Desert Gecko wrote:
Sensationalistic garbage. The author couldn't get out of the first paragraph without twice hedging, and he continued doing do all the way to his conclusion.
When you're on top, detractors will always try to pull you down.
But thanks for sharing the link. There is some loss in compression, as we've all heard, and this article helps put it in perspective.
That's not true of all compression, usually there are repeating patterns that can be written with some kind of short hand. Sometimes you need precision sometimes you need approximately. E.g with a computer program when compressed can't use a lossy compression algorithm or it wouldn't work when uncompressed.
What the article is saying essentially is that Sony are choosing to sacrifice dynamic range and accuracy for frame rate and file size. Mostly you won't notice the difference unless there is high contrast (their 2nd stage compression).
For a sports photographer the faster frame rate may make the difference between capturing the moment or not in a burst. I think it's fair to say that Sonys raw file isn't quite raw but close. The IQ probably could be better from that sensor than they have decided to give their customers. Does it matter? that is for the photographer to decide.