Question about Sony Raw file quality

osv · 07-25-2015, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by ruggiex

On the flip side, there are always people like you who deny it's a problem at all. Don't expect me to spend thousands of dollars and have to worry about this kind of issue that doesn't exist elsewhere.

elsewhere? nikon has options for raw compression.

if you've borrowed a sony and shot with it, show us the photos you took that show a problem with this.

i posted my complaints about the a7r out here, but raw compression hasn't been one of 'em.

Winder · 07-25-2015, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by ruggiex

On the flip side, there are always people like you who deny it's a problem at all. Don't expect me to spend thousands of dollars and have to worry about this kind of issue that doesn't exist elsewhere. Space is cheap; that's not a good reason for the compromise. I've borrowed and used it enough to know it's an issue for me for the type of shot I tend to take, therefore I will never buy one until it's fixed. Thanks for assuming everyone complains about it has never used the product before.

It might be a problem for some people, but given the obvious success of the A7 line, the vast majority of the users never encounter the problems that have been found with Sony's compressed RAW files. If you routinely screw up exposure by 5 stops, then no, the A7II is not a good camera for you. The RAW files can't recover like the D750. As someone who owns both the K-3 and the A7II I can say from experience that the Sony compressed RAW files give me more to work with than the K-3 when it comes to color, noise, & DR when properly exposed.

Post some of the images that you took where the issue is visible?

kadajawi · 07-25-2015, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

I think we all can agree that it is stupid of Sony to continue to use the lossy compression with certain settings when it upsets so many potential buyers. I have followed these discussions on several boards, have used most of the Sony mirrorless cameras including the A7M2 and I still do not see why it is such a big deal for people. Can you explain what it is about the Sony compression method which you find so objectionable? I do not see how Sony's compression would have cause problems with the beautiful photos you have posted on Pentax Forum. I am genuinely curious and not interested in a debate.

I think the idea of losing quality, when it is not necessary, the idea of raw being not that raw, that is what pisses people off. I can understand it, even if the difference may merely be theoretical in nature... more so if it sometimes is indeed visible.

But I think I recall some recent interview with Sony where they said they are working on lossless raw support? I would expect them to implement that for some of their older cameras at least. They do have to offer that option, IMHO.

ruggiex · 07-25-2015, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by osv

elsewhere? nikon has options for raw compression.

if you've borrowed a sony and shot with it, show us the photos you took that show a problem with this.

i posted my complaints about the a7r out here, but raw compression hasn't been one of 'em.

Really? Nikon has option for compression but it's NOT force on you. You don't see the difference there?

It's been posted all over the net where the problem can occur. All I said to the OP was, hey there's this potential problem just be aware of it, look into it and decide for himself. Where did I ever said he should't buy it just because of this issue? A deal breaker for me does not mean it's a deal breaker for everyone.

This is a thread about Sony Raw image quality. If you are happy with what you got, then stay happy with it, but drop the condescending crap. I'm not judging you base on your purchase.

Originally posted by Mikesul

I think we all can agree that it is stupid of Sony to continue to use the lossy compression with certain settings when it upsets so many potential buyers. I have followed these discussions on several boards, have used most of the Sony mirrorless cameras including the A7M2 and I still do not see why it is such a big deal for people. Can you explain what it is about the Sony compression method which you find so objectionable? I do not see how Sony's compression would have cause problems with the beautiful photos you have posted on Pentax Forum. I am genuinely curious and not interested in a debate.

For me it's basically a new problem I'd have to worry about when I haven't had to for all these years. I have seen it in my own photos just from the weekend I had it. Sure it can be fixed in post, sure it's not always easily visible and jpeg compression when posting it to the websites can mitigate it further. But the fact is that it's one more thing to worry about is enough of an annoyance when I'm spending thousands of dollars. I don't have problem recommending these cameras for most of the people but buyers should be aware of it. If FPS is going to drop without compression, fine, but give me the option - I want to be in control of my own device instead of being forced to take a compromise that I'm not willing to take.

Last edited by ruggiex; 07-25-2015 at 08:25 AM.

osv · 07-25-2015, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by ruggiex

Really? Nikon has option for compression but it's NOT force on you. You don't see the difference there?

it proves the point that raw compression is perfectly viable.

there are a lot of nikon users who can't tell the difference, and are perfectly fine with it... why can't you understand that?

Originally posted by ruggiex

It's been posted all over the net where the problem can occur.

the only thing that's been posted all over the net is fud mongering by people who don't own sony and can't prove anything on their own.

if this was a real-world problem, the sony forums would be swamped with pics and complaints, but that simply hasn't happened.

ruggiex · 07-25-2015, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by osv

it proves the point that raw compression is perfectly viable.

there are a lot of nikon users who can't tell the difference, and are perfectly fine with it... why can't you understand that?

viable to you. If I had a Nikon I'd still choose no compression. why is having an option such a bad idea to you?

osv · 07-25-2015, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by ruggiex

viable to you. If I had a Nikon I'd still choose no compression. why is having an option such a bad idea to you?

people troll sony all the time about raw compression, but somehow it never comes from sony owners, and no one ever provides real-world photos that show a problem.

**clackers** · 07-25-2015, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by osv

(To Rugglex): whenever that subject comes up on the sony forums, it's almost always people like you, who have never used sony, and know nothing about raw compression, that are doing the complaining.

(Laughs)

Still fighting those Pentaxians, Osv?

Hanging around in their forum, trolling ... but what's your K3-II or 645Z or Q like?

Bet you don't have them.

The idea of you questioning Ruggiex's credibility and relevance as a user is wonderful.

Once upon a time we're told you owned a (gasp!) K-10.

What's your actual Pentax knowledge these days, now you say you're on all those apologist Sony forums?

**luftfluss** · 07-26-2015, 10:00 AM

This person claims to show examples of image degradation due to Sony's RAW compression:

diglloyd: Sony?s 11+7-bit Delta Compression, Posterization in Some Situations

osv · 07-26-2015, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by luftfluss

diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140212_2-SonyA7-RawDigger-posterization.html

diglloyd didn't take that shot, it was sent in to him by someone else, who knows what's been done to it... look at the sizes that are posted, 100% at 828x412, and 100% at 286x414.

an a7r image is 7360x4912, how much would you see after processing?

nasim over at photographylife has also trolled this subject pretty hard, and just like diglloyd, he doesn't link to original raw files, he just posts super-tiny 100% nighttime crops.

ruggiex claims to have seen this problem in photos that he took, but you'll notice that he's totally failed to prove it with any raw files.

ruggiex · 07-26-2015, 01:36 PM

Hey keep believing what you believe and put up a good fight. Do whatever it takes for you to sleep at night.

I don't have the original raws any more because they were not important photos. I shot them to see if I wanted to get a Sony. I never foresaw that I needed them to prove my competence or to preach to the others. I know what my eyes saw and I made my decision. But apparently everyone but you is a liar when it comes to this subject matter. Or maybe you are just so used to it you don't see it any more.

Lossy by definition is lossy there's no maybe, or buts. And this is a thread about Sony's raw quality there's no reason why it can't be mentioned.

**Mikesul** · 07-26-2015, 05:39 PM

ruggiex,

Can you at least tell us what you saw?

itshimitis · 07-26-2015, 07:28 PM

I see some posterisation on images shot at twilight or dawn if I try and push the highlights in the blue channels too hard. I don't think this is anything to do with the RAW compression as I get this behaviour with the A7R and my 645Z. I think it is a (annoying) symptom of the sony CMOS sensors. This issue has been discussed in the medium format part of this forum.

**Mikesul** · 07-27-2015, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by itshimitis

I see some posterisation on images shot at twilight or dawn if I try and push the highlights in the blue channels too hard. I don't think this is anything to do with the RAW compression as I get this behaviour with the A7R and my 645Z. I think it is a (annoying) symptom of the sony CMOS sensors. This issue has been discussed in the medium format part of this forum.

Thanks for the insight. But wouldn't this show up on other cameras like the K-3 or D800 which use Sony sensors?

itshimitis · 07-27-2015, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Mikesul

Thanks for the insight. But wouldn't this show up on other cameras like the K-3 or D800 which use Sony sensors?

Also came up on D800 and E too. I hope that Sony can get on the Lossless compressed. Not bothered at the compressed, just as long as it is lossless.

07-25-2015, 03:44 PM	#23
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by osv (To Rugglex): whenever that subject comes up on the sony forums, it's almost always people like you, who have never used sony, and know nothing about raw compression, that are doing the complaining. (Laughs) Still fighting those Pentaxians, Osv? Hanging around in their forum, trolling ... but what's your K3-II or 645Z or Q like? Bet you don't have them. The idea of you questioning Ruggiex's credibility and relevance as a user is wonderful. Once upon a time we're told you owned a (gasp!) K-10. What's your actual Pentax knowledge these days, now you say you're on all those apologist Sony forums? Last edited by clackers; 07-26-2015 at 05:20 PM.

07-26-2015, 01:36 PM	#26
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	Hey keep believing what you believe and put up a good fight. Do whatever it takes for you to sleep at night. I don't have the original raws any more because they were not important photos. I shot them to see if I wanted to get a Sony. I never foresaw that I needed them to prove my competence or to preach to the others. I know what my eyes saw and I made my decision. But apparently everyone but you is a liar when it comes to this subject matter. Or maybe you are just so used to it you don't see it any more. Lossy by definition is lossy there's no maybe, or buts. And this is a thread about Sony's raw quality there's no reason why it can't be mentioned. Last edited by ruggiex; 07-26-2015 at 01:48 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Question about scan quality: gain something by specialized scanner?	rbnvrw	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	14	07-01-2015 11:54 AM
question about raw+jpg on two cards	wibbly	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	10	01-07-2015 06:03 AM
Quick question about K30 raw file dpi	richardstringer	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	12	08-31-2013 06:10 AM
Question about shooting RAW	Stevizzy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	08-17-2013 01:22 PM
RAW image quality question	justtakingpics	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	05-30-2011 03:53 PM

07-25-2015, 07:40 AM	#16
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by ruggiex On the flip side, there are always people like you who deny it's a problem at all. Don't expect me to spend thousands of dollars and have to worry about this kind of issue that doesn't exist elsewhere. elsewhere? nikon has options for raw compression. if you've borrowed a sony and shot with it, show us the photos you took that show a problem with this. i posted my complaints about the a7r out here, but raw compression hasn't been one of 'em.

07-25-2015, 07:44 AM	#17
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by ruggiex On the flip side, there are always people like you who deny it's a problem at all. Don't expect me to spend thousands of dollars and have to worry about this kind of issue that doesn't exist elsewhere. Space is cheap; that's not a good reason for the compromise. I've borrowed and used it enough to know it's an issue for me for the type of shot I tend to take, therefore I will never buy one until it's fixed. Thanks for assuming everyone complains about it has never used the product before. It might be a problem for some people, but given the obvious success of the A7 line, the vast majority of the users never encounter the problems that have been found with Sony's compressed RAW files. If you routinely screw up exposure by 5 stops, then no, the A7II is not a good camera for you. The RAW files can't recover like the D750. As someone who owns both the K-3 and the A7II I can say from experience that the Sony compressed RAW files give me more to work with than the K-3 when it comes to color, noise, & DR when properly exposed. Post some of the images that you took where the issue is visible?

07-25-2015, 07:51 AM	#18
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by Mikesul I think we all can agree that it is stupid of Sony to continue to use the lossy compression with certain settings when it upsets so many potential buyers. I have followed these discussions on several boards, have used most of the Sony mirrorless cameras including the A7M2 and I still do not see why it is such a big deal for people. Can you explain what it is about the Sony compression method which you find so objectionable? I do not see how Sony's compression would have cause problems with the beautiful photos you have posted on Pentax Forum. I am genuinely curious and not interested in a debate. I think the idea of losing quality, when it is not necessary, the idea of raw being not that raw, that is what pisses people off. I can understand it, even if the difference may merely be theoretical in nature... more so if it sometimes is indeed visible. But I think I recall some recent interview with Sony where they said they are working on lossless raw support? I would expect them to implement that for some of their older cameras at least. They do have to offer that option, IMHO.

07-25-2015, 08:03 AM	#19
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	Originally posted by osv elsewhere? nikon has options for raw compression. if you've borrowed a sony and shot with it, show us the photos you took that show a problem with this. i posted my complaints about the a7r out here, but raw compression hasn't been one of 'em. Really? Nikon has option for compression but it's NOT force on you. You don't see the difference there? It's been posted all over the net where the problem can occur. All I said to the OP was, hey there's this potential problem just be aware of it, look into it and decide for himself. Where did I ever said he should't buy it just because of this issue? A deal breaker for me does not mean it's a deal breaker for everyone. This is a thread about Sony Raw image quality. If you are happy with what you got, then stay happy with it, but drop the condescending crap. I'm not judging you base on your purchase. Originally posted by Mikesul I think we all can agree that it is stupid of Sony to continue to use the lossy compression with certain settings when it upsets so many potential buyers. I have followed these discussions on several boards, have used most of the Sony mirrorless cameras including the A7M2 and I still do not see why it is such a big deal for people. Can you explain what it is about the Sony compression method which you find so objectionable? I do not see how Sony's compression would have cause problems with the beautiful photos you have posted on Pentax Forum. I am genuinely curious and not interested in a debate. For me it's basically a new problem I'd have to worry about when I haven't had to for all these years. I have seen it in my own photos just from the weekend I had it. Sure it can be fixed in post, sure it's not always easily visible and jpeg compression when posting it to the websites can mitigate it further. But the fact is that it's one more thing to worry about is enough of an annoyance when I'm spending thousands of dollars. I don't have problem recommending these cameras for most of the people but buyers should be aware of it. If FPS is going to drop without compression, fine, but give me the option - I want to be in control of my own device instead of being forced to take a compromise that I'm not willing to take. Last edited by ruggiex; 07-25-2015 at 08:25 AM.

07-25-2015, 08:26 AM	#20
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by ruggiex Really? Nikon has option for compression but it's NOT force on you. You don't see the difference there? it proves the point that raw compression is perfectly viable. there are a lot of nikon users who can't tell the difference, and are perfectly fine with it... why can't you understand that? Originally posted by ruggiex It's been posted all over the net where the problem can occur. the only thing that's been posted all over the net is fud mongering by people who don't own sony and can't prove anything on their own. if this was a real-world problem, the sony forums would be swamped with pics and complaints, but that simply hasn't happened.

07-25-2015, 08:31 AM	#21
ruggiex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: East Bay Area Photos: Gallery Posts: 811	Originally posted by osv it proves the point that raw compression is perfectly viable. there are a lot of nikon users who can't tell the difference, and are perfectly fine with it... why can't you understand that? viable to you. If I had a Nikon I'd still choose no compression. why is having an option such a bad idea to you?

07-25-2015, 08:47 AM	#22
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by ruggiex viable to you. If I had a Nikon I'd still choose no compression. why is having an option such a bad idea to you? people troll sony all the time about raw compression, but somehow it never comes from sony owners, and no one ever provides real-world photos that show a problem.

07-26-2015, 10:00 AM	#24
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,618	This person claims to show examples of image degradation due to Sony's RAW compression: diglloyd: Sony?s 11+7-bit Delta Compression, Posterization in Some Situations

07-26-2015, 11:35 AM	#25
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	Originally posted by luftfluss diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140212_2-SonyA7-RawDigger-posterization.html diglloyd didn't take that shot, it was sent in to him by someone else, who knows what's been done to it... look at the sizes that are posted, 100% at 828x412, and 100% at 286x414. an a7r image is 7360x4912, how much would you see after processing? nasim over at photographylife has also trolled this subject pretty hard, and just like diglloyd, he doesn't link to original raw files, he just posts super-tiny 100% nighttime crops. ruggiex claims to have seen this problem in photos that he took, but you'll notice that he's totally failed to prove it with any raw files.

07-26-2015, 05:39 PM	#27
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	ruggiex, Can you at least tell us what you saw?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2015, 07:28 PM	#28
itshimitis Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: All over the place Posts: 3,535	I see some posterisation on images shot at twilight or dawn if I try and push the highlights in the blue channels too hard. I don't think this is anything to do with the RAW compression as I get this behaviour with the A7R and my 645Z. I think it is a (annoying) symptom of the sony CMOS sensors. This issue has been discussed in the medium format part of this forum.

07-27-2015, 07:05 AM	#29
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Originally posted by itshimitis I see some posterisation on images shot at twilight or dawn if I try and push the highlights in the blue channels too hard. I don't think this is anything to do with the RAW compression as I get this behaviour with the A7R and my 645Z. I think it is a (annoying) symptom of the sony CMOS sensors. This issue has been discussed in the medium format part of this forum. Thanks for the insight. But wouldn't this show up on other cameras like the K-3 or D800 which use Sony sensors?

07-27-2015, 10:40 AM	#30
itshimitis Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: All over the place Posts: 3,535	Originally posted by Mikesul Thanks for the insight. But wouldn't this show up on other cameras like the K-3 or D800 which use Sony sensors? Also came up on D800 and E too. I hope that Sony can get on the Lossless compressed. Not bothered at the compressed, just as long as it is lossless.