A77 II has landed!

[Birma]

For me it is like test driving a car. Sure, take it around the car-park and see how it manoeuvres and that the parking camera works (!) but don't feed me a review until you've done a 200 mile motorway trip in it as well .

When I first got a 'proper' camera than shot raw and jpg it was both intimidating and exciting in that it opened up a whole new aspect of creating pictures. Developing my own raw files is, for me, 40 to 50% of the final image. At the start I shot raw and jpg and the challenge was to be able to develop the raw to be as 'good' as the jpg on my own. Now, I still shoot raw and jpg (disk space is cheap!) but I never use the jpg. In some ways I should bite the bullet and lose the jpg files - just for convenience and speed.

Unless I need a quick shot to be able to send across the internet then I don't see the need for jpg files out of the camera. But hey, that's just me . It is still interesting to know what you jpg guys think of the files out of camera I guess .

[alphaomega]

Unless I need a quick shot to be able to send across the internet then I don't see the need for jpg files out of the camera. But hey, that's just me . It is still interesting to know what you jpg guys think of the files out of camera I guess .

Interesting thoughts by Birma. When I acquired the first DSLR (A700) I shot RAW only. Like Barry I did not consider Sony's Jpegs to be good enough. I then moved to RAW+Jpeg in cameras such as A580 and NEX-5. Found then that I rarely had to move to RAW for satisfactory results (Alamy mostly) so when now using my NEX-6 and RX100 I shoot Jpeg fine only for this reason. Now using A58 with my A mount lenses and mostly with my Tamron 18-270. This lens produces some CA at the longer end in particular so I have retained RAW+Jpeg on the A58 just in case I need LR4 to do the CA removal business (better than PS). The fine Jpegs from cameras such as the NEX-6 and RX100 are good enough for my purposes and have adequate DR and good distribution of levels. Auto tone and a bit of shadow/highlight/contrast adjustments tend to fix most tonal problems. I might use Vibrance when appropriate. Rarely do I need a Brightness adjustment. The auto metering is quite good now. In difficult lighting I tend to point at a suitably lit area, hold and shoot to avoid over/under exposure. Works most times. The old saying "get exposure right and you avoid most problems" holds true.

[bfitzgerald]

I've never really liked Sony's jpegs, and still don't. That doesn't mean they're not ok for use or even decent sized printing, but they are weak at high ISO more so than others (that's my views)
Looking at the IR pre-review samples there is more details in the low ISO studio shots, but then sharpening might be different. I really don't like the super smooth look on the A77II high ISO jpegs, not one bit (detail is def suffering). I don't care much for the A57/77's jpegs at high ISO either (they have some artefacts)
You can't do big luminance NR without losing details, I much prefer to see some grain in images.

I get some grain in the XS-1 jpegs (NR turned down to min) I do not find it disturbing in any way. I'm really surprised people on DPR feel the A77II's jpegs are amazing..I hate the plastic look of big NR jpegs. It seems even a trace of noise/grain is enough to scare people. For an experiment once I loaded an image with very strong noise and printed it at A4 size (I Mean a lot of noise not a bit)

It looked just like film grain and wasn't anywhere near as intense as the screen view suggested it was. In short noise isn't half the problem some make it out to be "If" you print.

So it's not you can't use the jpegs on Sony, you can get respectable results from them, it's just they refuse to listen to people who want a choice. If you want super plastic NR on jpegs fine..jpeg NR high will do you. Those of us who don't like tons of NR don't have a choice. This is so simple it's amazing we're even talking about it in 2014

[alphaomega]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote

So it's not you can't use the jpegs on Sony, you can get respectable results from them, it's just they refuse to listen to people who want a choice. If you want super plastic NR on jpegs fine..jpeg NR high will do you. Those of us who don't like tons of NR don't have a choice. This is so simple it's amazing we're even talking about it in 2014

I mostly use ISO200 to 400. Sometimes 800 and 1600, but rarely and I don't find the Jpegs from the latest Sony cameras so "plastic" at these settings. I would probably switch to RAW should I need ISO3200 or above. I must say that I don't think that digital images will ever look and have the "depth" of a good film slide processed through a dedicated film scanner with max colour depth such as my Konica Minolta Dimage 5400 ver. II. Even better for medium format. I used to try and spot film v. digital in the old days in photographic magazines and rarely failed as the film ones had more "depth", grain and vivacity. I still believe that a well taken and processed film image beats the digital one on these counts, but the world has moved on and once you have the equipment digital is so much cheaper. A consideration when you also like to make a little money.

[classiccameras]

I have to agree with you on the film v Digital. I love the depth grain, and hues on my Fujifilm Velvia and Provia slide film taken on my old Minolta XD-7. There is just some thing there I find hard to describe when projecting the slides on to a big screen. Digital have yet to master that type of display.

I guess its like a top end vinyl, DG or Teldec recording played through a high end HI FI system, moving coil cartridge and a valve amp, Its analogue but nothing gets near it for my money. Well may be the wrong comparison for film/digital as they are very close and yet so far apart in some respects.
Digital is cheaper, can be vastly more manipulated and can exhibit superb results. But its wide open to cheating, as we never had much lee way with film in the lab by comparison. You had to get your exposures spot on which only came with experience in the art of photography and I'm glad I learnt the hobby first with film.

[Birma]

I'm fascinated by what you mean by "cheating"? Does it really matter whether the result is achieved by dials on the camera body of mouse clicks on the computer? Surely it is the picture, the end result, which matters

[ValeryD]

Very interesting escalating technical questions about your camera to the discussion of art photography. As I understand it any innovation or change in the camera will be successfully rejected because your camera does not film grain. . Still need to somehow separate the purely technical capabilities of the camera. The company Sony has done a good homework in camera A77-2, made ​​normal processing in camera, a good auto focus system. Thanks to the company that has fulfilled the desire of users. I am personally very happy with this camera. And I still waiting for new update from Adobe, than I can work with a RAW format files.

[classiccameras]

I knew the word cheating would raise some eye brows, perhaps I used the wrong word, Manipulation sound better?

Peter

[Birma]

I knew the word cheating would raise some eye brows, perhaps I used the wrong word, Manipulation sound better?

Peter

Hehe - eyebrows definitely raised . Just plain 'processing' suits me fine. For me it is just the continuation of the processing that starts when the photons hitting the sensor were turned in to a digital signal. Some of the processing happens in a processor in the camera. Some of the processing then continues on your PC etc. I see it all as one continuum.

However - if someone wants to finish the processing in the camera, and not do anything further, then that's fine by me. Free choice. I suppose eyebrows just get raised when there is a suggestions that one approach is more or less "worthy" than any other.

[classiccameras]

I don't wish to start an argument so to end this thread, I say your absolutely right.
Pete

[mikeriach]

Cheating? - I suppose it depends whether the intent is to accurately capture what you actually saw when you pressed the shutter or whether you want the image to be your interpretation of the scene. Not everyone wants the former and in many cases it can be quite understated hence the "enhancement" by processing.

The vast majority of mine are tweaked to some degree, some more than others.

Mike

[bfitzgerald]

I'm not sure I want to get into this one, myself less is usually more but each to his own. I do feel that modern camera makers have overloaded on the gimmick aspect a bit though, I rarely use more than A priority and well I'm not convinced the smile shutter is really important, and I've not really managed to get the sweep pano to work that well though I do try the odd time.

Some useful bits, some fairly pointless things too. Regarding Sony they can listen, but in other ways I think they have a nasty habit of not nailing down long term problems (jpegs for one) They also have a bad habit of giving with one hand, taking with the other and have done this quite a few times across the model range. I'm really getting to benefit from using the A77's GPS, very very useful for me, and the AF assist light. Taking those 2 out mostly kills my interest in that model. I don't need NFC and won't likely use the wifi a lot either.

You should never update a new model and take things out people like..that's very silly and can annoy users. Still I agree about junk slapped into cameras I play with compact and for all the baby scene, auto super sonic intelligent modes they have..mostly utterly useless for end users

[bakubo]

I knew the word cheating would raise some eye brows, perhaps I used the wrong word, Manipulation sound better?

I am of the opinion that for you and others who think the same should only shoot jpegs, leave all settings (contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc.) on their default settings, no DRO, daylight white balance, and then afterwards never crop or do anything to the OOC jpeg. That would get you the closest to shooting slide film and be cheat-free, I guess. Is that what you do? Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Everyone can do as they please and it doesn't bother me at all.

[classiccameras]

Bak, I PP Jpegs and have customised all my Jpeg settings as I have for my RAW when I use it. We never had the same scope for adjustment in the film days so by comparison, digital is far better. Both digital and film are pretty good at giving me excellent pictures but in different ways and I'm not saying one is better than the other, they both have their attributes.

[bfitzgerald]

LR 5.5 is now available with support for the A77 II, I shall have a look at some raw files I'll have a better idea using my normal software.

I don't mock jpegs..a cracker shot is a cracker jpeg or raw. I like raw, but sometimes it's a chore to chew through processing.
You have some room to move on neg film, slide not much I love the impact a nice slide has, I just find negative film more my cup of tea