Sony directly rivals MFDB on view camera use, announces lossless 14bit raw

[jagsiva]

....the "Technical camera images" which is curently dominated by Cambo & Sony combinations.... :facesmack:

That is just downright ____!

Fill in the blank, I don't want to get banned.

 

[MikeEvangelist]

Is it sharing time now?

That looks lovely!

(as if this forum wasn't already bad enough for the wallet, you have go and bring Scotch into the picture.)

 

[stephengilbert]

"So the thread was moved from Medium format to here on the Sony forum where we really don't give a ----!!!"

It didn't take long. I guess Sony folk are quicker witted.

Maybe a new subforum where trolls could congregate and call each other names. Perhaps "Under the Bridge."

 

[iiiNelson]

hey! we have the same bottle of Hakusu 12yr; mine not yet cracked open
and hiding in the back a Lagavulin 16yr

I just bought my third bottle of Hakashu and a bottle of Hibiki a couple months ago. I still have a bottle of 18 y/o Yamazaki and yes it's worth it.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay you guys can always send me a bottle. Lol

 

[Eddie3dfx]

I'm hoping Sony continues to support the A7r with newer firmware upgrades and not just the A7R 2.
If they are coming out with an A7r/A7s/A7 firmware for 14bit lossless raw, I'm sure there will be additional fixes/chanes in it as well and thats why it wasn't just released.
hopefully :grin:

 

[Jim DE]

Eddie I would hope for your sake as well but I have been with Minolta/Sony since they entered digital and have only seen a couple times they ever upgraded firmware on a product that has been replaced by a newer one with new options. I would guess if they do upgrade the old units with uncompressed RAWs that that will be all the update would include and not much as far as firmware fixes for user complaints. With original A7's selling for well under $1000 usd they are not making much profit per unit sold and essentially are clearing their overstock inventory. Unlikely they would add much additional development cost into these units from a business standpoint. Hard pill to swallow as a customer especially if one saved and just bought one at clearance prices but it is what it is.

As far as uncompressed RAW's being added: if they don't offer it you truly are not missing much IMO. It would not hurt my feelings at all if I did not have it as it in my case is just another option (like video) I will never use professionally and might use a few times just for S---'s and grin's playing around with the body on my own personal images. If it was taken back away on a future update I really don't think I would notice it unless someone posted something here that is is gone. Not to mention that currently I have nothing that can read these files..... I even updated to version 2.2 for my standalone LR6 and it only see's the jpg thumbnail and goes all psychedelic when I try to open these files .......

I just tried a jpg and my LR6 won't even open it once uploaded ....... Play "Tap's" all as I refuse to deal with Adobe Customer Service ever again after my last 6 hour fiasco with them when I upgraded to LR6 from LR5 so I will officially Uninstall this POS Adobe Software ... I am soooo done with Adobe :thumbdown:

 

[Pradeep]

Nice, but I'd add in a Bowmore, Laphroaig 18 and a Lagavulin

:thumbs: for the Lagavulin and Laphroaig! Love the former especially. But I agree with Sandeep on the Dalwhinnie too, that one's super smooth.
:chug:

 

[alajuela]

this is a very strange comment.
First one ought to define performance.
The classic definition is what the image looks like to a standard viewer at a standard distance.
There are many measurements that can be used to assist in quantifying image appearance such as:
1) resolution
2) color fidelity (all sorts of technical variables go into this)
3) dynamic range which is further affected by the substrate or viewing technique (monitor, print, backlit print, illuminant)
4) gamma
5) quantization (or some might say posterization)
6) psycho-visual factors (nobody really likes natural saturation or contrast)
7) subject matter high frequency components
8) focal length, subject distance, and reproduction ratio
9) distortion

there are also factors as relate to the photographer and his personal choice of tools and techniques.

There are several compression techniques that are employed by camera manufacturers in a misguided attempt to scrimp on storage. The best lossless techniques are truly lossless and the sensor data is recoverable just the way it was prior to compression.
A lossy compression technique is an engineering defect

by correcting a defect that mfdbs don't have in the first place, it is hard to say exactly what was achieved other than the correction of a bug or misfeature.
Percentage performance comparison is rather fruitless as well as comparison might be close for one use or technique but very different for another.
Please avoid these sorts of claims unless you can back it up with observable data.
It rained all day yesterday in the desert where i live. Does that mean it is no longer a desert? No it simply means that it rained.
Since so many images posted today on the net are rather small jpegs (compressed i will note) i can maintain with some backing that the average smartphone is already at more than 95% adequacy for use by most folks. Sony's bug correction will make it no better at competing with those phones.
Thanks
-bob

[sub][/sub]



bravo !!!!!!

 

[dchew]

So is the Actus + Sony A combination sales with respect to other view/tech cameras with MFDB combinations... Notice also the Actus version for the A7 sales with respect to the same camera for MFDB sales...

Notice iPhone camera sales vs Sony A7/Actus.
WTF?

Dave