5 ms·

Sony cameras have clumsiness all over the place. Can you confidently count on getting 14 bit RAW files, or will you sometimes only get 12 bits? Are their RAW fi

Sony cameras have clumsiness all over the place. Can you confidently count on getting 14 bit RAW files, or will you sometimes only get 12 bits? Are their RAW files losslessly compressed like every other manufacturer's? These issues are what drove me to buy a Nikon Z7. I will also be honest in saying that with this decision I've traded off a camera system with weird problems for a camera system that's mostly missing the rest of the system.

ksk 6y ago
I am curious to know what you're shooting. For me with my Sony A9II, after shooting tens of thousands of frames, I haven't encountered a single situation where lossless/lossy 14bit/12bit made any difference.
sudosysgen 6y ago
I have absolutely never had issues with bit depth and dynamic range. In fact, my A7ii generally has more dynamic range than my friends on Canikon. Sony is pretty open on their websites that their RAW files when compression is activated may have loss of bit depth in some cases. You can turn off RAW compression in about 3 button presses, and then you'll always have 14bit files.
- spchampion2 6y ago
  The camera drops to 12 bit when shooting in some modes such as continuous, bulb, or long exposure. This is true all the way to the A7rIV and the A9II as far as I know. Here's an article with analysis: https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riv-edr-in-continuous-compressed-mode/ https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riv-edr-in-continuous-c... Here's a Sony site with the breakdown of the different bit depths you get in different modes for different cameras (note that ILCE-7RM4 is the A7rIV): https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce-7-series/ilce-7m2/articles/00229990 https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    As your link is saying, this behaviour is only in compressed RAW mode, starting from the A7iii. You can disable RAW compression and be assured that you will get 14 bits all the time. This is all normal behaviour.
    - labcomputer 6y ago
      Maybe I’m misunderstanding the link, but it appears to list several configurations where shooting uncompressed raw results in 12 bits.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Yes, on cameras older than the A7iii, except in modes with significant noise reduction where the bits are useless anyways.
- ben7799 6y ago
  I wasn't even talking about this tech obsessed stuff. Just clumsiness with ergonomics and weird design. My preference on ergonomics and color has long been Canon -> Nikon -> Sony distant last If the camera is unwieldy to use and I miss the shot I don't care about a little more dynamic range and these other things. Ergonomics is very personal though so some people are going to hate Canon and love Sony or Nikon. The constant harping about dynamic range & high ISO noise is always hilarious. Every brand has ridiculous high ISO and amazing dynamic range compared to so many films back in the day. 1600 used to be stupid high ISO! We have it staggeringly easier & cheaper than in the past and yet everyone just constantly complains way more than in the past. If you knew any of the techniques from film it's super easy to work around any of these things. It's always hilarious to see sites like dpreview write articles where they make a case for one camera being the only way to do something cause it's got a little more dynamic range and they completely ignored all the old techniques that will instantly make the shot work on any of the cameras, and look better than the way they did it with the "superior" camera.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    First, I was replying to someone who was talking about this. I agree about the ergonomics, for most people. Im the odd one in that I really like Sony ergo.I disagree completely about colour. All three cameras brands have the exact same colour, the only difference in colour rendition is dynamic range and JPEG processing (which you shouldn't rely on). I went with Sony because Canikon didn't have a mirrorless camera at the time, are much more expensive, (Sony makes by far the cheapest full-frame camera, new and used), and you can't beat Sony for adaptability. You can adapt essentially any lens to Sony, and even add AF. Also, sometimes these techniques just can't do it.
jiggawatts 6y ago
> These issues are what drove me to buy a Nikon Z7 This kind of thing is a reason I did not get a Z7. Compared to a D850, the Z7 "bakes in" processing even to RAW files. At first when testing a Z7 I could not understand why the images in Lightroom looked like mobile phone photos. I tested a Z7 and a D850 while physically standing on the same spot and using the same lenses. The Z7 looked like overprocessed garbage, the D850 was flawless, natural, and creamy smooth in its tonality. It took me ages to realise that the Z7's "unprocessed" look is actually processed, and that you have to undo the processing manually. At which point the pictures look virtually identical to the D850, as expected since the sensors are nearly identical. I couldn't believe Nikon would do something this amateurish for a flagship product. I guess the marketing team thought they needed the camera to be "familiar" for people upgrading from mobile phones or something silly like that...
- headhuntermdk 6y ago
  What lenses were you were you using? Picture profiles? I have always set the picture profile to Neutral for all of my cameras even though I shoot in RAW.
throwaway9d0291 6y ago
> Sony cameras have clumsiness all over the place. Agreed, especially in terms of UI. I shoot A7RIV and Fuji X-T3 and the Fuji is so much nicer to use. Technically though, it's fairly good these days. > Can you confidently count on getting 14 bit RAW files, or will you sometimes only get 12 bits? On the latest generation they've largely fixed this [0]. 12-bit if you use compressed RAW, 14-bit if you don't. > Are their RAW files losslessly compressed like every other manufacturer's? No. Turn off compression, problem solved. [0]: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/an-upgraders-guide-to-the-sony-a7riv/ https://phillipreeve.net/blog/an-upgraders-guide-to-the-sony...

ksk 6y ago

I am curious to know what you're shooting. For me with my Sony A9II, after shooting tens of thousands of frames, I haven't encountered a single situation where lossless/lossy 14bit/12bit made any difference.

sudosysgen 6y ago

I have absolutely never had issues with bit depth and dynamic range. In fact, my A7ii generally has more dynamic range than my friends on Canikon. Sony is pretty open on their websites that their RAW files when compression is activated may have loss of bit depth in some cases. You can turn off RAW compression in about 3 button presses, and then you'll always have 14bit files.

spchampion2 6y ago
The camera drops to 12 bit when shooting in some modes such as continuous, bulb, or long exposure. This is true all the way to the A7rIV and the A9II as far as I know. Here's an article with analysis: https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riv-edr-in-continuous-compressed-mode/ https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riv-edr-in-continuous-c... Here's a Sony site with the breakdown of the different bit depths you get in different modes for different cameras (note that ILCE-7RM4 is the A7rIV): https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce-7-series/ilce-7m2/articles/00229990 https://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/support/e-mount-body-ilce...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  As your link is saying, this behaviour is only in compressed RAW mode, starting from the A7iii. You can disable RAW compression and be assured that you will get 14 bits all the time. This is all normal behaviour.
  - labcomputer 6y ago
    Maybe I’m misunderstanding the link, but it appears to list several configurations where shooting uncompressed raw results in 12 bits.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, on cameras older than the A7iii, except in modes with significant noise reduction where the bits are useless anyways.
ben7799 6y ago
I wasn't even talking about this tech obsessed stuff. Just clumsiness with ergonomics and weird design. My preference on ergonomics and color has long been Canon -> Nikon -> Sony distant last If the camera is unwieldy to use and I miss the shot I don't care about a little more dynamic range and these other things. Ergonomics is very personal though so some people are going to hate Canon and love Sony or Nikon. The constant harping about dynamic range & high ISO noise is always hilarious. Every brand has ridiculous high ISO and amazing dynamic range compared to so many films back in the day. 1600 used to be stupid high ISO! We have it staggeringly easier & cheaper than in the past and yet everyone just constantly complains way more than in the past. If you knew any of the techniques from film it's super easy to work around any of these things. It's always hilarious to see sites like dpreview write articles where they make a case for one camera being the only way to do something cause it's got a little more dynamic range and they completely ignored all the old techniques that will instantly make the shot work on any of the cameras, and look better than the way they did it with the "superior" camera.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  First, I was replying to someone who was talking about this. I agree about the ergonomics, for most people. Im the odd one in that I really like Sony ergo.I disagree completely about colour. All three cameras brands have the exact same colour, the only difference in colour rendition is dynamic range and JPEG processing (which you shouldn't rely on). I went with Sony because Canikon didn't have a mirrorless camera at the time, are much more expensive, (Sony makes by far the cheapest full-frame camera, new and used), and you can't beat Sony for adaptability. You can adapt essentially any lens to Sony, and even add AF. Also, sometimes these techniques just can't do it.

jiggawatts 6y ago

> These issues are what drove me to buy a Nikon Z7 This kind of thing is a reason I did not get a Z7. Compared to a D850, the Z7 "bakes in" processing even to RAW files. At first when testing a Z7 I could not understand why the images in Lightroom looked like mobile phone photos. I tested a Z7 and a D850 while physically standing on the same spot and using the same lenses. The Z7 looked like overprocessed garbage, the D850 was flawless, natural, and creamy smooth in its tonality. It took me ages to realise that the Z7's "unprocessed" look is actually processed, and that you have to undo the processing manually. At which point the pictures look virtually identical to the D850, as expected since the sensors are nearly identical. I couldn't believe Nikon would do something this amateurish for a flagship product. I guess the marketing team thought they needed the camera to be "familiar" for people upgrading from mobile phones or something silly like that...

headhuntermdk 6y ago
What lenses were you were you using? Picture profiles? I have always set the picture profile to Neutral for all of my cameras even though I shoot in RAW.

throwaway9d0291 6y ago

> Sony cameras have clumsiness all over the place. Agreed, especially in terms of UI. I shoot A7RIV and Fuji X-T3 and the Fuji is so much nicer to use. Technically though, it's fairly good these days. > Can you confidently count on getting 14 bit RAW files, or will you sometimes only get 12 bits? On the latest generation they've largely fixed this [0]. 12-bit if you use compressed RAW, 14-bit if you don't. > Are their RAW files losslessly compressed like every other manufacturer's? No. Turn off compression, problem solved. [0]: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/an-upgraders-guide-to-the-sony-a7riv/ https://phillipreeve.net/blog/an-upgraders-guide-to-the-sony...