Off Brand: Sony Announces the Full-frame a7R III

[Jopa]

Actually, check this out... https://books.google.com/books?id=DUEkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT42&lpg=PT42&dq=A99+II+12bit+mode&source=bl&ots=RebtG1I8Ht&sig=2CRlqbRSL1FU8hdmriNofXcMriU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitiKq_t5HXAhUKziYKHWjvDpQQ6AEIOTAC#v=onepage&q=A99%20II%2012bit%20mode&f=false

I don't remember Sony actually ever acknowledge they use 12bit mode. So you probably won't find it in the official manual.

Sony does not say 14 or 12, they just say compressed RAW and uncompressed RAW in the manual. I believe the files have been looked at after the fact in testing to show that they are indeed 14 and 12, respectively, but I don't have a link handy. (Paging anyone to assist?)

Jopa, may be conflating what the camera does by default (like your quote, attached, but not from Sony btw) with what the camera will and will not ever allow. From the manual, page 47: "The shooting speed during continuous shooting becomes slower when [ RAW File Type] is set to [Uncompressed] in [Continuous Shooting: Hi+] mode."

So it's possible the camera switches from 14 to 12 bit when you crank up the drive mode, but the manual's verbiage above would imply you can switch it back to 14 bit -- otherwise they would have said 'Drive mode X leads to compressed output only' (which I believe was conditioanlly the case with the A7R II.)

And the proof is in the testing. Again, from Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a99-ii/sony-a99-iiA6.HTM --> they were clearly able to shoot uncompressed RAW at high speeds.

- A

Adam, compression is a different beast. It's 11+7, lossy: https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
Sony actually admitted and "fixed" it by introducing the uncompressed RAW. But how much information is being compressed - that's the question. It can be either 12 bit or 14.

Edit: uncompressed can be also 12 bit, just padded to 14 or even 16 (2 bytes). It won't have posterization issues due to lack of lossy compression, but will have less DR.

 

[Jopa]

^ everything is not so easy in the Sony world folks... ;D

 

[ahsanford]

Adam, compression is a different beast. It's 11+7, lossy: https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
Sony actually admitted and "fixed" it by introducing the uncompressed RAW. But how much information is being compressed - that's the question. It can be either 12 bit or 14.

Edit: uncompressed can be also 12 bit, just padded to 14 or even 16 (2 bytes). It won't have posterization issues due to lack of lossy compression, but will have less DR.

A99 II claims uncompressed = 14 bit, but I don't see any statements to what their compressed is.

https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilca-99m2/specifications
(search for 'bit')

I fully get Sony has historically saddled people with RAW < 14 bit, FPS + AF shenanigans vs. lens type vs. burst rate, etc. but it would appear that on the RAW front they got scorched on mandating the use of compressed RAW with the A7R2 to the point that they put out firmware changes and gave a proper 14 bit option to A99-II and A9 owners. I fully expect A7R3 to do the same.

- A

 

[PavelR]

It can be found in RAW file - for example Raw Digger can show the information: Bits Per Sample

I don't remember Sony actually ever acknowledge they use 12bit mode. So you probably won't find it in the official manual.

is there anything in the exif data that would tell you? Or is it one of those things you only find out by extensive technical measurements?

Sorry Mike, I don't know for sure, but my guess is no, it won't be in EXIF. It's not even about encoding itself, but about how much valuable data is encoded. They still can encode 14bit without changing the algorithm, but only 12 out of 14 bits will contain color data.

 

[ahsanford]

It can be found in RAW file - for example Raw Digger can show the information: Bits Per Sample

That's the tool DPR used when Sony moved from 11+7 to 14 with the A7R2 firmware change.

- A

 

[PavelR]

It is needed to test yourself, because AF, IS, AE works but everybody need to judge himself if it works good enough. Difference between native and adopted lenses is mainly in frame coverage of Eye AF and jiggling in AF-C AF-S is already darn good with MC-11 adapter - I've tested 200/2, 120-300/2.8, 35/1.4II on A9.

Someone on the forum mentioned that Metabones adp. did not work too well with Canon lens vs Sigma. I am ready to switch over to Sony A7Riii but will probably have to wait until someone tested in the field using Canon L lens.

 

[Jopa]

​

It is needed to test yourself, because AF, IS, AE works but everybody need to judge himself if it works good enough. Difference between native and adopted lenses is mainly in frame coverage of Eye AF and jiggling in AF-C AF-S is already darn good with MC-11 adapter - I've tested 200/2, 120-300/2.8, 35/1.4II on A9.

How is it compared to the 1dx2?

 

[Jopa]

Adam, compression is a different beast. It's 11+7, lossy: https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection
Sony actually admitted and "fixed" it by introducing the uncompressed RAW. But how much information is being compressed - that's the question. It can be either 12 bit or 14.

Edit: uncompressed can be also 12 bit, just padded to 14 or even 16 (2 bytes). It won't have posterization issues due to lack of lossy compression, but will have less DR.

A99 II claims uncompressed = 14 bit, but I don't see any statements to what their compressed is.

https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilca-99m2/specifications
(search for 'bit')

I fully get Sony has historically saddled people with RAW < 14 bit, FPS + AF shenanigans vs. lens type vs. burst rate, etc. but it would appear that on the RAW front they got scorched on mandating the use of compressed RAW with the A7R2 to the point that they put out firmware changes and gave a proper 14 bit option to A99-II and A9 owners. I fully expect A7R3 to do the same.

- A

The only way how we can check it - someone needs to buy a camera and take the same scene in AF-C & AF-S, and then compare I'm done with Sony, so it won't be me for sure.

 

[PavelR]

I'm sorry, I do not have any 1dx2 to compare with. I was using 1ds3 and 1d4 before A9 and I can say that AF acquisition is immediate on all cameras, but A9 with e shutter without blackout and Eye tracking over almost whole frame is far better on A9 (using native lenses... I'm not afraid to regularly use 85 @ 1.4 & 70-200 @ 2.8 on moving subjects, which was not possible on Canon with 85/1.2 II and 70-200 II).

​

It is needed to test yourself, because AF, IS, AE works but everybody need to judge himself if it works good enough. Difference between native and adopted lenses is mainly in frame coverage of Eye AF and jiggling in AF-C AF-S is already darn good with MC-11 adapter - I've tested 200/2, 120-300/2.8, 35/1.4II on A9.

How is it compared to the 1dx2?

 

[Jopa]

I'm not afraid to regularly use 85 @ 1.4 & 70-200 @ 2.8 on moving subjects, which was not possible on Canon with 85/1.2 II and 70-200 II).

That sounds like a great improvement over the A7r2 (based on my experience - via the Metabones mk4 and Sigma MC-11). I wasn't able to shoot the same lenses as you accurately on anything moving, especially if the light was less than perfect. The Sigma 120-300 was a big fail for me even in a good light. But focusing on the static subjects was accurate with only a few exceptions. Hope to see this kind of accuracy one day from a Canon mirrorless!

 

[PavelR]

I hope that next big win for Sony will be global electronic shutter without rolling, flash sync at any speed and flicker detection ;-)

 

[Jopa]

I hope that next big win for Sony will be global electronic shutter without rolling, flash sync at any speed and flicker detection ;-)

Couldn't care less for Sony

 

[PavelR]

Couldn't care less for Sony

You need to be quite patient... I was not... I was waiting 3 years to upgrade my 1ds3 to new camera with new functions [not only several enhancements] and month ago it was done ;-) I do not think that Canon want & can catch Sony in MILC functions. I think that next year first Canon MILC can only appeal current Canon users with lenses not available elsewhere and as second smaller camera for DSLR users which prefer OVF in its primary camera.

 

[9VIII]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison

It also borrows the A9's impressive trick of a truly live viewfinder display, at least up to 8 frames/second

Oh look at that, the A7RIII can’t do Live View above 8fps.

You’re just as well off with an A6500. Pathetic.

 

[9VIII]

“Mirrorless” is all “Smoke and Mirrors”
(Sorry, I couldn’t help myself)

At this rate it’s going to take another 5-10 years to actually get something comparable with high end SLR performance.

 

[9VIII]

And you can now access the menus while images are being written to the card.

This reminds me of an old WWII movie where a bunch of high rank POW’s spent weeks making an escape plan, only to be told that the guards were just being given bullets the day before the first attempt.

For years people have been theory crafting as though the A7 series was a serious threat, when this is actually Sony’s first product worth paying any attention to.

 

[Jopa]

Couldn't care less for Sony

You need to be quite patient... I was not... I was waiting 3 years to upgrade my 1ds3 to new camera with new functions [not only several enhancements] and month ago it was done ;-) I do not think that Canon want & can catch Sony in MILC functions. I think that next year first Canon MILC can only appeal current Canon users with lenses not available elsewhere and as second smaller camera for DSLR users which prefer OVF in its primary camera.

Fair enough Pavel. My experience is not that sad though My "photo gear" path was 50D -> A99 -> A7r + A7 (later A7-2) -> A7r2 + 5DsR -> 5DsR + 1DX2.
Now I'm at the point when my GAS is mostly over, I'm completely satisfied with resolution of the 5DsR and speed of the 1DX2, except of one annoying thing that I've mentioned multiple times on this forum - a necessity to calibrate my lenses. A mirrorless would solve this issue once and forever. If not - no biggie, I'll just keep shooting what I have until maybe a next great high-res mirrorslapper will appear on the horizon (I don't mind a 5DsR with a better DR just because "why not"). OVF vs EVF - don't care. I really like my lens collection, and it matters to me. If I had a 5Dm2 and could keep my lenses I would be still happy. My current priories are: subject, composition, light, optics & filters, post-processing techniques, and a camera would be the last thing, but of course YMMV.

BTW when the A9 was announced I was interested and almost bought it (oh that GAS!). But since I definitely didn't want to buy Sony lenses over again - it will be a downgrade for me in terms of FPS (10 only with adapted lenses), and most likely the focus acquisition speed and AF-C accuracy would somewhat suffer. About a month ago I saw a great deal on the A9 - $3900 brand new, but I was so happy the GAS is gone, and simply walked away from it The A7r3 is a great camera no doubt, but again, I don't think the 5DsR successor will be worse. The ol' good 5DsR is still kicking pretty well.

 

[9VIII]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-iii/sony-a7r-iiiA.HTM#comparison

The camera does drop to 12-bit RAWs when shooting in continuous burst mode using the compressed RAW format or when Long Exposure NR is enabled.

Great, the A7RIII is now equivalent or inferior to the Canon 7D2 in every way if you’re actually shooting sports or wildlife in a focal length lmited scenario. (7D2 has more pixel density, higher burst with visual tracking, and the same Dynamic Range).

 

[PavelR]

Fair enough Pavel. My experience is not that sad though My "photo gear" path was 50D -> A99 -> A7r + A7 (later A7-2) -> A7r2 + 5DsR -> 5DsR + 1DX2.

My path was Panasonic FZ-10 -> Nikon D200 -> D2x -> 1D4 -> 1Ds3 -> A9
(1Ds3 -> A9 was after 3 years of waiting - there were also Pentax 645Z, Fuji GFX on a table, but AF on those bodies are not even remotely comparable to 1ds3.)

1dx2 does not offer any new significant feature compared to 1ds3. But A9 does:
* exposure view + zebra + histogram in VF (realtime)
* almost whole frame PDAF coverage
* Eye AF (tracking all over the frame I do not need to select correct AF point to get proper focus)
* blackout free e shutter
* really silent shooting
* VF photo review
* tilting display

All features 1dx2 does have too:
* mpx 21 vs 24
* AF speed
* High ISO performance
* AF point memory for each camera orientation
* 4K video
* DR
* whole day shooting battery (3x Sony vs 2x Canon) life

I can use all my Canon mount lenses in AF-S without any penalty.

I lost only weather sealing, scrolling speed in captured pictures and a bit of handling comfort (small buttons).

The most user friendly cameras are Nikons, but I'm not to buy any Nikon soon because they silently announced new lenses incompatible with all my that time owned bodies.

 

[Perio]

Fair enough Pavel. My experience is not that sad though My "photo gear" path was 50D -> A99 -> A7r + A7 (later A7-2) -> A7r2 + 5DsR -> 5DsR + 1DX2.

My path was Panasonic FZ-10 -> Nikon D200 -> D2x -> 1D4 -> 1Ds3 -> A9
(1Ds3 -> A9 was after 3 years of waiting - there were also Pentax 645Z, Fuji GFX on a table, but AF on those bodies are not even remotely comparable to 1ds3.)

1dx2 does not offer any new significant feature compared to 1ds3. But A9 does

You've tested 1dxii and found that it's not a significant upgrade over 1dsiii??? Is it a joke?