of pro uses JPEG. It is a much faster turnaround. And you can take much more images before you fill the buffer.

That may have been true in the olden days, but thanks to greedy owners newspaper layout people don't have the time to manipulate pictures or stories, let alone have lunch or use the restroom.
Even worse, many chain newspapers have gone to a regional layout system where one desk will lay out the pages for all the other newspapers in their region. And no copy editors, either.
It's horrific.

When shooting fast and hard in available light the best way to deliver pictures that actually look authentic is to shoot raw. I have shot for newspapers for 15 years and I only use ooc jpg when time is a critical factor. With modern sd/xqd-cards and fast pcs/macs it doesnt take very long for an experienced hand to finalize and export finished jpgs for print and web.I don’t know a single colleague that shoots jpg only, that would be regarded as sloppy in my world. If what you say is true Ellis Vener, I’m glad I don’t work in the US. If I got word down from the top that it was jpg only I would move on to a more serious publisher. Manipulation is always a risk, and shame on those that do it. Sometimes - no matter how good you are - circumstances might conspire such that you end up with a «world changing» photo that is badly exposed picture and/or has the white balance messed up. What would be the manipulation then; to publish the ooc jpg or to make that raw look like what your eyes saw?

I always shot in Raw + JPG, however I found a JPG configuration that makes it very difficult to improve the RAW files in PP, I take advantage of the dynamic range of the camera to 95% and the colors are very nice. Vivid, contrast -3, saturation -1 or 0, sharpness -1 or 0, and low NR, the dynamic range of this JPG settings is excellent. I think we revile the JPG too early and in each camera there is an optimal configuration of JPG, you just have to find it. On the other hand we often find ourselves pushing the limits of the camera, or taking careless shots, relying on the flexibility of the RAW, when we should try to make the best possible shot, move search and rethink the shot if the lighting or framing is not suitable etc. Do not think, ok, that's fine, then under the high lights, I raise the shadows a little, I increase the sharpness, I cut out and I reframe the image and perfect.

I couldn't really care less about RAW.

You get what... 5-10% improvement over JPEG?

In just a few years, I'll be using a totally different camera with probably somewhere near 100MP, more dynamic range, and better overall tonality. I won't even look at the pictures I take today. I certainly am not looking at the pictures I took in 2014. Who cares about raw when everything moves so fast that it becomes almost obsolete after pressing the shutter release.

In the early days, DPReview editors would go the extra mile for readers an report on the performance of various jpg presets.
Apparently using such a quotidian file format offended the refined and aristocratic sensibilities of some of the site's later reviewers so they cooked up the lie that raw files are superior to TIFFs and JPEGs. But that's people for you...no one is happy being happy.

@Focus shift. The improvement is not 5-10%. If you take the image at minimum ISO (e.g. 100) and use a good lens and is careful, the difference is huge.

Maybe you do not use that extra information. Maybe four you the difference is 5-10%. That is fully possible. But the potential possibilities ar much higher for the RAW.

Roland, I see a lot of people "liking" images that have terrible technical merit. Like a barn with the sky completely blown out to 255,255,255. People just don't care about dynamic range. They only care about emotional impact.

That said, I know the difference. And I'm telling you that it's not much. Now of course, if you're shooting from within a train tunnel and using it like a frame to the outside beyond, then yeah, RAW is going to have so much more information that it's actually worth using it in such an instance.

But for anything that's typical, and photographed properly, it's just not a lot different. It's not like the JPEG is B&W or terrible. In fact, if a person knows how to use their camera to produce JPEGs, then they can control how the JPEG is processed within the camera. By that time, there's not a lot more to do if you don't want to spend a lot of time processing.

Every single camera has JPEG. The best of the best have JPEG.

I use both formats. But JPEG is usually fine.

Most people here assume professionals shoot art. That is NOT the case for 99.99% of us. If I shoot an event and come up with 7000 snaps, there's no way anyone is going to reprocess these if they come in Raw. Editors want a perfectly exposed jpeg out of the camera.

Spoke to a professional wedding photographer who lectures on the business and whose packages start at about $10k (no judgment on the quality of the shots) - but she said that she always shoots RAW + JPG. By default, if the jpeg looks good, the RAW isn't dealt with. Not only is this more efficient time-wise, but it also allows her (or her assistant) to start putting up slideshows of the ceremony during the reception.

Everyone understands RAWs are better. But when you're already busy, it's just one more thing to have to deal with.

I do like that wedding photographer. I take both JPEG and RAW. Then I more often than not use the JPEG and fall back to the RAW either when the JPEG is not good enough or when I really want the optimal result.

At my latest shooting there was some pictures with a woman in a white blouse. In the JPEG the blouse is a flat white, it clips. In the RAW I can recover the details of the blouse easily. Then I am glad I had the RAW.

There are a few photographers (pros, or at least well known in the industry) that will do OOC JPEGs. The one that comes to my mind is Bill Fortney... It partially depends on workflow, but at least part of the statements are correct... MOST pros shoot RAW.

You won´t be able to use the new mount on an DSSLR afaik. The flange distance is to long on an DSLR for the new Z mount lenses to be usable.

So, only reason for people to stop buy F-mount lenses is if they feel they will make a switch to mirrorless cameras with Z-mount.

Correct me if i am wrong.

Barney:

Thank you.

if only there was a way to correct white balance when processing raw files.....

Only Nikon announce a pre-production camera with pre-production firmware lol

Pre-production firmware is literally the definition of a pre-production camera...

The software I was referring to was the Beta of ACR

@badi In the more recent version of LR I like the default sharpening of fuji files. I just bump the detail a tad. So I guess you can't make everyone happy.

well i have a calibrated EIZO CG2730 and i think the WB in the JPG is terrible. at least when the goal was to make white look white. if the goal was to make it look like it was in reality i wonder why some skintones look so ghoulish....

That "CMOS-y"malarkey again :)

CMOS-y blue skies is a poor descriptor but I think you know what is meant. It is a muted, powder blue sky that looks artificial whether it's produced by an iPhone 7 or Z7. Older CCD cameras with strong CFA's rendered skies more accurately and naturally saturated.

Compare a classic CCD sky: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/6457294694/nikon-d200-review-samples/1546688634

To a classic CMOS sky: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4819511289/nikon-z7-samples-gallery/1414649798

All were rendered via ACR. Open both up in separate windows and flip back and forth. Which looks real? And which looks fake from being imaged through a weak CFA and digitally recreated via an aggressive RAW transform?

No, it's not a poor descriptor, it is nonsense.
Ciao.

I think the RAW conversions look great.

Also, eye white is no substitute for a gray card.

@VladimirCZ: Glad to hear that you see what I see! It's quite stark, isn't it?

Yes, you are correct, the cause of the difference is not really a CCD vs CMOS issue. Both are essentially the same silicon. The problem is actually caused by the weak color filter array's of modern cameras versus the strong CFA's of older cameras.

CCD is only praised here in the sense that it represented sensors predominant during an era when both CCD and early CMOS sensors still had very strong CFA's (close to the Kodak specification). I haven't looked up their color accuracy SMI numbers yet, but the old Canon 400 and 450D's likely had strong CFA's too. These days that color fidelity has been traded off to achieve high resolution sensors and high ISO performance.

And just for fun look at these side by side.

Canon 400D Skies: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9025332744/canon-eos-400d-review-samples/6616606873

Nikon Z Skies: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4819511289/nikon-z7-samples-gallery/1414649798

Exactly!:)

@Iliah Borg - Are you partially color blind?

Horrible jpg color are generated by horrible photographer

Some one is looking at the mirror!

There is no mirror...