Preview - Sony announces the 400/2.8 FE

A RAW image is not optimized for anything - it is what it is. However RAW files can be overexposed, and the real-time histogram (also on review) tells you immediately if something is overexposed. RAW files in the A7ii and A7Rii are limited to 12 bit depth if hight speed or silent shutter is used. In the A9, A7iii and A7Riii, all files are 14 bit, regardless of the shutter setting.

 

 

Ed, my friend, I missed that in the thread, about "RAW images not optimized". I couldn't find the context in the thread. I agree with you, a RAW file is data. Yes, you can blow out a RAW file, where there stops being differences between either highlights or blacks. However, to the extent that you can expose to the right, without blowing out critical highlights, you get a larger file, with more data. You can then normalize the file by bringing the overall level down, or highlights down, or overall down and shadow up, spot adjust, etc., etc

 

A RAW file can be under or over-exposed, but it's dynamic range typically exceeds the DR of the in-camera JPEG, so the blinkies or zebra may be saying over-exposed, meaning that the JPEG is over-exposed, but not necessarily the RAW file.

In the A9, A7iii and A7Riii, all files are 14 bit, regardless of the shutter setting.

 

According to Jim Kasson, the A9 drops to 12-bit mode when used in continuous mode.

 

Sony a9 precision

 

As for the scene disconnect that Dieter mentioned, I also find that to be the case with EVFs. My style of photographing people relies on studying the subject's face and emotional clues to decide, when to capture shots. When I tried the A9 in a store, the fluorescent lighting caused an effect where there was a band that rolled slowly from top of the image to the bottom and this would continue again from the top. I found this extremely distracting. When studying the facial features of the subject, I get distracting by the movement of the pixels in high contrast boundaries as the subject moves slightly within the frame, also the viewfinder sometimes shows a horizontal line and then it disappears, sometimes there is "flashing" etc. To me this kind of viewfinder artifacts make the camera a complete non-starter. However, in continuous high frame rate shooting the A9 viewfinder image was very pleasing compared to high frame rates (12fps) on a DSLR. For someone (else) who relies on high frame rate photography I have no doubt the A9 is an excellent choice. For me, I want to reduce the number of frames I capture, rather than increase it, so that I don't have to spend so much time editing and post-processing images. This means more time spent studying the scene and fewer actual exposures and I find the process more pleasing and effective with an OVF.

 

I've been following the development of EVFs as I would like to have a camera with silent capability, but every time I come disappointed from the store. I want photography to be enjoyable and not a sickening experience. It may be that I'm looking at the subject in a different way than others because this happens to me. I study intently the emotional clues of the subject. With OVF, there is no problem with this, it's similar to studying the subject with naked eyes (apart from the depth of field and magnification which are different). If I do it with an EVF or even a 4K television screen, I end up feeling sick. The spray and pray approach to capturing good expression doesn't work for me. Or it works but I find the editing burden too much and it doesn't satisfy my requirement of elegance in the process. To someone else the mirror going up and down, creating a sound, is not elegant, and I can see their point. But the OVF is what I've grown up with and I cannot do my thing using an EVF.

 

I fully understand that some have the opposite perspective and prefer the EVF. That's what is nice about this time and age in photography; people have the choice of either technology. Soon that there is the 400/2.8 GM available, wildlife and sports photographers will have this choice available. It's interesting to see how the reaction is in practical use. Irrespective of the merits of the equipment, I suspect any change in the equipment used by professional sports photographers will be slow. Nonetheless there is no doubt that high frame rate photography with silent shutter is a major advance and in some applications these new kits will certainly make an appearance.

ilkka, I also suspect you're unlikely to use a 400mm lens for your type of photography. You're in a totally different world from those of us that need 400mm and more. ;-)

BTW, the a9 at 20-fps is in compressed file mode and the files suffer in relation to uncompressed files. Most times, the lost DR doesn't matter when those fps, but I don't habitually leave mine at 20-fps. You can see it in files with lots of dynamic range.

A minor correction. RAW files are reduced to 12 bit (instead of 14 bit) when shooting at high speed, with or without the electronic shutter. You can choose separately whether all RAW images are compressed or not, choose JPEG or both. The buffer has less capacity if the files are uncompressed, but this is not a problem if you limit shooting to shiort bursts at the anticipated peak of action. You can watch the buffer fill and deflate on a bar chart in the viewfinder.

It's fairly clear that there is no panacea for anything. We buy systems on balance. If the average photographer compared mirrorless to DSLR, without being affected by public opinion, they would more likely choose mirrorless. It just makes sense.

 

But some people simply have no choice. Dieter wears photochromic glasses. Even if he wanted an EVF, he would not be able to use one.

 

If I wanted a DSLR that maximized image quality, and I didn't care about speed, I'd buy a Leica S. SLRs can work, but the bigger the mirror, the better the VF. My second choice would be Pentax. But I don't want a DSLR. There is no point in forcing a film paradigm onto digital technology.

 

In any case, in the future, there will be more 35mm SLRs than DSLRs in common usage.

Photochromic glasses darken when exposed to ultraviolet light, but simply reduce the intensity of light through the viewfinder. They do not polarize light, which would interfere with the visibility of some LCD displays.

 

Using polarized glasses has no effect on the viewfinder of a Sony camera, other than uniform attenuation. Rotating the glasses or finder has no effect. There is a noticeable color shift with orientation of the rear LCD, but not the EVF. While all LCD displays depend on polarization, Sony apparently negates this effect, probably with a quarter wave element, like in a circular polarizing filter.

 

Optical finders which incorporate semi-reflective mirrors polarize the light, which may strongly affect use of polarized glasses or filters. Nikon cameras I own use micro-perforations in the mirror, rather than a semi-reflective portion, so there is no adverse affect using polarizing glasses. Prisms use total internal reflection, which does not polarize light either (except on quantum scale). Penta-mirrors may use a dichroic coating, which may be polarizing. You still need circular polarizing filters on a mirrorless camera, to avoid interference with focusing and exposure detection.

 

As an aside, it is very hard to judge the effect of polarizing filters on s Sony. The brighness of the finder adjusts automatically, which masks the effect of turning the filter. It is also hard to see the sun through the EVF. It is greyed out, along with sun stars you may wish to capture.

 

.

In any case, in the future, there will be more 35mm SLRs than DSLRs in common usage

just as there are more mp3 players that DAT players. what’s your point, oh-sooth-sayer?

There are surprising depths of technological fanaticism on view whenever DSLR and mirrorless discussions come together, aren't there?

just as there are more mp3 players that DAT players. what’s your point, oh-sooth-sayer?

To be consistent with the original analogy, old > new, the audio parallel would be "more CD players than DAT machines." In that respect, the future is here. You could even compare "Vinyl record players v DAT players." There is something oddly nostalgic about both vinyl and film ;)