Sony no longer advertises 14 bit color

MaxBerlin

Well, at least the deception has ended. After years of marketing its 4 top cameras as 14 bit, Sony no longer uses the term for any of its cameras.

Additionally, the Imaging Resource Interview with Kimio is very clear that Sony offers no guarantee of a 14 bit upgrade for new or retroactive users of its cameras.

I am very happy I made the switch to Nikon and true 14 bit color. Only wish the class action lawyers would take down Sony as eagerly as they pursued the D600. There's got to be more money in it for them.

Details on my blog. Thanks !

An update: Sony is still marketing 14 bit for some cameras including the new A7r ii. A Sony exec has confirmed that there is no guarantee that Sony will ever have 14 bit.

JonMcGuffin

It'll be interesting if Sony actually does roll out a firmware update to enable 14-bit RAW capture; even if it ends up being compressed only. That would honestly make this new A7Rii a pretty interesting and potentially the first real damaging camera to DSLR sales.

snakebunk

And if Sony upgrades their cameras to 16 bit raw files, all the Nikon DSLRs will be useless .

haroldp

And if Sony upgrades their cameras to 16 bit raw files, all the Nikon DSLRs will be useless .

I actually use both, primarily Nikon D810, D3x, and Sony A7II (with Leica lenses) .

If I could only keep one system, it would be the Nikons for two primary reasons.

- Sony's AF is nowhere near Nikon for fast moving subjects like BIF.
- Lens availability - Sony has one native FE mount lens worth buying and that is the 90/2.8 macro (I do not do macro). The others are either below par or too expensive for what they are. Even Zeiss seems to have forgotten how when they do an FE mount, can't explain it.

Sony's viewfinder is much better, particularly for manual focus which is how I use it.

That being said, the A7II is small, light, cheap, robust, and if CaNikon do not wake up, in two or three years Sony will eat their lunch.

real 14 or 16b raws would be a good upgrade and it is silly that they do not do it as it is only a firmware change (for 14b), but the above reasons are much more important to me.

... H

MaxBerlin

Harold, I did a test (by accident) on Sony's EVF vs a Nikon 810 with 3x loupe. The Nikon is superior.

It's on my blog as "The best a man can get"

If you can't see it you can't critically focus on it. The D810, live view and PV button activated (when at f +1 through f8 gives the most detail.

snakebunk

@haroldp:
When it comes to the bit depth I am not sure that more bits will give a higher image quality. I read an entertaining and interesting article about 12 vs. 14 bits here: https://photographylife.com/14-bit-vs-12-bit-raw. Bottom line is that there is no visible difference (if I remember correctly). However, Sony should probably do upgrade to 14 bits just to get the question out of the way. So I guess I agree with everything you say.

PB_PM

Even Zeiss seems to have forgotten how when they do an FE mount, can't explain it.

All Zeiss branded Sony mount products (A mount, FE mount etc) are simply "Zeiss approved designs" made by Sony. Nothing surprising about the poor performance at all. This has always been the case with Sony... err "Zeiss approved" Sony made glass.

WestEndFoto

The bottom line is that anybody can make the best lens with unlimited resources. The skill that matters is making a product cost effectively, which Sony cannot do.

No matter how good their cameras get (which are ephemeral anyways), if they cannot fix this they will never seriously challenge Canon or Nikon.

haroldp

@MaxBerlin

The Sony A7II has a several programmable function buttons. I have one of them set for 10X magnification of the center in the EVF which I use for fine focusing, then turn it off. This should also work on the LCD display but I have not tried it.

@snakebunk

We basically agree, for reasonable, well exposed shots the bit depth should be indistinguishable. On very difficult shots where one is trying to get the most out of buried shadow detail or burned highlights it might matter.

I have never seen any difference between Nikon and Sony shots in my work that I could attribute to bit depth or compression. Lens quality and missed focus however are pretty obvious, which is why those are my priorities.
That is why I use my Sony with Leica wides which are very sharp and have lots of DOF to help my manual focus.

I am hoping tha Sigma will produce the 50/1.4 art in FE mount, where it would autofocus, and acquire VR as well.

@WestEndFoto

I agree:
If Sony could make lenses like Fuji they would be tearing up the market, Sony's current line up is mediocre and expensive.

Sigma has said they will support FE mount, that could help.

Regards to all ... H

MaxBerlin

Harold the test was conducted using Sony's 14.4x which doesn't resolve as well as Nikon when zoomed in to 1 less than maximum with a 3x loupe, live view and the PV button used (active) when at least 1+ wide open and up to F8.



Snakebunk - Sony only has 11+7 and delivers as little as 10% of the discrete color values than a Nikon 14 bit uncompressed file uses. 12 bit would be an improvement for Sony.

haroldp

@MaxBerlin

You have clearly performed more detailed, structured and disciplined focusing tests than I have, and I accept your results.

I use my Sony with Leica wides, longest is 21mm, always handheld, and the DOF covers any imprecision. For really critical work I almost always use my Nikons.

For me, the compelling reason for Sony to go to full bit depth and lossless compression, is that there is no relative benefit whatsoever to their 11+7 approach, and no real cost to fix it, so any real or theoretical imaging loss under any circumstance is a complete waste.

Regards ... H

Wesley

Well, at least the deception has ended. After years of marketing its 4 top cameras as 14 bit, Sony no longer uses the term for any of its cameras.

Additionally, the Imaging Resource Interview with Kimio is very clear that Sony offers no guarantee of a 14 bit upgrade for new or retroactive users of its cameras.

I am very happy I made the switch to Nikon and true 14 bit color. Only wish the class action lawyers would take down Sony as eagerly as they pursued the D600. There's got to be more money in it for them.

Details on my blog. Thanks !

An update: Sony is still marketing 14 bit for some cameras including the new A7r ii. A Sony exec has confirmed that there is no guarantee that Sony will ever have 14 bit.

Did you ever explain what 11+7 means? What's with the 7?
No deal breakers for me yet regarding the bit but wouldn't hurt to have 14.

I'm sure Canon is 14bit also but has less DR at lower ISO than the "11+7" Sony.

Harold, I did a test (by accident) on Sony's EVF vs a Nikon 810 with 3x loupe. The Nikon is superior.

It's on my blog as "The best a man can get"

If you can't see it you can't critically focus on it. The D810, live view and PV button activated (when at f +1 through f8 gives the most detail.

Was the EVF brightness on auto?

spraynpray

From the other (closed) thread:

Sony's introduced a number of innovations into their latest flagship but didn't bother with the most critical issue that effects every single photo and file taken with the camera.

Sony RAW files posted on the internet today all show file sizes indicative of Sony's 11+7 lossy compression scheme.

Honestly who cares? I know plenty of professional photographers that make a lot of money and their camera of choice is from the Sony A7 series. I guess gearheads will be gearheads.

Yes, truly. I mean, they acknowledge they don't provide true 14-bit support and you made a point not long ago that they took this off all their marketing materials and website, etc. What is the point in driving this home so much? This is a non-issue for 99.8% of uses. If somebody snapped a picture from a D810 and then an A7Rii and printed it out on a 24x36" print and showed them to you I'm 99.99% certain you couldn't identify which is which with 100% certainty.

It's a limitation of the camera/software of some kind, and I'd say it looks to me to be about the *only* remaining limitation of that camera versus the Nikon/Canon big cameras. It's really time to let this one go and let Sony do whatever they want to do. Don't buy one if it's not for you, fortunately Nikon is making some wonderful cameras for us all to enjoy that do shoot in a true 14-bit manner; no biggie.

Yes, truly. I mean, they acknowledge they don't provide true 14-bit support and you made a point not long ago that they took this off all their marketing materials and website, etc. What is the point in driving this home so much? This is a non-issue for 99.8% of uses. If somebody snapped a picture from a D810 and then an A7Rii and printed it out on a 24x36" print and showed them to you I'm 99.99% certain you couldn't identify which is which with 100% certainty.

It's a limitation of the camera/software of some kind, and I'd say it looks to me to be about the *only* remaining limitation of that camera versus the Nikon/Canon big cameras. It's really time to let this one go and let Sony do whatever they want to do. Don't buy one if it's not for you, fortunately Nikon is making some wonderful cameras for us all to enjoy that do shoot in a true 14-bit manner; no biggie.

I have an infinite budget to spend on my photography hobby but only a finite number of years left to live, so I plan to buy a Sony A7rII fairly soon, probably a lot sooner than I will be buying a D810 to replace the D800 I owned that I just sold recently. There are enough good-to-excellent Sony or Zeiss primes and a couple of very good zooms to meet my needs. If things don't work out, I'll just sell it all back while I wait for Nikon's Next Big Thing. No problemo. As is often said here on this Forum, when it comes to photography, each person has to make up his own mind and not slavishly follow the opinions of the "experts".

snakebunk

@spraynpray: Nice moderation!

I think the important thing is image quality. If Sony can make it with fewer bits then it is a good thing.