Sony A77 Raw samples

There are a few raw samples starting to surface of the Sony 24MP sensor in the A77, and these are presumably very similar to what the NEX-7 will produce.

These are taken from:-

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA77/AA77THMB.HTM

http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/Sony-A77,1_7902

There has been lots of "muttering" about the quality of the jpgs. and its always useful to see what the raw files look like. I was able to convert these in the dcraw part of Rawker.

Here's a blow up from the building shot - top left. This is ISO 100.

Probably of more interest is a blowup from the bottom right shot which was taken at ISO 6400.

Considering that Rawker conversions are always more noisy than Photoshop, this is pretty good. I certainly would have no issue with this. 

The jpg. samples I saw shot at high ISO's with the A77 were certainly very "mushy" but this isn't. From this very limited number of samples, it does seem as if the 24MP Sony sensor has a fairly strong Anti-Aliasing filter. But then with this many pixels on an APS-C sensor it would be surprising if it didn't. Also no surprise is that there seems to be a fairly limited dynamic range. Looking at these converted files they did look to me very like m4/3 files. I would imagine that they will probably need careful exposure and processing. 

However on this limited evidence it does seem as if the Sony cameras that use this sensor (and expect to see it in other cameras before long) will be capable of producing very decent, very large files.

More links to A77 samples here:-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a77-measurebation-post/

High resolution images - Nikon D7000 50mm f/1.2 processed using Rawker

Nikon D7000 50mm f/1.2 manual focus lens

Following on from my post yesterday -
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/07/wonders-of-rawker.html
I've made some full-size jpgs available on flickr.

Shot with a Nikon D7000 using a manual focus 50mm f/1.2 lens. (The best Nikon lens I've ever used) and processed from raw using Rawker software at its basic default settings.


Nikon D7000 50mm f/1.2 manual focus lens


Nikon D7000 50mm f/1.2 manual focus lens

The wonders of Rawker

 

Rawker is freeware raw conversion software for the Mac. 

Website -  http://raifra.fh-friedberg.de/Mac/index-en.html

I've mentioned it before, and I make no apologies for mentioning it again. Its really useful for Mac users because of its dcraw option which lets you have a look at raw files before Photoshop etc. support them.

I was having a look at some G3 raw files yesterday with it and thought I would have a look at how it converted the files from my Nikons.

The answer was, very well indeed. Incredible sharpness, in fact very similar to what I get from the Leica M9 and Photoshop. (I did try some M9 files with it & they weren't so good)

Here are three examples shot with a Nikon D5100 and 16-85mm lens, with 100% blowups.

Very impressive indeed.

It is pretty basic software, and it uses none of the Nikon "corrections" that Photoshop will have. It does struggle with poorly exposed images and is not as good at "rescuing" files.

However as a basic raw converter its very good indeed. I do use it a lot for Olympus m4/3 cameras I use as it converts them very well, but I didn't realise how good it would be for the Nikons. So good in fact that I'm now considering the future of my Leicas!!

If you own a Mac, have a look.

Pentax K-5 - Three lenses, Low ISO performance.

A second day of bright sunshine and a further chance to work with the Pentax K-5. This time alongside the River Severn at Bewdley. I took the 15mm and 70mm lenses as yesterday, and also took along the 35mm f2.4.


In the Dpreview review of the K-5 there's a line in the conclusion amongst the plus points. "Exceptionally low shadow noise in RAW files at low ISOs" Reviews and discussions of cameras these days seem to concentrate on what a camera will do at high ISO's and how much noise there is at ISO 3200 etc. Often the performance at ISO 100 etc. is either ignored or assumed to be OK. However, for those of us who rarely use anything over ISO 200, it can be quite important. The importance of Dpreviews comment can be seen below.





The top image is the out of camera jpg. The shadow correction option is turned on, but the  foreground with the motorbikes is still too dark. The bottom image is after some work in Photoshop, and I have lightened the foreground substantially to show the bikes. This would normally generate a fair deal of noise, but in this case that hasn't happened. The bottom half of the image is very "clean" and shows no colour noise and only a very slight increase in luminance noise.


Here's another example.





I've never seen such "elasticity" in a camera before. The K-5 has an excellent dynamic range but its ability to produce files where shadows can be lifted to this extent without generating noise is incredibly useful. The fact that it can do this while still creating a very "punchy" image with terrific colour is a real bonus. Here's a couple of further examples of what it can do with little post shooting work on my part. These are taken in very bright sunlight.








This is getting very close to reproducing what we see with our eyes. 


Here's a sample of what happens when I lift the shadows in an image using a camera that has high shadow noise at low ISO's. This is from a Canon 5D Mk II at ISO 100.

This has always been a problem with this Canon sensor. So "full-frame" doesn't always have the low-noise advantage. 


For the K-5 to produce results like this is very impressive. One thing it lets me do is to expose for the highlights, knowing that I've got a good chance of recovering detail in the shadows, without generating extra noise.





In fact the files that I am creating from my K-5 are probably the best I've seen. I tried a few in Rawker,  the dcraw based raw conversion software I use to see what raw files are like without the software "fixes" that manufacturers add to their software. They came out very well indeed. Very clean, with no noise and very little CA and fringing. Excellent sharpness also. 


It seems that Pentax may have done very little to tweak the the sensor output. In an interview with Chris Pound from Pentax at Dpreview he said the following:- "When asked about how much input Pentax had into the design of the (Sony-built) sensor in the K-5, Pound explained: 'we had less input than we did in the previous generation, where we worked with Samsung.' He went on: 'Sony controlled the development [of the new sensor] but they have a very good history of that kind of design and it has proven very successful in the K-5."





Using the K-5 in these real-world shooting situations has led me being even more impressed with the camera, than I was before. It seems almost designed for me personally. Small, light, great colour, terrific low-ISO performance with good dynamic range, fast accurate AF, high quality lightweight lenses, producing sharp images. Everything I want really. I was beginning to think that I would never get this in a DSLR, and its been a pleasant surprise that I can.





On the lenses, the 35mm f2.4 is also a great little lens. For a Pentax prime its actually very cheap. The savings have obviously come in the construction, as its plastic through and through. However its excellent optically.





So a very successful couple of days. Firstly that I managed to get out and shoot some pictures and secondly that the Pentax K-5 lived up to, and in many ways exceeded, my expectations of it. I enjoyed using it, and looking at the results. The first of many such experiences I hope. 


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Olympus E-5 raw files processed via Rawker

One of the things that interested me about the E-5 was the fact that it has a weak anti-aliasing filter. The Olympus solution to dealing with moire is to use software in-camera and presumably also in their software Olympus Master 2. There are some raw files available on a Russian? site at:- http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Folympus.ourlife.ru%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D16116 and I downloaded several. I used the Olympus software to process them and they looked very like the jpgs that are floating around. I then tried them in Rawker the dc-raw based software. It did recognise and process the files and the results were somewhat different. No software fixes here. The resulting files are noisier and you can see moire clearly in some of them. So basically there's a lot going on in the software. One disappointment is that I didn't find the files to be particularly sharper, and couldn't quite see the benefit of the weakened AA filter.


Anyway here are the ones I processed. All files were processed using "flat" neutral settings.

Finally heres a comparison shot. Taken with my recently acquired Panasonic L10 + Leica Panasonic D 14-50mm f3.8-5.6 Vario-Elmar.



Many thanks to the site for making these available. Raw files always give a better idea as to what a camera can do than jpgs, and this has been quite revealing.


UPDATE


I've just done of couple of high ISO samples. There is nothing available on the Russian site over ISO 1600 so I've used one of those below:-

Heres one at ISO 640

Both of these are comparisons between a full-size jpg and a raw file processed in Rawker. The difference is more obvious on the ISO 1600 file which is pretty noisy on the Rawker conversion, but not on the jpg. These jpgs are created from Lightroom according to the text on the site. 




D

Rawker, Photoshop and Camera jpgs

Above is a comparison image taken on an Olympus E-P2 fitted with the 14-42 KIt Zoom. Its a combination I like using, and while as far as kit zooms go its a decent one, I wanted to see whether I could get a little more "bite" out of it.


In terms of the overall look, as you can see the camera jpg and the Photoshop version are similar in terms of tone and contrast, colour is slightly different, but not by much. The Rawker version has much more shadow detail, and has a flatter look with less contrast. Both Photoshop ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) and Rawker were used at their default settings.





When examined close up, the camera jpg has a very processed look. Not very sharp but with little noise. The Photoshop version is much smoother and again has little noise. The Rawker version is sharper but with a fair amount of colour noise. I've included a version where I've used the Rawker version and done some selective noise reduction on the lighter shadow area. For this combination I much prefer the Rawker version. Colour noise is relatively easy to clean up. I'm impressed with the shadow detail and the sharpness. I'm actually quite surprised at how well this lens performs when the files converted from raw in Rawker. 


Whether you regard sharpness or lack of noise as the most important is a personal preference. I'm prepared to accept a few moire artefacts to get the wonderful crispness of the Leica M9 for landscape and travel shots but like the smoothness and lack of noise from my Canons for portraits, weddings and indoor pictures. Certainly I like the results that I get from this Olympus combination using Rawker and I've done a couple of days shooting with this. As discussed in yesterdays post I won't be upsizing these files anymore and at their original sizes they look very good indeed. Using Rawker means a bit of post-processing is necessary here and there, but I'm happy to do that, particularly as the raw processing itself in Rawker is actually very quick. Not for everyone obviously, but another alternative for me to consider.


The following are all with the above lens/camera/software combination.







There is some burn out in the clouds in the above shot.
Photoshop would handle this much better.








Words - D
Images - D & A

Panasonic 7-14 lens corrections.

Of all the m4/3 lenses available the 7-14mm wide-angle zoom from Panasonic is perhaps the one that most "corrections" are done to using the in-camera functions.


Using Rawker to process the raw files and comparing the resulting jpgs with the camera created jpgs gave some interesting results and shows some of the things that are going on.





In this first comparison the Rawker file is slightly bigger, and reveals more. It has slight vignetting. The colours are very similar and both files exhibit burnt out highlights in the white cloud. Overall colour is pretty similar.





The second comparison shows that at default sharpening settings, both are pretty similar. On the originals the Rawker conversion is very slightly sharper though not by much.





I put this comparison together to check out the CA and fringing. But as you can see something else has happened. The two areas aren't the same size though they contain the same information. There is some warping or perspective correction that has been applied to the in camera jpg. In terms of CA and fringing the camera jpg is slightly better, but both are pretty bad.





Intrigued by the previous result I overlapped the two images, "locking" them on the bench - i.e. the area within the red rectangle. As you can see, quite a lot of correction has gone on.


So this gives some idea as to what Panasonic are doing in-camera to "correct" what the lens is recording. It really isn't a huge amount and the Rawker processed file is perfectly fine. There's nothing there that I couldn't do myself in Photoshop. Its also a no worse result than I've obtained from many lenses. I've had £1000 Canon lenses that were worse than this. 


The idea that Panasonic are making massive software corrections to compensate for a not very good lens, isn't really apparent here. Its interesting to see what goes on though. In terms of this particular lens, I generally use Photoshop Camera Raw, and that seems to produce the best result. The main problem I see with the 7-14 is the fringing, which although not unusual in very wide angle lenses is nonetheless something I could really do without.


D

Rawker Software - get bigger files on m4/3!

Rawker is freeware raw conversion software for Apple Macs that converts proprietry and .dng files. Website here:- http://raifra.fh-friedberg.de/Mac/index-en.html

It works using either the Mac operating system or dcraw. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw

Its very simple and, if like me, you don't want to spend your time typing in code, it has a nice easy to understand interface and is a stand alone programme. 





Its quick, its good and its FREE!

Like all programmes based on dcraw it gives you a conversion that comes closest to the basic raw file that your camera produces. If you want to see what your gear can produce without the proprietary software, or Photoshop, which will be based heavily on the manufacturers software, then a dcraw conversion will allow you to see that. 

Those who have explored this with regard to m4/3 will know that both Olympus and Panasonic make some "adjustments" to their files in-camera. CA, Distortion etc. There are "lively" discussions about this on forums. Many people criticise the lens construction, of Panasonic in particular, arguing that if software is needed to correct their faults then they can't be that good. In truth the corrections are minor as can be seen using a dcraw conversion. Since this bypasses all the manufacturers tweaks you get to see exactly what the sensor/lens combination can do. 


What this does do, in fact, is demonstrate just how good the Panasonic m4/3 sensor is, and also how good the lenses are. There is more CA and noise in a dcraw based conversion, but nowhere near as much as you might expect. 


One interesting phenomenon is that if you use a programme like Rawker to convert your files you get a bigger file. In the case of these Olympus E-P2 files 1.2 MB bigger. 34.9 MB becomes 36.1 MB.


In the examples below you can clearly see this.





Olympus E-P2 14-42 Kit Zoom Lens





Olympus E-P2 Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Pancake lens


In general I like Rawker. Its very useful with files that have problematic dynamic ranges. Its default conversion seems to be very low contrast and shadows are lighter and there are less blown highlights. The downside is that more noise is produced in some files, though not all. It also allows me to make the adjustments that I want, rather than those imposed on me by the manufacturers. Its very useful for m4/3. Not so good for my Leicas, which certainly seem to achieve optimum quality via Photoshop. 


If you use a Mac and you would like to give it a try, then I would definitely recommend it. If only to get an idea of what your files really look like in the closest version of them to "Authentic Raw"


UPDATE


The bigger file phenomenon applies to images shot with legacy lenses also, as in this shot taken with a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Biogon lens fitted to the Olympus E-P2.





D