UHS-I, not UHS-II support for a6400, a6600 cameras

[Lemi]

Hey, guys. This is my second thread in your community. Briefly, I'm thinking to buy either a6400 or a6600 camera and I'm currently a Fuji user who wants to try Sony. I explained all the reasons in my first thread. I know of all shortcomings of Sony as well as Fuji but nevertheless I want to try Sony. I have only one big gripe with Sony. Even the newest camera a6600 still has UHS-I support which is weird since UHS-II has been around for a fairly long time. All latest Fujis have UHS-II which significantly improves both the writing and especially the reading speed. So, my question is how you guys get around this problem? I could think only of not getting the buffer full thus giving less time for the system to clear up the buffer. Am I right? Your output, please.

 

[yuzukiii]

Unfortunately, all the a6xx0 series have very slow clearing speed of the buffer to memory. It will take a significant amount of time to clear if you max out of the buffer. It'll take about 40+ seconds to clear if you shoot in RAW+JPEG if buffer is maxed out.

Sony claims you can you shoot up to 46 RAW+JPEGS in burst mode (for a6100, 6400 and 6600), but I have yet to reach that since I don't really shoot in 11fps (HI+ continuous mode) since I prefer to shoot in 8fps (HI continuous mode) when my dogs are in action as it'll track better.

You think that HI tracks better than HI+?

In my personal experience, yes. Hit rate in HI (8fps) was better than HI+

Maybe it's user error, but I have tried most focus area with AF-C, HI was still better than HI+

 

[abe4652]

Unfortunately, all the a6xx0 series have very slow clearing speed of the buffer to memory. It will take a significant amount of time to clear if you max out of the buffer. It'll take about 40+ seconds to clear if you shoot in RAW+JPEG if buffer is maxed out.

Sony claims you can you shoot up to 46 RAW+JPEGS in burst mode (for a6100, 6400 and 6600), but I have yet to reach that since I don't really shoot in 11fps (HI+ continuous mode) since I prefer to shoot in 8fps (HI continuous mode) when my dogs are in action as it'll track better.

You think that HI tracks better than HI+?

In my personal experience, yes. Hit rate in HI (8fps) was better than HI+

Maybe it's user error, but I have tried most focus area with AF-C, HI was still better than HI+

I haven't done much with erratic movement, but for straight line movement I don't think I've had a single out of focus yet with HI+ in initial acquisition and tracking.

 

[dbose]

That may also change based on shutter release settings. I set mine to “AF” rather than balanced or release so “hi +” may not actually fire off 11 FPS. Hard to tell.

 

[abe4652]

That may also change based on shutter release settings. I set mine to “AF” rather than balanced or release so “hi +” may not actually fire off 11 FPS. Hard to tell.

I understand your point. I also like to have my pictures in focus. Having extra pictures that are every so slightly out of focus does not improve my temperament, having to wade through them.

But I did sense a faster rate, keeping the AF setting, when at HI+.

 

[chile7236]

I shoot a lot of surfing and action stuff...the write times are pretty inconvenient (at the very least) when waiting for a long burst to clear. sony missed the boat on this.

 

[GaryW]

....

Sony claims you can you shoot up to 46 RAW+JPEGS in burst mode (for a6100, 6400 and 6600), but I have yet to reach that since I don't really shoot in 11fps (HI+ continuous mode) since I prefer to shoot in 8fps (HI continuous mode) when my dogs are in action as it'll track better.

You think that HI tracks better than HI+?

In my personal experience, yes. Hit rate in HI (8fps) was better than HI+

Maybe it's user error, but I have tried most focus area with AF-C, HI was still better than HI+

In the older cameras, the highest continuous mode typically didn't refocus for each shot. Check the manual. I looked at the A6500, and it doesn't say anything about not focusing for each shot, except for the LA-EA2/4 adapters.

 

[abe4652]

I shoot a lot of surfing and action stuff...the write times are pretty inconvenient (at the very least) when waiting for a long burst to clear. sony missed the boat on this.

If I am shooting a long sequence I can shoot at 11 frames per second for up to around 39 shots at full raw resolution.

And then it slowly clears, but almost immediately I can shoot a frame, and if I wait a few seconds shoot a few frames, and so on, if needed.

Not that long ago, that kind of buffer would have been the stuff of legends on $5,000+ full frame professional cameras.

 

[BrentSchumer]

I shoot a lot of surfing and action stuff...the write times are pretty inconvenient (at the very least) when waiting for a long burst to clear. sony missed the boat on this.

Yeah it's a shame that they opted to save a few dollars per unit on the SD Card slot. Especially when Canon and Fuji stuck UHS-II on their APS-C bodies.

 

[GaryW]

I shoot a lot of surfing and action stuff...the write times are pretty inconvenient (at the very least) when waiting for a long burst to clear. sony missed the boat on this.

If I am shooting a long sequence I can shoot at 11 frames per second for up to around 39 shots at full raw resolution.

And then it slowly clears, but almost immediately I can shoot a frame, and if I wait a few seconds shoot a few frames, and so on, if needed.

Not that long ago, that kind of buffer would have been the stuff of legends on $5,000+ full frame professional cameras.

OK, y'all have me curious -- at what point am I supposed to see the limitations of UHS-I? I rattled off several frames at HI+ on my A6500, briefly paused, refocused quickly while taking some more, and I couldn't really detect any lag or unresponsiveness. Tried it again, and this time went to review. I could see in the corner that it was counting down the number of photos to flush to the buffer. Reviewing seemed to be the hold up -- I could review photos, but it seemed to not want to advance until the buffer was clear, or something, and maybe sluggishly.

I get it, we can ask for more, better, etc., but yeah -- this is a lot better and more responsive than many past cameras, so it still feels really good. *shrug* It's highly unlikely that I could ever rapid-fire enough shots to fill my A6500's buffer.

Anyone else remember the days where if you selected RAW, it was a 30 second wait between taking photos, waiting for the one photo to be flushed to the card? Good times...

 

[BrentSchumer]

a

OK, y'all have me curious -- at what point am I supposed to see the limitations of UHS-I?

Any time you want to clear your buffer. So if you want to change settings after a little burst or if you want to get back to photos after a big burst.

 

[BrentSchumer]

There's no way around the slow card slot but to wait.

 

[abe4652]

I shoot a lot of surfing and action stuff...the write times are pretty inconvenient (at the very least) when waiting for a long burst to clear. sony missed the boat on this.

If I am shooting a long sequence I can shoot at 11 frames per second for up to around 39 shots at full raw resolution.

And then it slowly clears, but almost immediately I can shoot a frame, and if I wait a few seconds shoot a few frames, and so on, if needed.

Not that long ago, that kind of buffer would have been the stuff of legends on $5,000+ full frame professional cameras.

OK, y'all have me curious -- at what point am I supposed to see the limitations of UHS-I? I rattled off several frames at HI+ on my A6500, briefly paused, refocused quickly while taking some more, and I couldn't really detect any lag or unresponsiveness. Tried it again, and this time went to review. I could see in the corner that it was counting down the number of photos to flush to the buffer. Reviewing seemed to be the hold up -- I could review photos, but it seemed to not want to advance until the buffer was clear, or something, and maybe sluggishly.

I get it, we can ask for more, better, etc., but yeah -- this is a lot better and more responsive than many past cameras, so it still feels really good. *shrug* It's highly unlikely that I could ever rapid-fire enough shots to fill my A6500's buffer.

Anyone else remember the days where if you selected RAW, it was a 30 second wait between taking photos, waiting for the one photo to be flushed to the card? Good times...

Yes, the only really laggy thing I noticed was that it was sluggish to advance or go back in frames while the buffer clears.

But one can still select a frame by pushing play, and one can even zoom in on that frame and see how sharp the image is with no problem.

Seriously, if I can shoot 39 frames ar 10 or 11 frames a second, and then within 3-4 seconds shoot another 5, all at full raw, I don't see this as a huge issue.

 

[GaryW]

a

OK, y'all have me curious -- at what point am I supposed to see the limitations of UHS-I?

Any time you want to clear your buffer. So if you want to change settings after a little burst or if you want to get back to photos after a big burst.

Earlier today, I had a nice shoot. I did short bursts, but used LO because I didn't want to generate so many photos as 11/sec would generate and it is supposed to be slightly higher in quality on the lower settings. (Not exactly sure if it's just HI+ that has limitations or what, though.) Anyway, I guess I never needed to change my menu settings while it was flushing, and it let me review OK. Plus, using LO, it's going to flush pretty quickly anyway.

While it's flushing, I can also change the aperture with the dial. Or start snapping away more. In the past, I've had cameras where you couldn't do anything while it was flushing. (What about the earlier Nex cameras? I don't recall, but I've had cameras like that. When you have to wait for one photo to clear the buffer and it takes 30 seconds before you can even snap another photo, THAT is a problem!)

I guess for me it's not going to be a big deal, but I see -- you'll have to wait to dive into the menu. I'm not going to pay an additional $1500 (or whatever) for that! It probably matters to someone who is bursting all the time -- perhaps for certain sports shooting? But it's only a problem when changing settings between bursts? For the brief bursts most people would use, I can't imagine it's an issue. So you have to ask yourself, how much effort must Sony put into something for only a small percentage of users? Mind you, if cost is no matter, sure, put in two slots. (But if cost doesn't matter, just get an FE camera and be done with it!) I'm just saying it seems like if Sony wanted to not have a feature, that seems to be a good one not to have. It doesn't seem so limiting.

--
Gary W.

 

[chile7236]

...how much effort must Sony put into something for only a small percentage of users? ...
Gary W.

i guess the same effort Nikon, canon and Fuji put into their flagship aps-c line?

 

[BrentSchumer]

I guess for me it's not going to be a big deal, but I see -- you'll have to wait to dive into the menu. I'm not going to pay an additional $1500 (or whatever) for that!

Let me stop you there.

Canon puts a UHS-II slot on their $850 M6ii.

Fuji has been including a UHS-II slot in their high end APS-C cameras since The X-T1 since 2014. Their latest X-T3 camera with two of these fast slots is $100 more than the A6600.

Olympus will cheerfully sell you a $650 E-M10 III with a fast slot. Their older cameras back to 2015 also have the feature.

Panasonic ships UHS-II in their current $1,200 body (and much cheaper older bodies going back to 2014).

You're doing that thing again where you're saying that since you don't use something, it must be really exotic. It's not. I run into buffering any time I try and catch action, from attending sports matches to shooting wildlife. If I only shot black and white would you think it was reasonable to say "Who wants color pictures? Captain Color?"

And it's not expensive. A card reader for your PC that can read UHS-II cards is less than ten bucks. Sony just wants you to upgrade to full frame cameras instead of shooting crop.

 

[GaryW]

I guess for me it's not going to be a big deal, but I see -- you'll have to wait to dive into the menu. I'm not going to pay an additional $1500 (or whatever) for that!

Let me stop you there.

Canon puts a UHS-II slot on their $850 M6ii.

I see that it doesn't come with a viewfinder if you buy the body-only at $850. Sorry, I have to stop you there. ;-)

Fuji has been including a UHS-II slot in their high end APS-C cameras since The X-T1 since 2014. Their latest X-T3 camera with two of these fast slots is $100 more than the A6600.

$100, plus however much more it'd cost me to swap systems. Regardless, it's more expensive. Sure, Sony could raise the price and add dual slots.

If *I* wanted to get UHS-II or dual slots, I'd look for a Sony camera first, since I'm already in their system.

Well, it wasn't me that first suggested the FE models as an upgrade to obtain UHS-II, but it makes sense if you've already bought Sony stuff.

Olympus will cheerfully sell you a $650 E-M10 III with a fast slot. Their older cameras back to 2015 also have the feature.

m43? No thanks. I'm not as cheerful about m43. ;-)

Panasonic ships UHS-II in their current $1,200 body (and much cheaper older bodies going back to 2014).

You're doing that thing again where you're saying that since you don't use something, it must be really exotic. It's not.

It is true that I have not run any peer-reviewed, scientific polls, but I have to use myself and what I read from others to get an idea of things. What makes you think UHS-II is a major selling point for most amateur photographers? Why would anyone buy Sony if that's such a deal-killer?

I make lots of opinions that probably buck some of the thinking on the forums. Like, I'd bet most purchasers of Sony APS-C cameras just use the kit lens - and probably most low-end DSLR purchasers. So, I already kind of look at these camera features and think to myself that a lot of the existing features aren't even being used by everyone. The thing is, if you sample enough people, you'd find someone using a given feature. Those that really want UHS-II are simply going to buy elsewhere. There are always tradeoffs. Sony figured that those that care can move up, or out, but someone there had to make that call that it wasn't worth it for APS-C. We can argue about whether or not it was the right call.

I run into buffering any time I try and catch action, from attending sports matches to shooting wildlife.

As long as it buffers in the background, and I can still aim and shoot more bursts, at what point does it become a problem? When I want to dive into the menu? OK. A problem that isn't causing me a problem isn't really a problem. Or something like that. ;-) Of course, I did recently get an A6500 which has this huge buffer, so maybe I just won't be able to fill that up.

If I only shot black and white would you think it was reasonable to say "Who wants color pictures? Captain Color?"

I imagine there must have been that debate, many years ago. Even though color film was around for years, people continued to shoot B&W. I see that in my family's photo albums. It took a while for color to be cheap enough to make the switch. (Also, older cameras may not have had the coatings or other design that was good for color.)

And it's not expensive. A card reader for your PC that can read UHS-II cards is less than ten bucks. Sony just wants you to upgrade to full frame cameras instead of shooting crop.

I doubt it's just the card slot. They may have architectural changes needed to support a higher speed. They may need to change the form-factor to allow more room. They have to revise their firmware. All of the changes do have a hidden cost.

Or they could just be trying to force pros in to their pro-level cameras. Sony doesn't want *ME* to upgrade to full-frame, as I keep saying I'm OK with the card as it is, except that I wouldn't mind 4K at 60p, which I think that would require UHS-II. Sony wants people that care about the card speed to upgrade, which is weird if that's really what they're doing, because I expect most of the advanced hobbiests and pros already have moved to FE. For years, though, I've read about various manufacturers having more limited features on lower-end machines, so I'm sure it happens.

Surely, eventually, Sony will include the faster slots. It has to be just a matter of time. Perhaps sooner, if that keeps getting used against them for marketing, but who knows?

In the past, there were a lot of things that seemed "free" that Sony was missing. Auto ISO in Manual mode, for one big example, but things like that. When Sony started the Nex line of cameras, they seemed to be trying to keep it simple. There might not be 20 ways to do something like with other cameras. No custom menus, no custom buttons, etc. Eventually, they started adding things in. Now the menu is kind of busy. But I like options. Anyway, were they purposefully "crippling" the early cameras? Or did they just try to focus on what they thought was a consumer market that wanted something simpler? Were they trying to "cripple" the A6000 when they went with a cheaper EVF and removed the level, or were they just trying to cost-reduce to make the a6000 one of the best sellers?

--
Gary W.