A7Rii first impressions thread (incl RAW downloads)

[LeButler]

I was used to small single spot too, but changed my habits over the last two years with the A7. Not because it hunts a lot, I just get faster to good results with the tools like face detection, eye AF and lock-on AF in AF-C and wide focus area. If I need spot focus, I'll use medium size where AF works excellent (except those really few times where I need small size).

 

@LeButler: Besides I like the thing you portraied, it looks like a classic bad light situation. Is it better in good light? Did you have the hunting also with other subjects?

@Others: Can someone copy that?

 

Very true, you do need to adapt to alternative ways of shooting to get the most out of it.

No doubt using traditional techniques, a 7D mkII owner commented on "not great" autofocus within 10 seconds of picking it up.

 

Re: terrible AF on the staff. Light = 1/40th, F2.2, ISO 2000 to expose for black-on-black detail: only a 9W CFL in that internal hallway.

Although you might consider it an unusual scenario, this was a shot I genuinely needed to take (someone asked me about Cosplay prop making) - and it misbehaved really badly using standard focus methods. With Wide CAF of course, no problem at all.

[seb]

thanks mate, I ordered.

 

I know some guys that would love to hold that weapon.

[3dit0r]

I was all set to order, then had a play with two or three of the raw files from the PhotographyBlog samples.

 

Hm.

 

I already ran into what I believe must be that Sony raw compression issue, when not even pushing a file that hard (nowhere near as hard as some files from my E-M1, or X-T1) just to recover some highlights. I got some nasty pixellated rough artefacts round high-contrast edges. If it is that raw compression issue, in my opinion, that is ridiculous on a camera of this level. The highlight and shadow recovery is amazing, i.e. the dynamic range of the sensor, let me say that, but what use is it if it introduces very visible, difficult to remove, artefacts?

 

Not even sure if I'm going to order right now, until knowing whether there really is going to be a firmware fix for this. It's certainly made me think twice on a camera which retails for £2600 and which would be a major investment for me, including all the new, top tier glass I'd have to buy to make the most of it (probably closer to £5600 in the end).

 

I do push files quite hard sometimes, in landscape work, for example, when I want to extract as much dynamic range as possible from a file, and landscapes often have high contrast edges, around trees and such. I'd come to believe this issue was all hype from reading forum posts when many say it doesn't occur in 'real world' shots, but when I encounter it on the first few files I download and play with, I'm now not so convinced.

[Singingsnapper]

Here's one of my dog in the garden with the mk II and 70 -200 at 200 f/6.3 and ISO 200.  I shot at EV -1 and adjusted in LRCC.    Shot was handheld.  There is a full size (just under 30mp) mage there.  I cropped in a little and to 4:3 ratio. Was shot in single shot and AF-S.

 

Caesar in garden AR2 by singingsnapper, on Flickr

[bbphoto]

I was all set to order, then had a play with two or three of the raw files from the PhotographyBlog samples.

 

Hm.

 

I already ran into what I believe must be that Sony raw compression issue, when not even pushing a file that hard (nowhere near as hard as some files from my E-M1, or X-T1) just to recover some highlights. I got some nasty pixellated rough artefacts round high-contrast edges. If it is that raw compression issue, in my opinion, that is ridiculous on a camera of this level. The highlight and shadow recovery is amazing, i.e. the dynamic range of the sensor, let me say that, but what use is it if it introduces very visible, difficult to remove, artefacts?

 

Not even sure if I'm going to order right now, until knowing whether there really is going to be a firmware fix for this. It's certainly made me think twice on a camera which retails for £2600 and which would be a major investment for me, including all the new, top tier glass I'd have to buy to make the most of it (probably closer to £5600 in the end).

 

I do push files quite hard sometimes, in landscape work, for example, when I want to extract as much dynamic range as possible from a file, and landscapes often have high contrast edges, around trees and such. I'd come to believe this issue was all hype from reading forum posts when many say it doesn't occur in 'real world' shots, but when I encounter it on the first few files I download and play with, I'm now not so convinced.

This is definitely of some concern to me. I'm planning to pick mine up end of week and it, too, is a sizable investment for me. Like yourself, I tend to play quite a bit with files for landscape in particular. You have any examples of these instances? I know what you're talking about, but I'm curious and wouldn't mind seeing it. I really hope I'm not making a mistake buying one--hoping Sony will sort this out and soon!

[Singingsnapper]

I'm not convinced it's necessarily down to lossy raw.  I suspect its more down to how Sony sensors work, in conjunction with the processors in the camera manufacturers.  My A7RII is my back up camera.  My 'main' camera is a Pentax 645Z which has a Sony sensor.  Before that I had both the D800 and the D800E alongside the Kodak CCD sensor 645D.  I always shoot RAW and with the Nikons chose lossless compressed.

 

Banding in the highlights, particularly in a twilight or dawn sky has been a common theme with all the Sony sensored cameras, though to a lesser extent in my experience with the Nikon files - though I have changed the way I process images since I had the two Nikon bodies.  Some sensors are able to deal with shadows or highlights in a different way.  My experience with Canon 5D series (I, II and III) is that recovering detail from highlights is generally easier and a more painless with the Canon sensors, but the pain is felt in the shadows, which prompted my move to Nikon.  

 

Even with the 645Z I get artefacts in highlights where blue twilight/dawn sky meets the emerging or disappearing sun.  The cyan and blue errors have a tendency to posterise if pushed far or even at all in some instances.  I have found this with all the Sony sensor cameras - so D800/E, Pentax 645Z, A7R.  The conditions have been not conducive to these conditions since the UK summer this year is most like Autumn, so I don't know how it will respond, but I'd put my money on needing to shoot to protect highlights to keep this element at bay.  I can get more than 4 stops out of the shadows with the 645Z with little or no IQ penalty, and my experience with the A7R was very similar.  

 

I know that many pro photographers expose to the right, and advice people to do this.  With Sony sensors, I do the opposite.

 

My advice?  Keep your box and accessories, don't trade in before purchase if you are particularly concerned, and get into the camera and try to learn how to use it best.  Remember that processing is only part of the job, and it's also down to how the images are shot.  Mine will look dark on the VF and EVF, but I know from experience that I will be able to eek out detail from there, but that there is much less wriggle room in the highlights on any camera that I've had with a Sony sensor.  Check what your return rights are legally and by policy with your retailer. (In UK you can return something unopened within 7 days if it has been ordered via distance selling.  There is no right in the UK when buying on the high street to return something unless there is a manufacturing fault, though some retailers do allow it.)  You might have problems convincing a sceptical UK retailer that this is a fault rather than a 'feature'.  The sales of goods act in the UK is not necessarily the most consumer friendly.

 

YMMV, but that's my experience...

 

I'd like the team to get proper 14bit lossless ASAP.  But I will see how it behaves - hopefully the promised sun at the weekend will materialise and I can get some twilight shoots in...

[KlausH]

I was all set to order, then had a play with two or three of the raw files from the PhotographyBlog samples.

 

Hm.

 

I already ran into what I believe must be that Sony raw compression issue, when not even pushing a file that hard (nowhere near as hard as some files from my E-M1, or X-T1) just to recover some highlights. I got some nasty pixellated rough artefacts round high-contrast edges. ...

 

What RAW converter did you use? LR/ACR, Capture One,...?

[rickybanphotography]

I've had the issue related artefacts on 4 images out of 200. When it happens, yes a very slight push from any application highlights them. But i don't understand why it is rare and random. I will be very happy when Sony do lossless raw. Saying that, i am incredibly happy with the A7RII so far.

[3dit0r]

@bbphoto - I'm not at home now, away on business, but it was the shot through the open barn/garage doors with the trees in the background. When I pulled up the shadows - amazing, tons of detail and little or no noise. When I pulled back the highlights, I also got amazing recovery - all the detail and colour tone in the sky came back, but also immediately saw the artefacts where the window meets sky (top right). If you grab the raw file and try it in LR I'm sure you'll be able to replicate.

 

@singinsnapper - I'm not 100% sure it's that, but it does look very similar to examples I've seen. To be clear, this is not banding, which my 5Dmkii suffered terribly from in shadows, but a definite, pixelated, oddly coloured artefact only in high contrast transitions. I've not personally noticed anything like it on my other sensors on Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Olympus cameras. Every sensor has its issues, but this compression just seems crazy - Sony could just change the algorithm to a properly lossless one like every other manufacturer, surely.

 

@KlausH, it was LR. If C1 handles this differently I could try. I own it due to problems with LR processing Fuji files! To be honest, I wouldn't be keen to have another finnicky camera in regard to raw processor, this was partly to get away from that.

 

@rickyban - thanks for putting it in perspective. I just feel that a camera in this price range shouldn't have a fundamental issue with raw at all, not when it's only a question of software/processing. It's competing with top pro bodies, many of which are now available considerably cheaper new. Sony need to sort this, in my opinion. It has put me off I must say, the only way this was going to be worth the expenditure changing systems was as a 'no compromise' FF camera. It's so close, but then has this silly flaw which has the potential to affect a lot of what I shoot (another reason was to get back into landscape astrophotographers). I'll have to have a much deeper think about whether to order now, such a shame!

[Singingsnapper]

@bbphoto - I'm not at home now, away on business, but it was the shot through the open barn/garage doors with the trees in the background. When I pulled up the shadows - amazing, tons of detail and little or no noise. When I pulled back the highlights, I also got amazing recovery - all the detail and colour tone in the sky came back, but also immediately saw the artefacts where the window meets sky (top right). If you grab the raw file and try it in LR I'm sure you'll be able to replicate.

 

@singinsnapper - I'm not 100% sure it's that, but it does look very similar to examples I've seen. To be clear, this is not banding, which my 5Dmkii suffered terribly from in shadows, but a definite, pixelated, oddly coloured artefact only in high contrast transitions. I've not personally noticed anything like it on my other sensors on Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Olympus cameras. Every sensor has its issues, but this compression just seems crazy - Sony could just change the algorithm to a properly lossless one like every other manufacturer, surely.

 

@KlausH, it was LR. If C1 handles this differently I could try. I own it due to problems with LR processing Fuji files! To be honest, I wouldn't be keen to have another finnicky camera in regard to raw processor, this was partly to get away from that.

 

@rickyban - thanks for putting it in perspective. I just feel that a camera in this price range shouldn't have a fundamental issue with raw at all, not when it's only a question of software/processing. It's competing with top pro bodies, many of which are now available considerably cheaper new. Sony need to sort this, in my opinion. It has put me off I must say, the only way this was going to be worth the expenditure changing systems was as a 'no compromise' FF camera. It's so close, but then has this silly flaw which has the potential to affect a lot of what I shoot (another reason was to get back into landscape astrophotographers). I'll have to have a much deeper think about whether to order now, such a shame!

This is what I mean by banding.  Not the type of shadow banding that I had with the 5D3...

[Guest all8]

 If you grab the raw file and try it in LR I'm sure you'll be able to replicate.

 

 

I'm curious to try this ... where can I get this RAW file again?

[3dit0r]

@singingsnapper - cool, thanks for clarifying, those are useful thoughts - perhaps not raw compression then, but a sensor/pipeline issue?

 

@timde - go here http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_a7r_ii_photos/ and scroll down to raw samples, it's the one taken inside a garage/barn door with glass windows looking out into trees that I used. Pull the highlights right down and look at the upper right window where strong daylight shines through. It's not as bad as I've seen on some examples, but definitely there. In another way, though, try pulling up shadows 100%. Amazingly clean, that aspect impressed me a lot.

[bbphoto]

@singingsnapper - cool, thanks for clarifying, those are useful thoughts - perhaps not raw compression then, but a sensor/pipeline issue?

 

@timde - go here http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_a7r_ii_photos/ and scroll down to raw samples, it's the one taken inside a garage/barn door with glass windows looking out into trees that I used. Pull the highlights right down and look at the upper right window where strong daylight shines through. It's not as bad as I've seen on some examples, but definitely there. In another way, though, try pulling up shadows 100%. Amazingly clean, that aspect impressed me a lot.

 

Just tried this myself and found verrrry little pixelation/artifacts in the most blown out of all the highlights in tiny window at 2x. I see what you mean, but I found that when I lowered highlights 100% in LR (to find those ugly bits), the sky was restored very beautifully. Not to mention those shadows! Man they look good. I'm pretty stoked so far. I'm certain I'll be disappointed at some point when I push my astro/twilight shots and get posterization, banding or some other kind of artifacts, but hey, so far so good,

[Singingsnapper]

I don't think it is an "issue" or fault with the sensor.  I think it is a characteristic.  All the sony sensors have great DR, but they are less forgiving in the highlights, particularly in the blues.  Just means you have to expose carefully, and also process sensitively.  

 

You can see it here in this smallish jpg this is MK I A7R

 

Swansea Bay twilight copy by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

You can make out the stepping a little here too in this jpg from 645Z

 

Duffryn Valley at Twilight-4 web by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

You can see it here with the D800E, though this is handheld at 6400ISO

 

London-Big-Ben-2 by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

Stepping in a big way here in a long exposure at ISO 100 on the 645Z with a few filters - 

 

colour-evening-steelworks-3 by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

It is a characteristic, and an unwelcome one, but exposing and processing carefully helps control it...

 

Having said that, I wouldn't be without my 645Z.  The pliability of the files is amazing, and its one of the reasons why I went down the A7R /R II route for a lightweight/back up model/easier to climb a mountain with camera.  I have a small manfrotto tripod, little grey and red one that will fit in a shoulder bag that will do the job nicely if it's not too windy...

[apasquini]

Test Video 2: https://youtu.be/0o6olPXUcNU

[Philber]

I picked up my own A7R II yesterday evening, and could only shoot a few frames, but a direct comparison seems to show that the newer camera exposes around 1 stop brighter than the A7R, which can ldea to some over-exposed shots. Anyone see that as well?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[3dit0r]

Just tried this myself and found verrrry little pixelation/artifacts in the most blown out of all the highlights in tiny window at 2x. I see what you mean, but I found that when I lowered highlights 100% in LR (to find those ugly bits), the sky was restored very beautifully. Not to mention those shadows! Man they look good. I'm pretty stoked so far. I'm certain I'll be disappointed at some point when I push my astro/twilight shots and get posterization, banding or some other kind of artifacts, but hey, so far so good,

Yes, I did mention it's not as bad as some examples I've seen. I think I was a bit irked it was there on the first raw file I tried pushing at all, and I just don't think it should be there when it's likely avoidable by just using truly lossless compression.

 

Although in that particular image a bit of Photoshop would help, and it's not in a prominent part of the image, that doesn't mean it necessarily would be in other images. I'm having a think about it and holding off a couple of weeks now until we have more in-depth, objective reviews, as it would be a large investment for me.

 

I completely agree that shadow and highlight recovery (minus this issue) is incredible!

[KlausH]

...

Hm.

 

I already ran into what I believe must be that Sony raw compression issue, when not even pushing a file that hard (nowhere near as hard as some files from my E-M1, or X-T1) just to recover some highlights. I got some nasty pixellated rough artefacts round high-contrast edges. If it is that raw compression issue, in my opinion, that is ridiculous on a camera of this level. The highlight and shadow recovery is amazing, i.e. the dynamic range of the sensor, let me say that, but what use is it if it introduces very visible, difficult to remove, artefacts?...

 

I downloaded the file and opened it in Capture One Pro 8.3. Even in 200% pixel peeping I see a very clean result with no visible arte facts at high-contrast edges.

In the HDR tab I have set highlight and shadow recovery to 100%. It is amazing now to get a blue sky with clouds and also texture in the deepest shadows with these settings.

Here is another discussion about ACR vs Capture One. It sounds to me that C1 gives cleaner results.

[jayteepix]

I was all set to order, then had a play with two or three of the raw files from the PhotographyBlog samples.

 

Hm.

 

I already ran into what I believe must be that Sony raw compression issue, when not even pushing a file that hard (nowhere near as hard as some files from my E-M1, or X-T1) just to recover some highlights. I got some nasty pixellated rough artefacts round high-contrast edges. If it is that raw compression issue, in my opinion, that is ridiculous on a camera of this level. The highlight and shadow recovery is amazing, i.e. the dynamic range of the sensor, let me say that, but what use is it if it introduces very visible, difficult to remove, artefacts?

 

Not even sure if I'm going to order right now, until knowing whether there really is going to be a firmware fix for this. It's certainly made me think twice on a camera which retails for £2600 and which would be a major investment for me, including all the new, top tier glass I'd have to buy to make the most of it (probably closer to £5600 in the end).

 

I do push files quite hard sometimes, in landscape work, for example, when I want to extract as much dynamic range as possible from a file, and landscapes often have high contrast edges, around trees and such. I'd come to believe this issue was all hype from reading forum posts when many say it doesn't occur in 'real world' shots, but when I encounter it on the first few files I download and play with, I'm now not so convinced.

 

This seems to be the point in this thread where Sony raw compression is raised and further augmented by later posters....

 

So as the originator of this point, could you please expand on what you mean by "that raw compression issue" ?

 

It is my understanding that there is no compression of raw (still) data out of the A7R2 lossy or otherwise - on reading this I checked with Sony support and they agreed that there isn't but that there is lossy compression of 4K video if using the full sensor.

 

It would be much appreciated if you and the other posters which follow in this thread could explain your source and thinking on this matter as I believe people may be waiting for a firmware update that quite possibly won't be coming.

I probably don't know enough in this area, so forgive me asking this question for anyone on here to answer.

 

If my A7RMII has a 42MP sensor AND I am getting 42+ MP / 42 MB raw images on my card, what is being compressed??

[5StringBuzz]

I have several stabilized lenses, so I'm curious about how those will work with or against the built-in stabilization on the R2. Do they play nice together?

[easycass]

This seems to be the point in this thread where Sony raw compression is raised and further augmented by later posters....

 

So as the originator of this point, could you please expand on what you mean by "that raw compression issue" ?

 

It is my understanding that there is no compression of raw (still) data out of the A7R2 lossy or otherwise - on reading this I checked with Sony support and they agreed that there isn't but that there is lossy compression of 4K video if using the full sensor.

 

It would be much appreciated if you and the other posters which follow in this thread could explain your source and thinking on this matter as I believe people may be waiting for a firmware update that quite possibly won't be coming.

I probably don't know enough in this area, so forgive me asking this question for anyone on here to answer.

 

If my A7RMII has a 42MP sensor AND I am getting 42+ MP / 42 MB raw images on my card, what is being compressed??

 

The A7Rii manual indicates that the format is Sony ARW 2.3 (see page 98 in the UK version). This would indicate the normal Sony lossy compression, so I believe.

 

Here was an in-depth article, if you care to read it, with credits to the authors at the page itself: http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

 

Whether it affects an individual or not seems to depend on scene, contrast, graduation of colour, how much the image is pushed in post-processing, and mostly, how close you are viewing the image. It may not affect every shot, and may not affect every person...

 

Hope that helps...

[Guest all8]

@singingsnapper - cool, thanks for clarifying, those are useful thoughts - perhaps not raw compression then, but a sensor/pipeline issue?

 

@timde - go here http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/sony_a7r_ii_photos/ and scroll down to raw samples, it's the one taken inside a garage/barn door with glass windows looking out into trees that I used. Pull the highlights right down and look at the upper right window where strong daylight shines through. It's not as bad as I've seen on some examples, but definitely there. In another way, though, try pulling up shadows 100%. Amazingly clean, that aspect impressed me a lot.

 

Hello,

 

thanks, this was with Capture One ... keep in mind that the highlights are completely blown which would not help in any case ... so I don't actually see a problem, but I've had two beers! First is from RAW, second with with 100% Highlight recovery.

[Guest all8]

 

 

 

If my A7RMII has a 42MP sensor AND I am getting 42+ MP / 42 MB raw images on my card, what is being compressed??

 

A MP is a Mega Pixel and a MB is a Mega Byte. Not the same thing.

 

Sony RAW files are compressed in a potentially lossy way, most other cameras do not do that, they use a lossless compression. Google will happily answer all questions on that topic, or just search here on "Max the Dog" and prepare to become stupid.

 

Bottom line, it creates problems some times for some people, those people are "special" and should just use a MF camera ... for us mere mortals, we need not worry, the camera is more awesome than we will ever be ...   

[Singingsnapper]

A MP is a Mega Pixel and a MB is a Mega Byte. Not the same thing.

 

Sony RAW files are compressed in a potentially lossy way, most other cameras do not do that, they use a lossless compression. Google will happily answer all questions on that topic, or just search here on "Max the Dog" and prepare to become stupid.

 

Bottom line, it creates problems some times for some people, those people are "special" and should just use a MF camera ... for us mere mortals, we need not worry, the camera is more awesome than we will ever be ...   

The reality is that you will get some these issues even with some medium format cameras as I have stated above, so potentially some of the Phase One 50 and Hassy 50 too that use the same Sony sensor as the Pentax 645Z (these cameras use either uncompressed or lossless compressed).  I'm still unconvinced that it is wholly down to 'lossy' compressed raw.  Still to test my camera in the right conditions as it won't stop raining here in Wales....

[3dit0r]

@timde yeah, my eye picked that up without even looking at 100%, I'm just on my iPhone right now. It looks like bad CA, with ugly aliasing, not a great enhancement to an image, I feel.

 

Lol, yes, "Special" people also pay £2600 for a camera and more for great lenses because they care about the finest image reproduction. If they don't care, or can't see a difference, they're not the target demographic for such a tool?

 

I genuinely don't understand Sony's thought process here - very clearly they are intent on knocking Canon and Nikon off their perch and attracting all their pro users over, and in practically every way they've done that with this A7rii body. Why even risk that some of those targeted users won't move because of something so silly as not having proper lossless compression? How long would it really take some of the fine minds at Sony to fix what is essentially a glorified bit of math?