[JohnBee]

I just came across Jared Polins a9 RAW file criticism;

You Tube

You Tube

- Based on what I've seen, it would appear that the a9 RAW files handle better than with previous models? Though the reviewer doesn't say if this would include the a7r2. Which is of particular interest to me.

With that said, it would appear that the a9 RAW files are very good in terms of DR and shadow/highlight correction - in this case, the reviewer printed a 44x60 print. And so I guess we can say the file quality is very good - when everything works out that is


PS. in the event that someone's interested, here's a link the RAW file in question; Download this RAW File from the Sony a9 http://bit.ly/2uKOufR

I tested the file myself and would add that it feels(not fully tested) as though the a9 sensor may have improved highlight recovery over the a7r II. - of which I plan on testing just as soon as the weather cooperates

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 07-05-2017 at 03:21 PM.

[Winder]

He is shooting the uncompressed 14-bit RAW so he should have a very good file to work with. I'm not sure it is better than the K-1 or the uncompressed A7R2, but I'm sure the RAW files have a lot of headroom. My A7II is pretty good, but its not as good as my K-1. The difference in DR and recovery is noticeable. At this point Sony has the advantage in modern lens selection. Between Sony and Zeiss they have covered everything but the long glass and I believe the 400mm is due out by the end of this year.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I just came across Jared Polins a9 RAW file criticism;

This SONY a9 RAW File Quality BLEW ME AWAY!! - YouTube

- Based on what I've seen, it would appear that the a9 RAW files handle better than with previous models? Though the reviewer doesn't say if this would include the a7r2. Which is of particular interest to me.

With that said, it would appear that the a9 RAW files are very good in terms of DR and shadow/highlight correction - in this case, the reviewer printed a 44x60 print. And so I guess we can say the file quality is very good - when everything works out that is


PS. in the event that someone's interested, here's a link the RAW file in question; Download this RAW File from the Sony a9 http://bit.ly/2uKOufR

I tested the file myself and would add that it feels(not fully tested) as though the a9 sensor may have improved highlight recovery over the a7r II. - of which I plan on testing just as soon as the weather cooperates

It really show where that new sensor shines. While the scene does not require such a fast shutter speed it give us insight to what the sensor can do. As you move to iso 800 you can see how much latitude you have for such a small exposure, this allows you to shoot at great DOF while holding a faster shutter speed and still giving you very good DR latitude. This is what the sensor was designed for better latitude for small exposures.

Previously we would be limited to shooting at shallower DOF to retain that level of DR. With this sensor we give up base iso DR for this. But from the looks of this sensor we have the same DR at iso 800and above as the 645z iso 800 and above without having to shoot at the shallow DOF that the 645z would require for that same level of DR.

[BigMackCam]

Based on what I've seen, it would appear that the a9 RAW files handle better than with previous models? Though the reviewer doesn't say if this would include the a7r2. Which is of particular interest to me.

The real bug-bear with Sony's ARW RAW files, for a long time, was that they were compressed (Polin mentions this in the video - it's now an option rather than a given). My Hasselblad HV (Sony A99) only offers compressed RAW files, whilst my firmware-updated A7 MkII can be set for compressed or uncompressed RAW (I use the uncompressed setting). In fact, the compressed RAW files have caused people to come unstuck in real-world situations (starry night skies etc.), and I've even come across it myself when recovering shadow areas by several stops - especially where there's a hard high-contrast change... dark edges will show colour noise and loss of detail, and shadow areas generally will become noisier than expected when pushed significantly in post-processing.

But, that was then and this is now. Uncompressed RAW is no different (so far as I can tell) than the RAW from Pentax cameras, and the only limitations now are the sensor and any signal processing. Given that the sensor in the A9 is undoubtedly improved over the various A7-series cameras with similar resolution, I'm not surprised (though, obviously, I'm impressed) that Jared Polin got such pleasing results from his RAW file The shot was taken at ISO 800, I think, and the dynamic range seems good considering this

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-06-2017 at 02:10 PM.

[Kunzite]

I don't get why Sony insist in offering either lossy compression, or no compression.
Pentax has the gist of it: lossless compression, smaller files but no data loss.

[Winder]

I don't get why Sony insist in offering either lossy compression, or no compression.
Pentax has the gist of it: lossless compression, smaller files but no data loss.

The same reason they offer JPEG. Not everyone needs uncompressed RAW. For some people the speed is more important.

[Kunzite]

You might want to read the question again

[Sliver-Surfer]

You might want to read the question again

The A9 shoots compressed raw at 20fps and shoots lossless uncompressed raw at a slower rate of 12fps.

[Winder]

The A9 shoots compressed raw at 20fps and shoots uncompressed at a slower rate of 12fps.

I think what he is getting at is that Sony doesn't offer lossless compressed. He is just not being direct with the question.

When Sony announced the uncompressed option in a firmware update for the A7rII, A7II, & A7sII they didn't offer compressed lossless due to limitation on the processing that could not be updated with firmware. Why they have not done it with the A9 and the new image processor? I don't know. The difference between the two files in terms of image quality only shows up in heavily processed images where you really, really push or pull the shadows/highlights and then crop in 100% to see the artifacts generated.

[BrianR]

The A9 shoots compressed raw at 20fps and shoots uncompressed at a slower rate of 12fps.

Also, it can shoot losslessly compressed raw at 0fps.

[Winder]

Also, it can shoot losslessly compressed raw at 0fps.

I think you mean 10fps.

[BrianR]

I think you mean 10fps.

I meant 0 as in "Zero" or "none". It was meant to be a joke about the lack of losslessly compressed raw, as in "the A9 can shoot losslessly compressed raw as fast as I can compose funny jokes".

[surfar]

Metabones and the Sigma adapters will need firmware updates,but its still good to see what it does prior.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[JohnBee]

Metabones and the Sigma adapters will need firmware updates,but its still good to see what it does prior.Sony a9 - Taking it to the Street to test Focus Tracking - YouTube

As I understand it, the mc-11 adapter isn't certified for Canon lenses. Which means that he wasn't using the right setup.

With that said, I would have loved to see some EF mount Sigma lenses with this particular setup however.

[surfar]

the mc-11 adapter isn't certified for Canon lenses. Which means that he wasn't using the right setup.

Not yet, and I suppose Sigma want to sell THEIR EF mount lenses so it may never be???

The TechArt Pro adapter works with the A9, not sure "how" well though???