The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Spence, I am not saying options are not nice to have and maybe I just might find a situation where this particular option will make a significant difference. I am all for continuous product improvements as well and in some situations it takes a squeaky wheel to push this process along. Maybe what we observed across the internet in FE forums was necessary to achieve this change who knows? Where my issue comes from a manufacturing viewpoint is the way it appeared to be a life and death defect in many posters minds and the way this sort of spontaneous irrational reasoning spreads like cancer. It wasn't a DEFECT and it wasn't unknown going into the purchase. It was only visible if one went outside the normal design intent limits of PP and then was visible at extreme crops. It was a design intent variable pushed past its reasonable limits! Would it be nice to not have this issue? Sure! But it would also be nice if my truck could fly...... Or my boat could go underwater more than once 
I am glad people got something they felt would make their photographic experiences better.... honestly I am but I fear Sony's reaction to this will just open a can of worms and the wouldn't it be nice list will turn into the Sony is making defective product list on whatever the new flavor of the month is for the disenchanted ones to post about to validate their existence.
It is impossible to give everyone everything they want and have everyone totally happy ... just look at Washington DC as an example of this
I am glad people got something they felt would make their photographic experiences better.... honestly I am but I fear Sony's reaction to this will just open a can of worms and the wouldn't it be nice list will turn into the Sony is making defective product list on whatever the new flavor of the month is for the disenchanted ones to post about to validate their existence.
It is impossible to give everyone everything they want and have everyone totally happy ... just look at Washington DC as an example of this
V
Vivek
Guest
Jim,
What were the "normal design intent limits" ? If Sony have spelled those out I would like to know. A7/7R/7s, btw were sold as "pro level" cameras. So, this is not something new due to A7rII's debut.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Agree I'm not worried for a second on bigger files. My one concern is read/ write with camera. So I'm thinking very fast cards. But again I will need that not everyone will. I would like 2 64gb 300 read write cards. That would get me through any gig.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
No bad analogy Jim. Washington is far worse. LolSpence, I am not saying options are not nice to have and maybe I just might find a situation where this particular option will make a significant difference. I am all for continuous product improvements as well and in some situations it takes a squeaky wheel to push this process along. Maybe what we observed across the internet in FE forums was necessary to achieve this change who knows? Where my issue comes from a manufacturing viewpoint is the way it appeared to be a life and death defect in many posters minds and the way this sort of spontaneous irrational reasoning spreads like cancer. It wasn't a DEFECT and it wasn't unknown going into the purchase. It was only visible if one went outside the normal design intent limits of PP and then was visible at extreme crops. It was a design intent variable pushed past its reasonable limits! Would it be nice to not have this issue? Sure! But it would also be nice if my truck could fly...... Or my boat could go underwater more than once
I am glad people got something they felt would make their photographic experiences better.... honestly I am but I fear Sony's reaction to this will just open a can of worms and the wouldn't it be nice list will turn into the Sony is making defective product list on whatever the new flavor of the month is for the disenchanted ones to post about to validate their existence.
It is impossible to give everyone everything they want and have everyone totally happy ... just look at Washington DC as an example of this
I already forgot about all that whining and so on. Glad it's here I will use it mostly but if I need buffer on runway stuff I will go back to compressed in a heart beat as I never ran into issues. But I also suspect this may have something to do with long exposure stuff too which even for landscapes we can run into minutes. I know I have. So end of day all good. I ignore a lot of those whiners and frankly stopped reading a ton of it. I just wanna shoot
Jim we will never stop the whining and we will also be morons for buying Sony in some people's mind. My thoughts, my money my camera my art. ****em
Vivek, You and I both know as photographers what normal photographic design intents are(does not include pushing shadows 5 stops and ultra cropping to see a artifact).... we also know what a bogus idiotic term "Pro Level" is when referring to a camera........
I am a paid photographer and have been paid for images from cheap P&S up to 4x5 view cameras ...... a so called designated PRO camera is just nonsense imo. To me as a paid photographer the tool I choose to use for a specific shot is then a PRO LEVEL camera no matter what is was sold as.
The labels are just pure BS and at best a retailing attribute to sell more cameras to those hoping to become pros or that may think because they use a camera labeled as Pro they are in some way a Pro or their images will be better for deciding to buy them.
I am a paid photographer and have been paid for images from cheap P&S up to 4x5 view cameras ...... a so called designated PRO camera is just nonsense imo. To me as a paid photographer the tool I choose to use for a specific shot is then a PRO LEVEL camera no matter what is was sold as.
The labels are just pure BS and at best a retailing attribute to sell more cameras to those hoping to become pros or that may think because they use a camera labeled as Pro they are in some way a Pro or their images will be better for deciding to buy them.
Not true, Jim. Long exposure star trails, for instance--lots of folks shoot them. It's reasonable to expect that cameras, in 2015, costing thousands of dollars, be able to handle them without terrible artifacting. Sony's lossy compression can't/couldn't. Shots of bright edges at night; artifacts visible with minimal exposure push.It was only visible if one went outside the normal design intent limits of PP and then was visible at extreme crops. It was a design intent variable pushed past its reasonable limits! Would it be nice to not have this issue? Sure! But it would also be nice if my truck could fly...... Or my boat could go underwater more than once
And your analogy is a poor one, because the Nikon cameras, using the very same Sony sensors in many cases, handle these situations with aplomb--flying trucks and unsinkable boats, I guess.
I think I'm done discussing this issue. We got our fix. If you don't want to use it, don't--continue to shoot lossy compressed, it's still an option. I'll never understand the incredible amount of time and effort some folks, you included, no offense, spent in opposing the introduction of a lossless option. To each his own, I guess.
Spence, no offense taken, I wasn't opposed to introducing a lossy compression option .... or any improvements for that matter..... I just did not like the manner (and way it was being defined) it was being executed and the questionable agenda's some of those individuals may of had. Especially those who don't even own or use the product.
My truck and boat examples were to show outside this specific products design intend not to say it can't be done if the wants and needs create the desire to accomplish these new criteria's. There have been cars that can fly and boats that can dive, if the need is there nearly everything can be obtained. Sony, till the introduction of the FE line, had never heard squat about their cRAW so there was no need to address any issues with it. Hence, IT's camera lines did not include other RAW options..... so not in it's design intent for their engineering staff..... if it had been I am sure their engineers are just as talented as the other manufacturers engineers and could of easily achieved this criteria. It wasn't a defect as most wanted to present it as on those stone throwing discussions about Sony RAW's....... and I really don't care what any other brands may offer as I bought Sony and not them so my vote is cast as Vivek stated.
I am done with this as well but one can bet it's far from over because lossless compression has not been achieved and these pitbulls won't turn this loose till they get exactly what they had in their other brand cameras.
What I am curious about and will be waiting to see is just how many FE users will actually adopt uncompressed RAW's into their daily workflow........ my guess would be less than .05% of the total number of Sony user's. If this ends up as correct then we might conclude that the majority of the total conversations filling up forums relating to this in FE forums was basically for near no real practical application ....... A whole lot of spinning wheels for little movement.
My truck and boat examples were to show outside this specific products design intend not to say it can't be done if the wants and needs create the desire to accomplish these new criteria's. There have been cars that can fly and boats that can dive, if the need is there nearly everything can be obtained. Sony, till the introduction of the FE line, had never heard squat about their cRAW so there was no need to address any issues with it. Hence, IT's camera lines did not include other RAW options..... so not in it's design intent for their engineering staff..... if it had been I am sure their engineers are just as talented as the other manufacturers engineers and could of easily achieved this criteria. It wasn't a defect as most wanted to present it as on those stone throwing discussions about Sony RAW's....... and I really don't care what any other brands may offer as I bought Sony and not them so my vote is cast as Vivek stated.
I am done with this as well but one can bet it's far from over because lossless compression has not been achieved and these pitbulls won't turn this loose till they get exactly what they had in their other brand cameras.
What I am curious about and will be waiting to see is just how many FE users will actually adopt uncompressed RAW's into their daily workflow........ my guess would be less than .05% of the total number of Sony user's. If this ends up as correct then we might conclude that the majority of the total conversations filling up forums relating to this in FE forums was basically for near no real practical application ....... A whole lot of spinning wheels for little movement.
Last edited:
I went to the Lexar site and they don't give any stats regarding write speed. They have read speeds but not write. I've always been pleased with their stuff but am curious about the lack of information. Sandisk, on the other hand, does quote read and write speeds..... its a little bit more money but the write information is a known entity. For your uses I would think that the write speed is very important.... its not that important for my purposes.
Victor
Knorp
Well-known member
Just posted this elsewhere, reposting here:
For anybody buying memory cards for A7RII that might shoot video, just make sure you get the right class. Even if a card is capable in terms of write speed, Sony won't let you activate the mode if you don't meet the requirements below:
XAVC S 4k 100M - UHS-I SDXC U3
XAVC S 4K 60M - UHS-I SDXC U1
XAVC S HD - UHS-I SDXC U1 or U3
AVCHD - UHS-I SDHC U1 or better
MP4 - UHS-I SDHC U1 or better
Taken from here. Info is in the manual as well.
For anybody buying memory cards for A7RII that might shoot video, just make sure you get the right class. Even if a card is capable in terms of write speed, Sony won't let you activate the mode if you don't meet the requirements below:
XAVC S 4k 100M - UHS-I SDXC U3
XAVC S 4K 60M - UHS-I SDXC U1
XAVC S HD - UHS-I SDXC U1 or U3
AVCHD - UHS-I SDHC U1 or better
MP4 - UHS-I SDHC U1 or better
Taken from here. Info is in the manual as well.
davidstock
New member
Super-fast memory cards apparently have little effect on the speed at which the A7Rii writes its files. The camera itself is the limit. (No UHSii interface, for instance.) Here's a very good summary of memory card options and speeds.
http://alikgriffin.com/best-sd-memory-card-sony-a7rii
I have very fast UHSii cards (Lexar 2000x 300Mb/s 64G). The camera doesn't write the files any faster than my older cards, that I can notice. I imagine that writing the big new uncompressed files will take a while, no matter how fast the card is.
The A7Rii buffer is plenty big enough for me; I can keep shooting. But there is already some lag before getting a magnifiable preview, and that lag may well increase. It's worth it, IMO.
What UHSii memory cards WILL do, I find, is write blazingly fast to a computer equipped with USB3 and a UHSii reader. Way, way faster than older cards and readers. Which is gonna come in handy.
--d
http://alikgriffin.com/best-sd-memory-card-sony-a7rii
I have very fast UHSii cards (Lexar 2000x 300Mb/s 64G). The camera doesn't write the files any faster than my older cards, that I can notice. I imagine that writing the big new uncompressed files will take a while, no matter how fast the card is.
The A7Rii buffer is plenty big enough for me; I can keep shooting. But there is already some lag before getting a magnifiable preview, and that lag may well increase. It's worth it, IMO.
What UHSii memory cards WILL do, I find, is write blazingly fast to a computer equipped with USB3 and a UHSii reader. Way, way faster than older cards and readers. Which is gonna come in handy.
--d
My recollection is that the Sony presser called it an option.
Making it absolute, rather than an option would, in my view, be the pinnacle of marketing stupidity.
Knorp
Well-known member
Exactly my findings too, there's no noticeable difference between my Sandisk UHS-I 95 Mbps or Lexar UHS-II 150 Mbps cards.
Writing to my iMac is a different matter alright !
All the best.
- - - Updated - - -
Good news indeed, let's say the glass is half full ...
Annna T
Active member
A Kentuky university professor has issued a program correcting the artifacts due to the lossy compression of arw files. It is still a Beta version but is free. More info here :
The Aggregate: KARWY
(I found that at sonyalpharumors, but didn't test)
The Aggregate: KARWY
(I found that at sonyalpharumors, but didn't test)
V
Vivek
Guest
They have not "issued" one. You have to upload your RAW file and after processing, it allows one to download an output in cgi.
Annna T
Active member
A standalone and free version is expected in six months (at least that is what the website says (I thought the beta version which is already available) was also a standalone. My bad.They have not "issued" one. You have to upload your RAW file and after processing, it allows one to download an output in cgi.