Jump to content

Firmware 2.0 for A7Riii is Available

peterbkk

By peterbkk,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Cameras

 Share

Recommended Posts

KlausH Contributor

KlausH

Posted
Posted

I have downloaded and installed 2.0 this morning. It worked without any problems.

However, Capture One 8.3.3 cannot read the uncompressed ARWs. I tried Iridient and Affinity Photo, it works with both. Also ACR and RawDigger seem to work.

Files are 85.7 MB long. Reading and Writing to the SD card takes somewhat longer. 

Pushing the shadows shows a bit less noise and a cleaner image. But these are just my first impressions.

I'm waiting for Phase One now...

 

Regards

Klaus

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeffmurray Enthusiast

Jeffmurray

Posted
Posted
I updated last night.  I have taken two photos since.  One compressed one uncompressed. Both imported into Lightroom as normal.

 

Then I took them into PS and added a really absurdly high contrast levels adjustment - with identical settings to each file.  The results are below:-

 

Certainly not scientific however there is more background information in the uncompressed file on the right for sure.  I think this means luminosity blending will be better with the new uncompressed files - especially when adding curves and levels to over or underexposed parts of the images.

 

All of the images are on my site at:  http://www.jeffmurrayimaging.com/Camera-Test/i-q59sgHP They are available for download as well.

 

A7Rii%20compressed%20uncompressed%20comp

Link to post
Share on other sites
peterbkk Contributor

peterbkk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I anxiously awaited this update and installed it without problem only to find out that the RAW files are now 85.4 MB each. This is ridiculous and shows that Sony isn't really listening to photographers needs. End of statement.

 

The clue is in the word, "uncompressed"... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
peterbkk Contributor

peterbkk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I updated last night.  I have taken two photos since.  One compressed one uncompressed. Both imported into Lightroom as normal.

 

Then I took them into PS and added a really absurdly high contrast levels adjustment - with identical settings to each file.  The results are below:-

 

Certainly not scientific however there is more background information in the uncompressed file on the right for sure.  I think this means luminosity blending will be better with the new uncompressed files - especially when adding curves and levels to over or underexposed parts of the images.

 

 

Interesting test. Your test image shows a significant increase in the data stored in the uncompressed raw file, especially in the highlights. What we will need to see is, in normal shooting, is there a perceivable quality difference. I look forward to playing with this on the weekend.

 

For me, the file size of the raw file is not significant. All my "keepers" are stored as TIF ProRGB images, so the final image on disk is around 300 Mb anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark2d Apprentice

Mark2d

Posted
Posted

I just did the upgrade and it worked for LR. I did some comparisons, brought the raw files into Lightroom, both compressed and not... and could see a very tiny difference in my tests. I could tell the difference if I looked very closely, but it was not obvious on my shots which was better. I would not want to put down money on a guess. But, it did seem that if you had a very important shot and wanted to get the most out of your camera, you should just switch to uncompressed.

My normal workflow involves converting all my raw files to DNG raw, and once you do that, both the compressed and uncompressed file sizes look the same, that is about 42 to 58MB depending on the subject.

So for me, I'm sticking with compressed in the camera to keep it working a little faster, unless I have a big setup shot that calls out for the absolute best I can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VANGSTR Contributor

VANGSTR

Posted
Posted

So in the real world for those who have been in dire need of this uncompressed 14 bit, does it really make a huge noticeable difference from compressed format?  And to what extent?  From what I photograph, I can't tell the difference.  Perhaps I'll just sleep easier knowing that the camera can do uncompressed regardless of my aging eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VANGSTR Contributor

VANGSTR

Posted
Posted

I anxiously awaited this update and installed it without problem only to find out that the RAW files are now 85.4 MB each. This is ridiculous and shows that Sony isn't really listening to photographers needs. End of statement. 

So, we cry about wanting something, then when it is given, we cry again wanting something else????

Link to post
Share on other sites
jaclarkaus Explorer

jaclarkaus

Posted
Posted

I anxiously awaited this update and installed it without problem only to find out that the RAW files are now 85.4 MB each. This is ridiculous and shows that Sony isn't really listening to photographers needs. End of statement. 

 

No, they listened to photographers words, and delivered EXACTLY what was asked.

 

For the very few who like to underexpose their shots 5 stops intentionally, they have their issues solved.

 

On the other hand, if they do end up delivering a lossless compressed version (or even just packing the files properly) it will be interesting to compare the results to the uncompressed version

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark2d Apprentice

Mark2d

Posted
Posted

I anxiously awaited this update and installed it without problem only to find out that the RAW files are now 85.4 MB each. This is ridiculous and shows that Sony isn't really listening to photographers needs. End of statement. 

I think this has to be a joke post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • bs.shoots
      2 Primes or 1 Zoom?

      By bs.shoots · Posted

      I recently got an a7cii and to pair with the compact body, I thought of getting 2 of the trio compact lenses, 24mm F2.8 and 40mm F4.0. (I already have a 70-200mm) However I stumbled upon the newly released 24-50mm F2.8 G. I'm not sure which to get - I like the small factor of the prime lenses ON the body because it's discreet and helps me blend in as an average tourist / doesn't make it obvious when doing street. But if I add the dimensions of the 2 primes together, it takes up more space in the bag than the zoom lens. BUT THEN, the weight of the 2 prime lenses is 110g lesser than the zoom lens. The zoom lens has the added benefit of being more versatile.   So now I'm stumped. Each has their pros and cons and I can't decide which to get. I'd like to hear the views of you guys who are more experts at this.   Edit: I'm a bit concerned about weight because the last time I went overseas my shoulders were aching from carrying too much. Which is why I was looking for small compact primes in the first place.
    • dev001
      Sony a6300 after shutter repair

      By dev001 · Posted

      Hi, I have got a6300 which shutter stopped working. I managed to change shutter but unfortunatelly broke shutter motor tape but I fixed that. After repair the shutter is working but not in a proper way, watch with sound. I bought the second shutter and tried to test it before dissaembling again and it doesn't react to magnet but it works fine when I apply 3V. Are there different type of shutter for a6000 - a6400? Back to the question what is wrong with my shutter after first repair? I don't want to put next shutter unfoundedly. Do your sony cameras perform such a self-check after start up?  IMG_5579 (1).webm
    • ikach
      Sony Alpha videos are missing

      By ikach · Posted

      PRIVATE\M4ROOT\CLIP I had the same issue Couldnt find the videos  even thought it played on the camera  found them all in here   

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...