How much do you care about lossless 14-bit raw?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Cameras' started by Amin Sabet, Aug 24, 2015.

  1. Deal breaker. Won't buy a camera without it.

    1 vote(s)
  2. I want it badly. Shame that our cameras are crippled.

    3 vote(s)
  3. I'd like it and find it genuinely important. Not a huge deal to me though.

    8 vote(s)
  4. Would be nice to have but is of minimal practical importance to me.

    17 vote(s)
  5. No practical importance to me, but I'd like to have it just so people would stop talking about it.

    12 vote(s)
  6. Really couldn't care less about this.

    4 vote(s)
  7. What are you talking about? Haven't heard anything about this.

    0 vote(s)
  8. Other.

    0 vote(s)
  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    • Like Like x 1
  2. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Aug 22, 2012
    Somewhere between "No practical importance to me, but I'd like to have it just so people would stop talking about it" and "Really couldn't care less about this" for me.

    This was one of the endless arguments that made me decide to stop posting at DPR.
  3. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012

    I'm with: "Would be nice to have but is of minimal practical importance to me".
  4. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Well...I've seen posterization (sp?) in my images before and it's annoyed me.

    But there's no other system that let's me use these beautiful MF lenses and that trumps just about everything else.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Voted for option 3: important but not a deal-breaker. It won't stop me from using my A7 (which can also be forced to show the artefacts) but it's a shame that it's there. It won't stop me buying another A7 series camera either although I think this really shouldn't occur in a € 3500 camera like the A7RM2. I'm more concerned about the low-quality EVF image at 5x magnification and also reports on FE 24-70mm copies that don't seem to play well with the A7RM2. I've had my share of difficulties to push my FE lenses to near-optimum sharpness on the A7 and I'm really not waiting to go through that again.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. nstelemark

    nstelemark TalkEmount Regular

    Oct 19, 2013
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. SpaceManSpiff

    SpaceManSpiff TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Dec 13, 2013
    Tucson, AZ
    Thanks Amin, I have been curious about this issue for some time now.

    I have been content with the latitude in the RAW files from my NEX-6...but I don't have anything else to compare with (I have no RAW experience from another manufacturer). As I have been thinking quite a bit about upgrading to full-frame...I read up on this as I wanted to be informed before I handicapped myself getting an A7ii instead of a loss-less Canikon. :coffee-26: I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything out of ignorance. :daz:

    The lack of discussion about it on this forum suggested that perhaps it wasn't as big a deal as you would think it was if you had been spending a lot of time over at DP review.

    Would I like to have loss-less RAW as an option? Sure. Why not?...maybe I will find that in some situations IQ of my images could benefit from a loss-less RAW.

    Do I need loss-less RAW for what I am shooting now? I don't think so. Real-world images looked fine to my eyes. Images with artifacts that I have seen from the Sony's lossy compression scheme have had the shadows pushed 5-6 stops.... In my limited shooting experience, if I have to push the shadows by that much, I screwed up the exposure...and plenty of other aspects of that image are going to be off. But I do not have the full technical knowledge, perhaps, to fully understand the implications of this lossy vs loss-RAW discussion.

    For me, the advantages of the mirror less system (EVF, wysiwyg, ease of use when manual focusing, etc.) outweigh any small impacts to IQ.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Danske

    Danske TalkEmount Rookie

    Aug 16, 2015
    I honestly don't even know what it means, although the complaints have enlightened me somewhat.

    ....still don't care though.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
  10. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    That's the thing: I don't recall ever pushing any file to such extremes and still ending up with a pleasing photograph. So for me, lossless raw would add nothing to the technical quality of my photos. And if lossy raw significantly speeds up the camera's data processing, that's a trade off I'm happy to make.
  11. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Nov 21, 2014
    My feelings are...

    1) If all people can think about to complain about a camera is 'lossy raw' and '300 shot battery life', it must be a pretty fine camera.

    2) I think Sony should have 'lossless raw' because 'lossy raw' is an oxymoron.

    3) I wont use 'lossless raw' if and when it is introduced.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    I always used compressed DNG on the Leica M240. Some people talked about artifacts with that too, even though nominally it was lossless, but I never bothered with uncompressed. Probably wouldn't bother with it given the option with the Sony, either, but I agree they should give us the option (though I don't feel strongly about it).
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Alex66

    Alex66 TalkEmount Regular

    Dec 23, 2014
    I have not really noticed it causing any issues in my work so its not a big concern but if an uncompressed file was an option I would use it just because it saves the maximum data. No sleep would be lost over it, the quality of the camera is quite superb (A7 mk1) so why worry. I wonder if some of the commentators are desperately trying to find something to knock the cameras but can not find anything else.
  14. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 1, 2015
    I haven't read all the posts but I did see that my vote was among the majority right now. My feeling (and my recent experience) is that the latest processors are doing wonders with JPG images. I will still shoot RAW + large/fine JPGs, and will use RAW files for special cases, but those JPGs seem to be really well processed. It's for this reason that I don't expect my frequent use of 14bit Lossless.
  15. Bill

    Bill TalkEmount Veteran

    Oct 22, 2012
    Brisbane, Australia
    Compressed "raw" seems to be a tactic to improve throughput. With an EVF to drive, contrast detect focusing, as well as tracking, face recognition, eye focusing, etc, throughput is VERY important. If lossy compression is the trade-off at this point, it seems worthwhile.

    It would be nice if uncompressed raw was an option. I suspect, however, that it can't be done without reconfiguring many other things.

    There's no such thing as the perfect camera, but the A7r II seems to be quite a leap forward.
  16. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Aug 6, 2011
    • Like Like x 1
  17. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
  18. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Nov 21, 2014
    I do agree that at the very least a non-lossy raw should be available to those that want it.

    However, I thought it interesting in the comments section that 'Rishi' who wrote the article said something along the lines of 'the thing that makes the A7r2 furthest from the perfect camera for me, is the lock on af is nowhere near as good as the 3D continuous tracking with Nikon'.

    To me this comment puts the whole issue in perspective. Yes it has been probably been a poor product feature choice by Sony but, even someone who presumably understands it, considers it a relatively 'minor' 'poor choice'.

    Against that I would consider the lack of wifi or tilting screen that we often dont find in high end cameras a far greater omission. (And that is without mentioning face recognition, 4k video, ibis etc..).

    To me the lack of minimum shutter speed in auto iso was the closest that Sony came to an unnecessary deal breaker in previous A7 and thankfully that has been resolved in the A7r2.
  19. storyteller

    storyteller TalkEmount Veteran

    Sep 25, 2011
    A prediction: Sony will implement lossless RAW in at least the A7RII (possibly the A7II) and most users who are reporting the artifacts will STILL see the same artifacts. Sony's sensors are amazing but pushing the RAW files to their breaking point or using a processor that isn't properly profiled for the camera (ahem, ACR) is just going to cause issues. That's true for ALL digital cameras.

    I'm so tired of this issue. Not because it isn't real but because so many people upset about it don't really understand it.
  20. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 1, 2015
    Well I don't fully understand it, but then I'm not complaining about it! :)
    • Like Like x 1