Does the A7iv only shoot 10fps with CF Express Cards In Raw?

[linzdoctor7d]

Gordon Laing in his youtube review states that the A7iv can only shoot 10fps in compressed raw with the CF Expressed card and the SD cards are only able to shoot at 10fps in jpgs only. If true that's not good at all! here is a link to his video skip to 16:21 mark

 

[Adam Palmer]

I think maybe that means that with the faster card they can shoot that speed indefinitely. You still have a bit of ram buffer to fill. (I am just guessing based on the way sony and canon have done things up to now.)

--
http://www.adamapalmer.com

 

[ZapperVT]

Gordon Laing in his youtube review states that the A7iv can only shoot 10fps in compressed raw with the CF Expressed card and the SD cards are only able to shoot at 10fps in jpgs only. If true that's not good at all! here is a link to his video skip to 16:21 mark

Here are the details in the transcript . Top frame rate shooting compressed raw with SD card in 8fps. When shooting uncompressed raw with SD card, you get 25 frames at 6fps, then it drops to 3.5fps. So there is definitely a performance advantage to the CFE cards.

In terms of burst speed, the A7 IV sticks with a maximum of 10fps whether using the mechanical or electronic shutter, and here’s how it sounds with the mechanical. As before though, there are conditions to achieve the top speed and caveats when you do.

10fps is only available when you shoot in JPEG and or compressed RAW. In my tests I could keep shooting JPEGs at 10fps using SD or CF Express, but needed CF Express to shoot compressed RAW at 10fps; when I switched to SD memory, the speed reduced to 8fps.

The top speed falls again when you’re shooting uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW, regardless of the card type. I measured 6fps for lossless compressed with either card type, and 6fps for uncompressed when using CF Express only. When shooting uncompressed RAW on SD I only managed 6fps for the first 25 frames, before it slowed to 3.5fps. This appears to be a downgrade from the A7 III which, in my tests, could shoot RAW in any format at 10fps, even if only for a few seconds. Maybe the buffer memory has reduced and presumably the greater pixel count per frame has an impact too.

 

[BracketsAhoy]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

 

[JohnNEX]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

At this price point you can have either MP or fps. Its a straight trade-off. You can't have both.

You people who thought you were getting a cheap A1 were living in fantasy land.

This is a low to mid-price all round full frame camera. Every other camera at this price point has big trade offs - go try them and you will be on that forum whining about something else.

 

[Mr_Win]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

At this price point you can have either MP or fps. Its a straight trade-off. You can't have both.

You people who thought you were getting a cheap A1 were living in fantasy land.

This is a low to mid-price all round full frame camera. Every other camera at this price point has big trade offs - go try them and you will be on that forum whining about something else.

A7R mark 3 has 42mp, AND the BIONZ X

sony is playing some games here. They could have at least put in two CFE if they're going to pull this type of stunt. We'll see when the production models are in play.

 

[ZapperVT]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

The Z6ii can do 14fps @ 24MP, 12 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 less than the A7iv. The Z7ii can do 10fps at full 45MP resolution in 12 bit lossless raw, and 9fps for 14 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 more than the A7iv. The tracking AF on the Nikons isn't as good as the A7iv, although they do have other nice features like focus stacking that the A7iv doesn't.

At this price point you can have either MP or fps. Its a straight trade-off. You can't have both.

You people who thought you were getting a cheap A1 were living in fantasy land.

This is a low to mid-price all round full frame camera. Every other camera at this price point has big trade offs - go try them and you will be on that forum whining about something else.

I agree. At this price you don't get it all and have to make compromises. There are a lot of nice improvements and updates in this model, and the frame rate is still pretty good.

 

[pollup]

The current pre-production camera with lots of bugs only does 10fps with CFE-a in raw.

This might be one of the bugs. Let's wait until the release date to know for sure.

 

[pollup]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

The Z6ii can do 14fps @ 24MP, 12 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 less than the A7iv. The Z7ii can do 10fps at full 45MP resolution in 12 bit lossless raw, and 9fps for 14 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 more than the A7iv. The tracking AF on the Nikons isn't as good as the A7iv, although they do have other nice features like focus stacking that the A7iv doesn't.

keyword = 12bit.

The Sony compressed raws starting from the A9ii are 13bit, they probably look better than the lossless 12bit raws from Nikon.

Sony's lossless raws are 14bit.

 

[BracketsAhoy]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

Hiding the facts in the fine print about lossless RAW shooting rates is not nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

Others have responded to you on this.

At this price point you can have either MP or fps. Its a straight trade-off. You can't have both.

At this price point one should be expecting better than 5 or 6 frames per second. It is as simple as that. Otherwise this is a landscape and portrait camera.

You people who thought you were getting a cheap A1 were living in fantasy land.

I see you have read "How to win friends and influence people" recently. I have an R5 and am very happy with it. For friends and others looking for a viable Sony update, it would be a shame for them to lay their money down only to find such a poor implementation from a very slow sensor.

This is a low to mid-price all round full frame camera. Every other camera at this price point has big trade offs - go try them and you will be on that forum whining about something else.

I am not whining. I am attempting to make people aware of not falling for the 10FPS deception.

I suggest you reread my initial post and try again if you wish to respond to me.

 

[BracketsAhoy]

keyword = 12bit.

The Sony compressed raws starting from the A9ii are 13bit, they probably look better than the lossless 12bit raws from Nikon.

Sony's lossless raws are 14bit.

Having missed a shot with the subject out of frame because of slow FPS would probably look worse no matter the bit depth.

 

[ZapperVT]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

The Z6ii can do 14fps @ 24MP, 12 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 less than the A7iv. The Z7ii can do 10fps at full 45MP resolution in 12 bit lossless raw, and 9fps for 14 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 more than the A7iv. The tracking AF on the Nikons isn't as good as the A7iv, although they do have other nice features like focus stacking that the A7iv doesn't.

keyword = 12bit.

The Sony compressed raws starting from the A9ii are 13bit, they probably look better than the lossless 12bit raws from Nikon.

Sony's lossless raws are 14bit.

I don't know, I've never compared Nikon 12 bit lossless to Sony 13 bit lossly. That would be interesting.

But I'm guessing it's irrelevant for most of the time one is shooting high speed bursts. Normally that also involves high shutter speeds and higher ISOs. Once you bump up the ISO a couple of stops the DR goes down and it makes no difference if you have 12 or 13 or 14 bits. At that point more bits just mean more precise quantization of the noise.

 

[pollup]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

There are only three cameras that can do 10 fps with at least 30 MP sensor, the cheapest is the EOS R5 at $3,900.

The Canon R6 and the Nikon Z7 II can (probably) do over10 fps, with a 20 MP and 24 MP sensor respectively.

The Z6ii can do 14fps @ 24MP, 12 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 less than the A7iv. The Z7ii can do 10fps at full 45MP resolution in 12 bit lossless raw, and 9fps for 14 bit lossless raw. It costs $500 more than the A7iv. The tracking AF on the Nikons isn't as good as the A7iv, although they do have other nice features like focus stacking that the A7iv doesn't.

keyword = 12bit.

The Sony compressed raws starting from the A9ii are 13bit, they probably look better than the lossless 12bit raws from Nikon.

Sony's lossless raws are 14bit.

I don't know, I've never compared Nikon 12 bit lossless to Sony 13 bit lossly. That would be interesting.

But I'm guessing it's irrelevant for most of the time one is shooting high speed bursts. Normally that also involves high shutter speeds and higher ISOs. Once you bump up the ISO a couple of stops the DR goes down and it makes no difference if you have 12 or 13 or 14 bits. At that point more bits just mean more precise quantization of the noise.

I agree. I think the difference in this situation would be imperceptible.

There's a big difference in the sensor readout though. Reading at 12 bit is dramatically faster than 14 bit. 13 bit doesn't seem to be an option on Sony sensors, so when it creates 13 bit files, they're being made from 14bit sensor readings.

 

[ZapperVT]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

Hiding the facts in the fine print about lossless RAW shooting rates is not nonsense.

Well, how bad is Sony's lossy raw anyway? Does it make such a big difference that one wouldn't want to use it to get 10fps? Or is it something that you would have to pixel peep really hard to tell the difference?

 

[Mr_Win]

sony doesnt have all the details

Loading…

electronics.sony.com

the only CFE-A I see as a requirement is S&Q 120fps (1080) oddly enough, footnote 8

 

[BracketsAhoy]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

Hiding the facts in the fine print about lossless RAW shooting rates is not nonsense.

Well, how bad is Sony's lossy raw anyway? Does it make such a big difference that one wouldn't want to use it to get 10fps? Or is it something that you would have to pixel peep really hard to tell the difference?

Ask quality birding or fine art photographers what their preference is an why would probably be better than asking me It will also need to be checked specifically on the camera body in question.

I have personally gone back to RAW for a variety of reasons after using cRAW for a time. One of the reasons had nothing to do with image quality but the workflow itself.

But the image quality issues were if I had to adjust parts of the image's exposure, then artifacts would / could start to appear. There was also less dynamic range that would blow out finer highlights at times with cRAW and RAW had more headroom in this department.

 

[Mr_Win]

It really is unacceptable for a camera of this price range. I hope people hoping to shoot faster action and wildlife see the facts on lossless RAW before they buy this camera.

Nonsense.

Hiding the facts in the fine print about lossless RAW shooting rates is not nonsense.

Well, how bad is Sony's lossy raw anyway? Does it make such a big difference that one wouldn't want to use it to get 10fps? Or is it something that you would have to pixel peep really hard to tell the difference?

Ask quality birding or fine art photographers what their preference is an why would probably be better than asking me It will also need to be checked specifically on the camera body in question.

I have personally gone back to RAW for a variety of reasons after using cRAW for a time. One of the reasons had nothing to do with image quality but the workflow itself.

fine art photographers can shoot uncompressed

fine art birders can get an A9/A1

 

[Funny Valentine]

Definitely something weird going on: the a7IV shares the same processor as the a7sIII and a1.

My a7sIII can do RAW+Jpeg (uncompressed+superfine) to v90 UHS-II SD with unlimited buffer.

The a1 is capable of 100's.

Yet the a7IV can only manage 20 frames with UHS-II SD before hitting the buffer ?? strange.

 

[linzdoctor7d]

I still shoot with my 5 year old A99ii and it will allow me to shoot 60 compress raw images at 42 megs to a UHS-i card before the buffer slows down. I would have thought that with a smaller megapixel sensor and a UHS-ii card slot I could get more shots on the A7iv before buffer slowdown.

 

[javisan23]

Definitely something weird going on: the a7IV shares the same processor as the a7sIII and a1.

My a7sIII can do RAW+Jpeg (uncompressed+superfine) to v90 UHS-II SD with unlimited buffer.

The a1 is capable of 100's.

Yet the a7IV can only manage 20 frames with UHS-II SD before hitting the buffer ?? strange.

Would the fact that the 7sIII has a 12mp sensor rather than 33mp like the A7IV explain it?

What about the A1 having a stacked sensor and the A7IV not?