Why do people put up with Sony's LOSSY compressed RAW files?
HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO HAVE AN OPTION TO TOGGLE COMPRESSION OF RAW FILES ON AND OFF?
I have a fast 128GB card, I don't care about file size. Why is Sony always so fucking cancerous?
http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
>>2835193
If you're in some shithole in the Middle East or something and you have to transmit your shit to a photo desk with a janky satellite antenna thing (but why would you be using a Sony then?), you might be able to send compressed raw files instead of jpegs, depending on how much space is saved with the compression. Can't think of other reasons to enable raw compression other than in that specific scenario.
>using a A7 or A6000 or A6300
you deserve this
buy the latest and greatest
t. sony sales and marketing
>>2835203
it's all Sony cameras.
>>2835198
>>2835200
>subhuman tripfagging chink has to delete his post just to change his shitpost to be able middle east
>Can't think of other reasons to enable raw compression
>enable raw compression
>chink in charge of reading comprehension
there's no option to enable or disable it. that's the point of the OP. It's on by default and can't be turned off. Now go back your snapshit instagram hipster filter """photography""".
>>2835206
>to be able
to be about
>there's no option to enable or disable it.
Just don't buy a Sony then. Easy.
>>2835213
Nothing mirrorless comes close to the a6300 in the same price point.
Only Fuji, but then you have bigger problems with the raw workflow.
2nd gen A7 already fixed this issue. Kill yourself OP.
>>2835228
a6300 still compressing their shit with no uncompressed option
>>2835225
>Nothing mirrorless comes close to the a6300 in the same price point.
>Only Fuji, but then you have bigger problems with the raw workflow.
1. Use the camera you're complaining about
2. Use some other camera
3. Don't take pictures at all
Narrowed it down to 3 options for you.
>>2835193
>>2835203
>>2835230
Under what circumstances have you ever had issues with a compressed raw file? I use an a7r and an a6300, and I push the raw files like crazy, I have yet to see a single compression artifact.
The only times people find these artifacts are retarded autists, that use pixel peeping programs to amplify compression, in the real world it's not an issue
>>2835253
>he hasn't heard of posterization issues with Sony's compressed RAWs
>laughingsonyexecutives.jpg
>>2835255
He probably shoots in undemanding situations, or lacks a critical eye and the visual savvy.
Probably both, since he shoots Sony.
>>2835302
>But then you're also not taking pictures while discussing that with me, so either add to the discussion or fuck off.
For better or worse, megapixels is the most prolific tripfag on this board. he's probably the wrong person to tell to go shoot, since he probably shoots more in a week than you do in six months.
>>2835193
isn't fuji doing the same thing with their isoless sensor or is this a totally different issue altogether?
>>2835311
Fuji has its own problems, they're the only camera raw files not supported by the adobe suite, or dxo, or capture one.
>>2835255
We've all heard of it, and also seen how much of a non issue it is, especially considering you can do un compressed on all but their most basic/outdated bodies.
I'd rather have a compressed raw than a canon raw, or a fuji raw, oh wait that only leaves sony.
>>2835330
jokes on you.
pentax is the best raw.
If you think compressed raw is what is holding back your photography, you're sorely mistaken.
>>2835330
>or capture one
Pretty sure fuji raf's are ok i C1. It's just lightroom that's the prob.
>>2835193
gee mom.
why this sony raw is broken when i pushed it to +9001ev?
>>2835330
Fuji is absolutely supported by Adobe, and C1. No idea about DxO.
>>2835193
Didn't they fix this in recent bodies/updates? I thought I saw that.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7665355870/sony-brings-uncompressed-raw-to-a7s-ii-and-a7r-ii
>>2835461
only to two cameras.
>>2835462
three, a7 mark 2 as well.
It's true though, compressed raw is retarded.
>>2835257
LOL, and what "demanding" Situations do you shoot in? I'm 99% sure you just take snapshit street photos, with low contrast, and an off color tint. You'll never have a problem with any RAW files because you barely do photography
>>2835255
Yeah, I've had my a7r since the month it came out, and have yet to see posterization in a single photo. Trust me, in the real world, these problems don't exist.
>>2835443
BUT ITS A REAL WORLD SITUATION! I NEED MUH UNCOMPRESSED BECAUSE I SHOOT IN DEMANDING SITUATIONS!
They've never used a sony, so they don't know what they're talking about.
>>2835490
To be fair, the same arguments can easily be made for canon cameras when Sony fags attack regarding dynamic range, but none of that makes you wrong.
Most people would never EVER know about Sony's compression, and the fact that the OP image is from RawDigger (rather than an actual photo) only helps to prove that point.
>>2835491
True, however, lack of dynamic range is something that's much easier to have an issue with than compression. I understand what you're saying though.
>>2835524
>X-trans is definitely not supported properly. Unless you like swirly brushstrokes over everything?
The issues that lightroom has with RAF files are minor at BEST, and can't be seen at ALL at moderate viewing sizes. It only becomes noticeable at all at 100%, and only becomes a image quality issue when you're doing sharpening, and displaying at full size.
Something that provides 98% quality is absolutely not "not supported by Adobe"
>>2835539
>arguing that all fuji pics are blurry is OK in a thread about how some Sony cameras show very slight artifacts if you boost shadows through the roof in areas of high contrast.
toppest of keks.
Also, just look at this https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/fuji_x_trans_support
That's on LR CC
Pic attached, iridient (a piece of software made by one guy over the last few years) vs ACR (Software made by a multi million dollar company and has been out since 2002)
IF adobe wanted to support Fuji Raws, it would do, but pro's don't use Fuji, so why bother?
>>2835554
>toppest of keks.
When I see you saying incorrect shit, I'm going to correct you, no matter where you put it, and no matter what brand you say it about.
The difference is real (and I'm very aware of it) but it's not very dramatic in real world applications.
Also, here's that same image, just saved from your post, with a curve layer to add contrast, and a sharpening layer, added in PS.
The difference is still there, especially in the foliage at the bottom, but it's not NEARLY as dramatic as it's implied. Especially considering this is a 100% crop.
Certainly not dramatic enough to call it unsupported.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 880 Image Height 430 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 12:16:10 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 880 Image Height 430
>>2835193
Most people wouldn't have noticed if they didn't read it from a pixel peeping fag.
They corrected it in A7MK2 cameras.
They didn't in vanilla A7 because they want people to buy newer cameras.
>complaining about bad design from a meme camera manufacturer
why are you falling for sony shills
>>2835490
>sonyfag calls others bad photographers
?
>complaining about a camera you don't even own
this meme has to stop
>>2835571
What are you implying? That without your nikon or canon you would be unable to take a good photo? Looks like you've got more to focus on that compressed RAW faggot
SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING SHITPOSTING
>>2835193
cause great cameras w/ raw compression > okay cameras w/ lossless raw
>>2835700
Where do poor cameras with good sensors and compressed raw fall?
