V
Vivek
Guest
Tim, interesting thoughts. If some travel mattered "photographically" you would take the D810? :loco:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Yes, I mean to say that let's say I'm off on a family holiday with a pro-forma beach and want to take some photos, but photography is not the point of the trip, I'd take the Sony knowing that if something came up that I want to shoot seriously and at high quality, I could pretty much always do so very successfully. But if I were off on a primarily photographic trip, say to Iceland or the Amazon or somewhere exciting, I'd take the Nikon.Tim, interesting thoughts. If some travel mattered "photographically" you would take the D810? :loco:
Again, I'm really not trying to be hard on him, and I'm not mad at him at all. I like to look at stuff like this, and I find his work interesting. I recognize it's hard to do, and I know that he has his schtick (clicks are needed when you make a living with this stuff) and that getting stuff out quickly is important in his business.Amin, "Hip shooting" taken to a new level. :grin:
Tim,Case in point: next week I'm off to the Venice biennale and then on a cruise taking in some amazing places - but I also have to pack a smoking jacket, smart clothes, casual clothes, a laptop, blah blah blah.. so it's Sony, no brainer! But if I wake up tomorrow morning to find a delicate mist drifting over the dawn English countryside and I want to hop in the car and go to one of my favourite vantage points to shoot it, I'd take the D810.
Could I make do with just the Sony? Of course. I'm very spoiled!
you are correct although I genuinely believe that Lloyd is not a shill but his findings just get the sensationalist treatment (by him or others but the effect is the same). What he finds is normally there but as I said earlier, Lloyd would have you believe that the sky is falling and the reality is that it definitely is not. My A7RII kicks the butt of every other 35mm camera I've ever owned.But coming from a science research background, I get a little queasy when I read all the comments about him being "critical" and "rigorous". Smart, knowledgeable, talented, experienced, accomplished? Okay. Critical and rigorous? I'm not seeing it.
I travelled with that setup once. Never again...Tim,
The D810 is the easy option. I'd hope that if the quality mattered you'd take your IQ180 outfit. Just saying ....
Why not just the amazing and pocketable RX100 iv, Tim?Yes, I mean to say that let's say I'm off on a family holiday with a pro-forma beach and want to take some photos, but photography is not the point of the trip, I'd take the Sony knowing that if something came up that I want to shoot seriously and at high quality, I could pretty much always do so very successfully. But if I were off on a primarily photographic trip, say to Iceland or the Amazon or somewhere exciting, I'd take the Nikon.
I don't really do street any more but I'd also use the Sony if that were the main point of the trip.
Case in point: next week I'm off to the Venice biennale and then on a cruise taking in some amazing places - but I also have to pack a smoking jacket, smart clothes, casual clothes, a laptop, blah blah blah.. so it's Sony, no brainer! But if I wake up tomorrow morning to find a delicate mist drifting over the dawn English countryside and I want to hop in the car and go to one of my favourite vantage points to shoot it, I'd take the D810.
Could I make do with just the Sony? Of course. I'm very spoiled!
I meant, you're at home, the light'll be great, the car is outside ...I travelled with that setup once. Never again...
You're absolutely right but I no longer have a body other than my Alpa for it, and I only have one lens, so it's an even more 'special situation' setup. I love it it but honestly unless I want to print huge, which is rare these days, I prefer the D810...I meant, you're at home, the light'll be great, the car is outside ...
I agree about travel - take my RX1r, Df with AIS glass or Sony A7(s/II) systems for travel. The tech & MF stuff stays at home unless it's a photo focused trip.
That goes EVERYWHERE with me! I took it to Poland recently on vacation and it was a pleasure and a joy. I mount it on a Pilotfly gimbal and take lovely video with it, snap away for stills and the results are great. My only caveats are that it hasn't got quite the DR I'd like and that fiddling with the EVF gets old, but for the size and price it is a stunner.Why not just the amazing and pocketable RX100 iv, Tim?
BTW, I read a report that the D810A does much better than the D810 (which betterd the D800/E in terms of shutter shock) -almost as clean as the D750, in terms of noise.
Sorry for the error. Glad someone caught it.Is this so? I understood that Silent Shutter is 12 bit and that EFCS is lossy 14 bit (or lossy 13 bit +1 as some people call it). Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
I second Davidstock above. I have also read the entire DPR thread and can't see where Iliah claims to have seen the RAW file. But he quite clearly agrees with a fair part of what Lloyd says.
And David, I was about to post a link to one of the threads in which people manned the barricades to defend the shutter in the A7r. That makes interesting historical reading. Thanks for making the point, which I think is highly valid.
Hi Tim,
My reading of the thread is that Iliah clearly say that he has analysed the actual raw file. Iliah also claims that the main culprit is conversions from Prophoto RGB to Adobe RGB. The colours are shifted outside Adobe RGB and conversion inproperly clips some channels.
What Iliah Borg says is that it could have been avoided by softproofing the image and adjusting the blues so they are not clipped.
Now, regarding the Sony raw compression, the issue at hand is really if shot noise + read noise alone is suefficient enough to dither the mage so posterisation can be avoided. Iliah Borg doesn't think so, while Jim Kasson and BClaff happen to think so. Jim Kasson has written a software emulation of the Sony raw compression and has published his findings in a lengthy series of articles. To sum it up, he dowsn't feel its is of concern.
Very clearly, I don't have an A7r or A7rII. Just a Alpha 99 (and A77, A55, A900, A700, A100, Dimage 7D and a P45+ back). The only clearcut case I have seen of banding was on the P45+, using a 16 bit file. I pretty well know that was a colour management issue as it was visible with Capture One and also with some generated DCP profiles on LR6. Using Adobe DNG Standard Profile on LR6 removed it and also using a DCamProf profile.
So, I lean quite a bit that it is a colour management issue, possibly paired with the processing pipeline in Lightroom.
Now, I don't go into denial mode, it ust happens that I understand som of the basics of image data processing and I have read up on the articles of people more knowlegeable than me.
Just to say, my Sony Alpha 99 uses the tone curve, but it allows for excellent shadow recovery, far better than say my P45+ that is said to use 16-bit data. On the Alpha 900 I have seen something similar to what Lloyd noticed in very deep shadows on exactly one image.
One other point, I think that it is not OK that Diglloyd makes a lot of statements on his blog but you need to subscribe to his articles to find out details. He recently published a lot of findings on focusing with the Leica S and I sort of defended his writings, based on an earlier article about the S2. But I now feel I shouldn't have done that.
Also, as I have pointed out, there is a lot of evidence indicating that the problem is not really with Sony raw compression. Pointing fingers at Sony when the main culprit is color management, as pointed out by Iliah Borg, will not help anyone with solving the problem.
This is not about shooting the messenger, it is about telling the messanger to do his homework.
Best regards
Erik
So far, none of the gurus have explained how lossy compression is what caused what you are seeing in the raw digger histo. We know that there are other things that affect raw files. It may well be that Sony is altering the raw files in some other fashion. Unfortunately, there is a long history of raw being cooked by Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, and others, sometimes in a way which is dependent on camera settings (corrections, etc). So I think you are jumping to a conclusion. It may be a correct conclusion, but at this point it's a premature one.So many gurus, so little time...But lossy compression is lossy compression, however you slice the math, and the raw digger histo on that file (utterly not reliant on colour space or management) is a mess. So I know what I think...
Well here's one that shows up in a printI think we are mixing up the issues. So far the only thing pointed at the raw compression factor has been in Astro photography long exposures. It has not effected anything close to normal general photography situations.
Well here's one that shows up in a print
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/onlandscape/SonyLakes/tiled.jpg
Tim
When you guys stop using LR and ACR than I'll listen until than every issue has not shown up in C1 which is a paternership between Sony and Phase. I have said this a dozen times and I can't seem to get it through but you'll listen to a paid reviewer that does not disclose ****. I'm done with this. Talk about respect . How about me 40 freaking years worthTim, pull up a stool and join me in the lion's den....
Amin, here's a slice from the DPR thread:So far, none of the gurus have explained how lossy compression is what caused what you are seeing in the raw digger histo. We know that there are other things that affect raw files. It may well be that Sony is altering the raw files in some other fashion. Unfortunately, there is a long history of raw being cooked by Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, and others, sometimes in a way which is dependent on camera settings (corrections, etc). So I think you are jumping to a conclusion. It may be a correct conclusion, but at this point it's a premature one.
I'm gonna take a D810 out with the A7RII, disable all in-camera corrections for both cameras, mount the same lens on both cameras with the same polarizer / setting, shoot the bluest water I can find, and upload the raws for both. If anyone has any other requests or suggestions, let me know.