The biggest issue with the A7r4 that can be fixed very easily...

[bsas]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

 

[Tristimulus]

If this is the biggest issue then the A7RIV must be Sony's strongest release ever... ;-)

Seems like 61 MP is not for everyone.

 

[SrMi]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

One solution is to convert raw files to DNGs at import. The converted DNGs are compressed.

I do not like to convert my raw files to DNGs. Therefore I am also bothered by the lack of lossless compressed option.

 

[bsas]

If this is the biggest issue then the A7RIV must be Sony's strongest release ever... ;-)

I agree, the Sony A7r4 is super appealing...

And I never said that is the "biggest issue ever", it is the biggest issue for me and my own workflow.

Seems like 61 MP is not for everyone.

I want it, but just cannot have it on my current workflow. But, the annoying part is that I honestly don't think this is technically hard to do at all (far easier than animal AF for sure ), and everyone else has it. So, why not Sony just do it...

 

[bsas]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

One solution is to convert raw files to DNGs at import. The converted DNGs are compressed.

I do not like to convert my raw files to DNGs. Therefore I am also bothered by the lack of lossless compressed option.

I know that, but then the workflow becomes even more cumbersome because I need to "batch convert" all photos... Also, I hate converting the original file. I like my RAWs to be in their original state...

 

[WSLam]

I have the same issue with my Leica Q2 47MP files, and I have every intention to get the a7R4 as well... The issue is much less of a problem when I am using my desktop, as others have said, you can import into LR and choose convert to DNG. However, when you are on the road using LR CC on an iPad, that becomes an absolute nightmare. Also, WiFi file transfers time also takes longer because of the file size.

I do wish for a lossless compressed format as well.

 

[bsas]

I have the same issue with my Leica Q2 47MP files, and I have every intention to get the a7R4 as well... The issue is much less of a problem when I am using my desktop, as others have said, you can import into LR and choose convert to DNG. However, when you are on the road using LR CC on an iPad, that becomes an absolute nightmare. Also, WiFi file transfers time also takes longer because of the file size.

I do wish for a lossless compressed format as well.

Exactly. I honestly think that Sony can do it at anytime, and with a 61mp camera (120mb files) it is almost like a requirement... It should come with the camera and it could (honestly should) go down for the "older" (but still active) models (A7iii, A7r3 and A9).

 

[Veloster75]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

I would have to agree. It's only logical that with bigger sensors coming, lossless compressed is a must. Maybe if more people start questioning Sony as to why they don't offer this, they might add it?

 

[ClementPhotos]

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

Ha! Look at that.

Uncompressed: 81.4MB

Compressed with Windows: 39.4MB

Compressed with WinRar: 26.0MB

Nice. Never knew.

 

[MrMillett9]

Could not agree more. This to me is a valid complaint as opposed to the discussions around buttons etc. I always got used to the new camera and button locations. About personal pref. File size is something everyone will benefit from esp if an option.

What stops me from seriously looking at A7R4 at this point as an upgrade to my A7III. If they increase A7IV to 28-36MB or add a mode to A7RIV for lower files size or add LZW or some other lossless compression that would be great. APSC mode does help with file size but not sure I want to do that. At same time would love the option to have the higher MP for cropping or uncropped photos that I want larger resolution. With most picts viewed on a phone or tablet these days the A7III will do for now.

My only usability issue is I would like a display option with histogram and level. That ultimately may be the reason I switch from Sony to some other camera. That is an age/illness related topic not a displeasure as I have ear issues that affect sense of balance so I need to have level on all the time. These cameras are so good you can hand hold most of the time.

Rolling shutter the other gripe that I agree with and could benefit all users.

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

 

[ClementPhotos]

Could not agree more. This to me is a valid complaint as opposed to the discussions around buttons etc. I always got used to the new camera and button locations. About personal pref. File size is something everyone will benefit from esp if an option.

What stops me from seriously looking at A7R4 at this point as an upgrade to my A7III. If they increase A7IV to 28-36MB or add a mode to A7RIV for lower files size or add LZW or some other lossless compression that would be great. APSC mode does help with file size but not sure I want to do that. At same time would love the option to have the higher MP for cropping or uncropped photos that I want larger resolution. With most picts viewed on a phone or tablet these days the A7III will do for now.

My only usability issue is I would like a display option with histogram and level. That ultimately may be the reason I switch from Sony to some other camera. That is an age/illness related topic not a displeasure as I have ear issues that affect sense of balance so I need to have level on all the time. These cameras are so good you can hand hold most of the time.

Rolling shutter the other gripe that I agree with and could benefit all users.

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

Aren't the RAWs still full resolution, when shooting in APSC mode?

 

[DenImage]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

I use PackRAW to batch archive all my original ARW raw files:

https://encode.ru/threads/2762-PackRAW

Download the latest version here https://goo.gl/w8WQW7

It quickly compresses to half the size of uncompressed ARW raw files, and 50% of the size compressed ARW raw files. You can then quickly extract the original ARW raw files without any loss.

I wrote two batch files, one to compress, the other to decompress.

Den

 

[Scottelly]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

I don't understand. If it's so easy, then why don't you just compress the files as you copy them to your hard drive?

Besides, you can save over 30,000 photos on a $100 drive. That's less than half a cent per photo. Is it REALLY so bad to have large photo files? Does it really matter that much? I mean is being able to save 45,000 photos on a $100 drive so much more important than being able to save just 30,000 photos?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...6y0040bbk_wesn_wd_elements_portable_4000.html

Here's a cheaper one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277275-REG/wd_wdbyft0040bbk_wesn_4tb_my_passport_portable.html

They make a Mac version of that too.

 

[bsas]

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

Ha! Look at that.

Uncompressed: 81.4MB

Compressed with Windows: 39.4MB

Compressed with WinRar: 26.0MB

Nice. Never knew.

Exactly, and those lossless compression algorithms (ZIP, RAR, etc) are widely known.

Try with 7-Zip, even smaller

 

[bsas]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

I don't understand. If it's so easy, then why don't you just compress the files as you copy them to your hard drive?

Besides, you can save over 30,000 photos on a $100 drive. That's less than half a cent per photo. Is it REALLY so bad to have large photo files? Does it really matter that much? I mean is being able to save 45,000 photos on a $100 drive so much more important than being able to save just 30,000 photos?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...6y0040bbk_wesn_wd_elements_portable_4000.html

Here's a cheaper one:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...yft0040bbk_wesn_4tb_my_passport_portable.html

They make a Mac version of that too.

The problem is not that, it’s workflow overhead.

Basically:

1) Having to carry a lot more (maybe bigger and more expensive) SD cards;

2) Have to change those SD cards more often, sometimes in the middle of a shooting;

3) If you compress every file for archiving, you need to uncompress everytime to open them, making the workflow unnecessarily cumbersome and slower;

4) If you don’t compress, takes far more disk space or disks, forcing you to have an organized logic of where the files are, also adding unnecessary workflow overhead;

5) Also takes longer to copy files over multiple systems (SD card to tablet or laptop, tablet or laptop to backup external drive, etc).

Disk space is cheap, I agree. SD card space is not that cheap, but one can argue that it’s the price to pay, but TIME is expensive and any solution that it’s not automatically done in camera adds time and workflow complexity for no reason!

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[kolyy]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

I guess the compression must be done in hardware, otherwise it would be way too slow. And because it seems the processing unit was just reused, it's quite possible that it does not support any other compression algorithm beyond Sony's lossy one.

 

[vyoufinder]

Go shoot some video for a week and tell me the files are too big. Just saying.

 

[MattiD80]

I'm considering nikon Z7 and Sony A7RIII (And A7RIV if it drops sooner then expected from 4000 euro mark). If i have to pick the biggest sony downside this clearly is it. 50MB files on Z7, just amazing. While A7RIII is 90mb and A7RIV is 120MB. And sure memory is cheap, but i already used up 2gb drive, and 1tb of my new 6tb drive, with sony system, i risk needing to own 4 seperate drive (and 4 more backup) in the next 3 years or so. That's a bit much. If it's lossless compressed: I can keep using 64gb SDXC (ultra cheap now), rather then having to buy 128gb's, and my 6tb investment will last much longer (by that time i can buy something like cheap good 10-14tb drive).

 

[Rachael P]

Go shoot some video for a week and tell me the files are too big. Just saying.

 

[Tristimulus]

I'm considering nikon Z7 and Sony A7RIII (And A7RIV if it drops sooner then expected from 4000 euro mark). If i have to pick the biggest sony downside this clearly is it. 50MB files on Z7, just amazing. While A7RIII is 90mb and A7RIV is 120MB. And sure memory is cheap, but i already used up 2gb drive, and 1tb of my new 6tb drive, with sony system, i risk needing to own 4 seperate drive (and 4 more backup) in the next 3 years or so. That's a bit much. If it's lossless compressed: I can keep using 64gb SDXC (ultra cheap now), rather then having to buy 128gb's, and my 6tb investment will last much longer (by that time i can buy something like cheap good 10-14tb drive).

If the files are too big Sony even offer a 12 MP camera - clearly 61 MP is for the rest of us.