Sony Alpha Series with Lossy RAW files ,-(

[Luis Filipe Cunha]

Hi, this is my first post but not my first visit to this excellent website full of useful information. Thank you for that.

I´m in the mood for switch from the Canon 5D system to the Sony Alpha (A7r) system, keeping part of my Canon and Carl Zeiss glass. Canon DSLRs, in spite of their robust semi-pro bodies, reached a point for me with more "cons" than "pros": too heavy, too expensive to upgrade with small benefits (body and glass), less dynamic range, less megapixels (5DMIII), or a lot of megapixels (5Ds/R) but the same "low" dynamic range, no 4K in camera (I also do commercial video), etc.
My camera (5DMIII) is still a well balanced photo/video camera but outdated in 2015. Better photos with Nikons and better video with Sony and Panasonic (or even BMD, etc).

My main concern is on the photographic side. I usually find problems like posterization and banding while working with RAW files (Do not work with jpeg). Is the problem, the low 11 bit Canon files vs the 14 bit Nikon/Sony files?

Still I´ve this doubt about the lossy way Sony manage the RAW files.
Here´s is the explanation:
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/so...tion-detection

This is a disappointment because A Sony A7R is cheaper, less heavy and allow to use legacy manual glass (I own some) than a Nikon D810...
Is this Lossy RAW treatment really bad? Really visible?
Would like very much to have the opinion of this forum.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Regards.

[Manfred M]

I can't comment on the camera you are looking at, but I can't see why anyone would need to use the marginal space advantage of lossy compression, given the low cost of storage (cards and hard disks). With my camera I use lossless compression 100% of the time for RAW files; this saves space and decreases transfer time to the computer and while there is a slight downside to decompressing the data. I might think about running lossy compression if I were short on memory cards, but I've never had that happen (I always carry more than I expect to use).

I'd have to see the posterization issues you are getting, but the only time I ever ran into issues here was with 8-bit jpegs, and then only in instances of very heavy duty edits. I can't ever remember having issues with my 12-bit and 14-bit RAW files.

Again, post the files and we can look at them.

[loosecanon]

Welcome Luis

The grass is always greener the other side of the fence. I think you confuse reviews of dynamic range and the output format of raw files. You don't mention performance at higher ISO's, or quality of colour, etc etc, or even handling of the tool that a camera is. I have never found a problem with posterization or banding with images from my Canon 5D III. Canon still are the innovators in lens design - though they like everyone still sell lenses designed many years ago as well as cutting edge stuff.

Since Sony decided to develop a system camera from the old Mintola it has come up with several options, different mounts, few new lens designs etc. Its anyones guess how long Sony will develop new bodies for some of these systems before they are mothballed to oblivion.

[Luis Filipe Cunha]

Thank you very much for you reply GrumpyDiver.
I cannot show any files because I rework them with less filters (I use Nik filters) and less "heavy edit", as you say until I see no problem and the final result work for my purposes.

What camera do you use? The same?

[Luis Filipe Cunha]

Thank you LooseCanon.
What´s is you opinion about that (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/so...tion-detection) article?

[Manfred M]

Thank you very much for you reply GrumpyDiver.
I cannot show any files because I rework them with less filters (I use Nik filters) and less "heavy edit", as you say until I see no problem and the final result work for my purposes.

What camera do you use? The same?

I have three DSLR cameras; a Nikon D800, a Panasonic GX7 and a Nikon D90 that my daughter has "borrowed" from me, so I rarely shoot it any more. Over the past year I shot mostly with the Panasonic, but have reverted to shooting with the D800 more and more.

I have the Nik filters and I use them with Photoshop CC 2014. I usually only use Color Efex Pro 4 and occasionally I will use Silver Efex Pro 2. Mostly I use nothing other than Adobe Camera RAW (or occasionally a different RAW converter) and Photoshop CC 2014 for my work. I have Lightroom, but use it to sort my images occasionally; I find the ACR -> Photoshop workflow more to my taste.

I've looked at the link to Rawdigger and I really don't see what value that program adds to ones workflow. If my data is so far off that I get artifacts, I will find a different workaround.

Sony makes some innovative products, but as far as I am concerned I don't find their products particularly exciting. I've had a chance to use a NEX-7 and one of the crop frame Alphas (I can't remember the model). Nice enough, but not cameras I would likely buy.

[Luis Filipe Cunha]

As far as I could read during the last two years; today (2015) a Nikon D800/810 like yours delivers better RAW files than any Canon camera. My attention to Sony is only because using similar sensors, one can pay less and carry less weight. Both aspect are important to me. My budget is tight and my bones don't like DSLR´s ,-(
But it seems its not true. Sony is not Nikon even using what seems the same sensor. The way the RAW is processed by each brand is different.

We use similar software.
I´m sure you use also decent lenses.
You´ve a better body. You've shaper files, better DR and you can process your RAW files better than me, because they allow.

I could gladly switch to Nikon but neither the price nor the weight aspect would be solved. Also I do macro with a very special and unique lens (Canon MP-E 65mm) and with a Nikon body its impossible to use it. Possible with a Sony mirrorless.
Its a puzzle ,-)

[Manfred M]

Also I do macro with a very special and unique lens (Canon MP-E 65mm) and with a Nikon body its impossible to use it. Possible with a Sony mirrorless.
Its a puzzle ,-)

Canon uses a very short lens flange to sensor distance (I believe it is the shortest of any DSLR), so if is not possible to use Canon lenses on any non-Canon DSLRs. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras have an even smaller lens to flange distance than Canon DSLRs, so it is quite simple to have an adapter that provides the proper offset (i.e. the adapter made to the right thickness so that the distance from the lens flange to the sensor, with adaptor is the same as on an EOS type DSLR).

The only thing that I don't know is how well the the Sony focusing screen works for manual focus lenses. I personally find that the camera manufacturers assume autofocus lenses so the screens are terrible for manual focus. I have a focus indicator on the D800 that signals that the image is in focus on a manual lens. The D90, on the other hand has nothing and is terrible to work with. The Panasonic GX7 has focus peaking, so again, it's fairly simple to focus manually.

[Luis Filipe Cunha]

I use manual Zeiss glass. There´s a green spot for focus confirmation, in the Canon 5DMIII. Like your Nikon. This doesn´t work when working with the back screen in live view. The only add is the 10x magnification. The macro lens MP-E 65mm (5:1) is also a manual only lens.
Having an EVF+electronic back screen for live view the Sony have focus peaking. Its a nice add I think.

[Manfred M]

If you have either a focus indicator or focus peaking, that will certainly do the job. I use the rear screen magnification method when doing night shots as well; it works but really impacts battery life if I keep it up for too long; but that's why I carry spare batteries too.