p.1 #1 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Curious if anybody has compared these two. The A7IV full-sized RAW is 33MP vs. 26MP for 'Lossless Compressed (M)' on the A7RV. I'm wondering if, slight resolution difference aside (13% linear pixel count), the quality will be comparable. The more I use the A7RV, the more I realize that for a lot of things, 61MP is just overkill.
p.1 #2 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
The small and medium raws from the RV are not "true" raws. They are demosaiced before being downsampled which effectively reduces the dynamic range and push/pull ability of the files. The 33mp raws will look and behave significantly better.
p.1 #3 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
On A7RV in lossless M and S there 1.5 EV less highlight headroom compared to uncompressed (good but large) and to lossless L (this one is good) at base ISO, based on my own test.
p.1 #4 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
jtra wrote:
On A7RV in lossless M and S there 1.5 EV less highlight headroom compared to uncompressed (good but large) and to lossless L (this one is good) at base ISO, based on my own test.
And then they write everywhere that the 26MP shots from the RV look better than all the native 24MP images.
p.1 #5 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Nifty Fifty wrote:
And then they write everywhere that the 26MP shots from the RV look better than all the native 24MP images.
Actually a 26MP file from the A7RV looks better than a 24MP file from the A7III.
Tested that myself.
It's partly because the A7RV has not a low pass filter in the sensor like the A7III, so more detail is preserved.
A comparison to the A7IV or A7V files is another story, though!
p.1 #6 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Nevertheless, I'm wondering where the 1.5 EV reduction in dynamic range comes from. I find that significant. I keep considering whether I should get an Rv as a cheap grey import to enjoy its beautiful viewfinder. The 3.2-inch display with double the resolution of the IV would also be nice, although I've read that it's slightly less bright than the IV's display. In any case, the 60MP resolution puts me off. I thought that could be circumvented with the RAW M setting, but if that reduces the dynamic range, I think that's a bad idea. It's also questionable whether this RAW M setting actually offers any performance advantages when editing in Lightroom. Does anyone have any experience with this?
p.1 #7 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Nevertheless, I'm wondering where the 1.5 EV reduction in dynamic range comes from. I find that significant. I keep considering whether I should get an Rv as a cheap grey import to enjoy its beautiful viewfinder. The 3.2-inch display with double the resolution of the IV would also be nice, although I've read that it's slightly less bright than the IV's display. In any case, the 60MP resolution puts me off. I thought that could be circumvented with the RAW M setting, but if that reduces the dynamic range, I think that's a bad idea. It's also questionable whether this RAW M setting actually offers any performance advantages when editing in Lightroom. Does anyone have any experience with this?...Show more →
The reduction in DR comes from the fact that M and S raws are not actual raws. To provide the smaller size some initial processing needs to be done to the raw data in camera and unfortunately that affects the available DR for further processing.
p.1 #8 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Simply use the full-size lossless compressed RAWs, period.
If your computer has difficulties handling them, it is time to update your computer hardware anyway.
p.1 #9 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
hasenbein wrote:
Simply use the full-size lossless compressed RAWs, period.
If your computer has difficulties handling them, it is time to update your computer hardware anyway.
I never owned a real PC. Until a few years ago I had a laptop, now I only have a Tab 8 Ultra and, frankly, I have little desire to set up a PC again.
I once did a test with a 60MP file. It worked fine on the tablet, but I felt it got noticeably warmer.
p.1 #10 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
hasenbein wrote:
Simply use the full-size lossless compressed RAWs, period.
If your computer has difficulties handling them, it is time to update your computer hardware anyway.
I agree with this. It's always better to have more IQ than you need than to need more IQ than you have. Once lost you can't get it back. Buying a camera like the A7R-V to use settings that limit IQ in any way seems a little crazy unless there is a very specific reason for doing it. Hard drive space is cheap, and practically any computer can handle the files. Exceptions might be operations like focus stacking large numbers of these files, but a typical stack of 2-4 files shouldn't be an issue.
There is a lot of misinformation online regarding Uncompressed RAW (L) versus Lossless Compressed RAW (L) files. Both have identical image quality, but the Lossless Compressed (L) files are around 40% smaller. The only penalty for using the lossless compression is the processing time required to compress and decompress the files, in the camera and when processing the files, respectively. I believe that, depending on the media used in the camera, the time saved by writing a smaller file can more than make up for the extra processing time.
p.1 #11 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
dmcphoto wrote:
Buying a camera like the A7R-V to use settings that limit IQ in any way seems a little crazy unless there is a very specific reason for doing it.
Of course, it's actually crazy to buy an RV basically just for the EVF, but what other options are there? The 9iii? The 1ii? That would be even crazier. Sony should have just given the 7v the large EVF, but unfortunately, cost-cutting got in the way again.
p.1 #12 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
hasenbein wrote:
Actually a 26MP file from the A7RV looks better than a 24MP file from the A7III.
Tested that myself.
It's partly because the A7RV has not a low pass filter in the sensor like the A7III, so more detail is preserved.
A comparison to the A7IV or A7V files is another story, though!
The bigger improvement comes from sub-sampling from the high resolution sensor to true RGB pixels, where the native 24MP sensor delivers only one of the three colors per pixel and requires estimating the rest. So in terms of available data the 26MP-RGB equals about 78MP of color information. So while a native 33MP sensor provides better spatial resolution, the sub-sampled file provides much better color resolution. Which matters more will depend on the subject and how important false color effects are to you.
p.1 #13 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Daran wrote:
The bigger improvement comes from sub-sampling from the high resolution sensor to true RGB pixels, where the native 24MP sensor delivers only one of the three colors per pixel and requires estimating the rest. So in terms of available data the 26MP-RGB equals about 78MP of color information. So while a native 33MP sensor provides better spatial resolution, the sub-sampled file provides much better color resolution. Which matters more will depend on the subject and how important false color effects are to you.
Is there any test that shows this subsampling advantage compared to just cropping the larger image?
p.1 #14 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I never owned a real PC. Until a few years ago I had a laptop, now I only have a Tab 8 Ultra and, frankly, I have little desire to set up a PC again.
I once did a test with a 60MP file. It worked fine on the tablet, but I felt it got noticeably warmer.
In my world it makes no sense at all to buy a very expensive 60MP beast without having a decent PC to edit and store the files. But to each his own...
p.1 #15 · A7RV medium (M) raw vs. A7IV full-sized raw
hasenbein wrote:
In my world it makes no sense at all to buy a very expensive 60MP beast without having a decent PC to edit and store the files. But to each his own...
Of course not, that's why I was considering the 26MP RAW M, but a 1.5-stop loss in dynamic range is out of the question. And again (for the umpteenth time), I wasn't considering the Rv because of, but despite, the 60MP. I definitely don't need 60MP, but I would have liked the nice viewfinder. But whatever, I won't die if I continue using the EVF of the 7IV. I only ever really think about equipment during the darker months, which will soon be over.
Expensive would be a relative term in this case, because as a grey import, the RV would have cost me less than the 7iv did from an official retailer two years ago. I find it remarkable how small the price difference is between the 7iv and the 7Rv for grey imports. Anyone who paid the official markup must feel pretty ripped off. Like I said, I'm not talking about the price itself, but the price difference.
