# Un compressed RAW for Sony A7R II



## stringfellow1946 (Oct 16, 2015)

Saying Good by to my Canon 1DX

http://www.photographybay.com/2015/10/14/sony-a7r-ii-firmware-ver-2-0-adds-uncompressed-14-bit-raw-capture/?awt_l=OUV02&awt_m=Jh7sbROYbf62xu


----------



## tomscott (Oct 16, 2015)

Have fun… :


----------



## Nelu (Oct 16, 2015)

stringfellow1946 said:


> Saying Good by to my Canon 1DX
> 
> http://www.photographybay.com/2015/10/14/sony-a7r-ii-firmware-ver-2-0-adds-uncompressed-14-bit-raw-capture/?awt_l=OUV02&awt_m=Jh7sbROYbf62xu


I`m sorry but what do these cameras have in common?
If you have been using the 1Dx so far and now you`re happy with the Sony a7r then obviously you were using the wrong camera for the job.
Nelu


----------



## tiltshift (Oct 16, 2015)

no doubt if one trades a 1dx for a a7R II then his/her needs have changed and the tipping point was the RAW.


----------



## msm (Oct 16, 2015)

Nelu said:


> stringfellow1946 said:
> 
> 
> > Saying Good by to my Canon 1DX
> ...



+1

Those cameras could hardly be more different and in my opinion they complement each other perfectly.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 17, 2015)

Likely not heavily invested in lenses.

Please tell me the benefit of uncompressed RAW.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 17, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Likely not heavily invested in lenses.
> 
> Please tell me the benefit of uncompressed RAW.



No risk of the vanishingly rare artifacts caused by sony's lossy compression scheme.


----------



## stringfellow1946 (Oct 20, 2015)

To answer some of the questions above.
I was waiting until Sony gave uncompressed RAW as a option before taking the plunge.
To answer someones incorrect statement!! YES I am very heavily invested in Canon L series lenses as you can see at the bottom of my posts, if you had bothered to LOOK : & do I really need to explain uncompressed RAW Here?
Yes the 1DX is the wrong camera for me NOW at this moment in my life (it had not been until a Year ago).
I have already given my 1DMk4 & an 600 EX speedlite to my son & I will be giving him the 1DX as well, along with a heap of L series lenses & another 600EX.
The reason for all of this is simple, I can no longer hold them for more that a couple of minutes because of the weight & I am getting weaker as the months go by, as I've been diagnosed with MND (Motor Neurone Disease). The Sony A7R II with its FF & now uncompressed Raw plus being very very light weight will allow me to continue doing what I have enjoyed all my life photography! (I'm now 69) for what ever time I have left on this planet.
Whilst the 1DX is without doubt the best SLR available for sports or studio work, the Sony A7R II runs it very very close, maybe not for Sports photography but I don't think I will be doing a lot of that now in my condition. 
Had Canon got there arses in gear when they had the chance with there own mirror-less camera (instead of the pathetic M series) I would have almost certainly bought Canon again. 
yes I will miss the simplicity of the 1D series cameras & there ability to change settings very easily plus all the other features they have like full waterproofing etc etc, but what I shall really miss is the security of the Canon CPS service backup :'( , as that is second to NONE.

Tiltshift YOU were spot on with your comments   my man.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2015)

^^

I think you'll find that you can set a whole host of custom keys, as well as fill a function menu, such that you rarely need access the obtuse menu system.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2015)

stringfellow1946 said:


> The reason for all of this is simple, I can no longer hold them for more that a couple of minutes because of the weight..


Sorry to hear about your ailment affecting your ability to carry gear.
FWIW, some Sony shooters have migrated to Fuji, tho the mass saving is not much.
MFT, OTOH, is gonna be work considering too.
Comparable or better IQ except for very high ISO.


----------



## gsealy (Oct 20, 2015)

Are not the compression algorithms used by the various camera companies 'lossless?' And once Lightroom or other photo tool knows the file structure, then that file can be read and the image can be manipulated using all the data available. It seems that all uncompressed RAW will do is to use up more space on storage card when it is not necessary.


----------



## sanj (Oct 20, 2015)

Something does not add up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

gsealy said:


> Are not the compression algorithms used by the various camera companies 'lossless?' And once Lightroom or other photo tool knows the file structure, then that file can be read and the image can be manipulated using all the data available. It seems that all uncompressed RAW will do is to use up more space on storage card when it is not necessary.



Yes, everyone but Sony uses lossless compression for RAW files. Sony went from innovatively throwing away data to innovatively making files larger than they need to be.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 20, 2015)

gsealy said:


> Are not the compression algorithms used by the various camera companies 'lossless?' And once Lightroom or other photo tool knows the file structure, then that file can be read and the image can be manipulated using all the data available. It seems that all uncompressed RAW will do is to use up more space on storage card when it is not necessary.



Correct. It is even reported that the uncompressed RAW format writes 14-bits into a 2-byte space, meaning there are extra 80 million extra zeros (give or take). My only guess why they would do that is to have a file structure in place for 16-bit sensors and ADCs.


However it is likely the architecture of the A7 series (thus far) doesn't facilitate lossless compression (inadequate general resources; diverting cycles to file management could adversely affect performance). Maybe about the time the A7IV comes out, it will. Until then, I'll see how uncompressed treats me. May look into computer-side DNG conversion to cut down on upstream bandwidth to my cloud backups.


----------

