JayPhoto1 wrote:
Same here. I’ve been pursuing the ideal hybrid camera for sometime. I’ve tried the X-T4, R5, and have the A7S3. All are great but each with some shortfall that the A1 appears to fix (on paper so far). My R5 has the updated firmware but I still get this anxious feeling when switching between stills and 4K HQ that my video allowance will run out due to overheating. The R5 comes close and I don’t NEED the A1 but like the idea of having just one system that checks all the boxes.
Even though I realized sometime ago that "perfect camera (or camera bag ) does not exist yet I like the pursuit. Canon R5 is definitely one the best cameras that I have ever used. I don't really care of video so not worried about the overheating but like I said it just feel foreign. Maybe I need to spend a lot more time with it.
A1 does seem to fix the some of the annoyances that I had with my last two Sonys (A9II and A7r4), i.e. the overall sluggishness of camera and UI. A9 II lacked the mpx for cropping and A7r4 had bad high ISO and unreliable AF with 200-600. A1 seems to have fixed all of that but the question for me remains is that whether it is enough spending so much on a camera body. Not to mention that I will have to buy all lenses again.
With that said, I positive is that lenses in Sony world are cheaper than RF but I'll miss the small size of 70-200 F4 and 100-500 (which I grown fond off, despite writing it off in the beginning due to high cost and smaller aperture)
webmstrk9 wrote:
@arbitrage@ did he copy your wishlist?
Ah yes...great minds think alike...him and I would get along well complaining about all the little things these cameras lack. But I am happy that Sony has addressed a number of these little things.
After just watching that video, I'm a little disappointed that he says wake up time is no better and that when waking up the overlays still sort of come up one at a time and no faster. I had thought the new CPU would have improved those two things.
AJay wrote:
I just took a look at some of the A1's raw images and they do in fact have full-sized jpgs embedded in the raw file. What I can't confirm however is if the lossless compressed raw and compressed raw have full-sized jpg's or not. Maybe they reduce the file sizes with those by reducing the resolution of the embedded jpg's? Does someone have samples of compressed lossless and compressed raws to check on this?
I just checked all the RAWs I've been downloading over the past few weeks and I found some Lossless compressed and some Compressed (Lossy).
How do I check what the size of the embedded jpeg is? As I mentioned LR only sees the small jpeg still.
There are lossy compressed RAWs in the ISO Colorchecker section (all are exactly 60MB). There are Lossless Compressed in the Gewurze series and the BROT series.
arbitrage wrote:
I just checked all the RAWs I've been downloading over the past few weeks and I found some Lossless compressed and some Compressed (Lossy).
How do I check what the size of the embedded jpeg is? As I mentioned LR only sees the small jpeg still.
There are lossy compressed RAWs in the ISO Colorchecker section (all are exactly 60MB). There are Lossless Compressed in the Gewurze series and the BROT series.
I asked in the Sony Pro Support during the BeAlpha event today and they didn't think that the JPEGS were larger but I don't think they were very confident in that reply. I might hop on again during the A1 specific event and see what they say.
stuuke wrote:
I asked in the Sony Pro Support during the BeAlpha event today and they didn't think that the JPEGS were larger but I don't think they were very confident in that reply. I might hop on again during the A1 specific event and see what they say.
You can use exiftool to get the sizes (in bytes) of the embedded jpegs:
(on windows)
"exiftool(-k).exe" -preview:all YOUR_RAW_FILE.ARW
I extracted the file size for the full size embedded JPEG from the first 52 Alpha 1 RAW files in the DPR Review gallery along with the compression type and quality (see the export below). It shows the full size embedded JPEG is ALWAYS in the RAW file no matter if you are using lossy or non-lossy compression and it doesn't matter if you are shooting RAW + JPEG or just plain RAW.
That full size embedded JPEG is always there taking up a huge amount of space! That embedded JPEG ranges from 2.25-11.5 MB with no ability to control it's size. This is in addition to the old version of the embedded JPEG from before that is around 0.4-0.5 MB that is also inside the RAW file at the exact same time! What a colossal waste of space and not to mention in camera power and CPU usage just to create the full size JPEG!!! Around 5-20% of the ARW file is just from the embedded JPEG previews! WTF? @Alex Phan, time for you to send my feedback to Sony again about their bad engineering.
Canon's RAW format is so much more space efficient. How could ANY Sony engineer think it was a good idea to waste so much space and CPU power embedding full size JPEGs into RAW files that are always there and take up a significant amount of the overall size of the RAW file? What is the point of even having separate RAW + JPEG options if you just write the full size JPEG out twice?
FileName JpgFromRawSizeMB RAWFileType Quality
DSC00012.ARW 9.19 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00018.ARW 7.48 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00021.ARW 6.35 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00025.ARW 8.41 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00027.ARW 9.78 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00030.ARW 11.40 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00032.ARW 3.87 Compressed RAW RAW
DSC00035.ARW 6.92 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00038.ARW 5.84 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00041.ARW 7.14 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00054.ARW 3.09 Compressed RAW RAW
DSC00059.ARW 2.58 Compressed RAW RAW
DSC00081.ARW 7.44 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00088.ARW 5.05 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00093.ARW 4.64 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00094.ARW 4.99 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00098.ARW 2.48 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00102.ARW 3.26 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00110.ARW 3.52 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00116.ARW 3.31 Compressed RAW RAW + Fine JPEG
DSC00138.ARW 11.02 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00139.ARW 5.91 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00143.ARW 7.48 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00145.ARW 6.76 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00149.ARW 8.30 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00162.ARW 5.20 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00171.ARW 4.00 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00176.ARW 5.36 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00187.ARW 8.31 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00192.ARW 5.19 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00199.ARW 2.63 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00204.ARW 2.25 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00221.ARW 2.70 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00232.ARW 3.09 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00234.ARW 2.75 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00236.ARW 2.13 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00247.ARW 3.54 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00254.ARW 4.66 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00255.ARW 5.13 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00270.ARW 9.63 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00274.ARW 3.45 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00286.ARW 7.51 Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00391.ARW 3.60 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00398.ARW 4.59 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00402.ARW 5.17 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00996.ARW 5.32 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC00998.ARW 4.97 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC01004.ARW 3.28 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC08808.ARW 4.27 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC08833.ARW 3.93 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC08847.ARW 4.85 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG
DSC08858.ARW 4.83 Lossless Compressed RAW RAW + Extra Fine JPEG ...Show more →
There are lossy compressed RAWs in the ISO Colorchecker section (all are exactly 60MB). There are Lossless Compressed in the Gewurze series and the BROT series.
I downloaded the lossless compressed and the jpg is full-size using Photo Mechanic: 8640 x 5760.
I'm able to extract the full size embedded jpg now in all versions of A1 files in my Winnow program now. This is great news. Thanks to everyone for the assist. ;*)
Thanks for everyone who has confirmed all the embedded jpeg stuff. I guess Adobe needs to get working on telling LR how to show the full size embed and not the smaller old school embed But that doesn't matter to me as I have Winnow!!
I went through the 52 RAW files from DPR again and extracted both the fullsize + regular embedded JPEG sizes along with the overall RAW file size. The total percentage of the filesize taken up by both the embedded JPEGs is shown in the export below:
It boggles my mind that Sony engineers would think this would be a good idea at all to waste so much space and CPU time. I bet this is one of the reasons that the Alpha 1 can't actually do the full 30 fps with tracking as shown in the Mark Galer review. It could only do 26.6 fps with tracking and you have to drop down to wide area - no tracking in order to do 30 fps. The CPU is wasting time creating full size JPEGs instead on AF! This is just so plain wrong and absolutely unnecessary for a sports camera! 5-20% of the Sony Alpha 1 RAW file is just a waste of space and time.
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks for everyone who has confirmed all the embedded jpeg stuff. I guess Adobe needs to get working on telling LR how to show the full size embed and not the smaller old school embed But that doesn't matter to me as I have Winnow!!
Now we just need them to offer a small and medium RAW and I'll have nothing left on my wishlist.
stuuke wrote:
Now we just need them to offer a small and medium RAW and I'll have nothing left on my wishlist.
Since you'd usually want to cover the entire sensor, the "small and medium RAW" options can't be actual RAWs. To my knowledge for Canikon they are in fact 16bit TIFFs. Not sure I'd want to use those.
On the other hand I have some hope to use HEIF. Those have better IQ and more DR (10bit!) than JPEG while similar in size. They are much smaller than TIFF or real RAW. They just might be good enough, assuming proper support in C1 and the likes.
Daran wrote:
Since you'd usually want to cover the entire sensor, the "small and medium RAW" options can't be actual RAWs. To my knowledge for Canikon they are in fact 16bit TIFFs. Not sure I'd want to use those.
On the other hand I have some hope to use HEIF. Those have better IQ and more DR (10bit!) than JPEG while similar in size. They are much smaller than TIFF or real RAW. They just might be good enough, assuming proper support in C1 and the likes.
Problem with HEIF is that it is patent encumbered and won't see widespread support because of that. AVIF is that way to go because it is royalty free but has same feature set as HEIF.
Plus, no one has proper support for displaying HDR from HEIF across devices. Even most Apple software doesn't support HEIF HDR outside of an iPhone/iPad. Try using those files across devices and you will see why sRGB color space is the gold standard.
TopPixel wrote:
I went through the 52 RAW files from DPR again and extracted both the fullsize + regular embedded JPEG sizes along with the overall RAW file size. The total percentage of the filesize taken up by both the embedded JPEGs is shown in the export below:
It boggles my mind that Sony engineers would think this would be a good idea at all to waste so much space and CPU time. I bet this is one of the reasons that the Alpha 1 can't actually do the full 30 fps with tracking as shown in the Mark Galer review. It could only do 26.6 fps with tracking and you have to drop down to wide area - no tracking in order to do 30 fps. The CPU is wasting time creating full size JPEGs instead on AF! This is just so plain wrong and absolutely unnecessary for a sports camera! 5-20% of the Sony Alpha 1 RAW file is just a waste of space and time....Show more →
26.6 fps ? Wait and see after people play around with it. I just remember a recent post of someone trying to get 20 fps on the A9ii. He needed to switch IBIS off, stuff like shading compensation etc.
Until people try different settings we should not rush to such conclusions as you are often up to.
TopPixel wrote:
I went through the 52 RAW files from DPR again and extracted both the fullsize + regular embedded JPEG sizes along with the overall RAW file size. The total percentage of the filesize taken up by both the embedded JPEGs is shown in the export below:
It boggles my mind that Sony engineers would think this would be a good idea at all to waste so much space and CPU time. I bet this is one of the reasons that the Alpha 1 can't actually do the full 30 fps with tracking as shown in the Mark Galer review. It could only do 26.6 fps with tracking and you have to drop down to wide area - no tracking in order to do 30 fps. The CPU is wasting time creating full size JPEGs instead on AF! This is just so plain wrong and absolutely unnecessary for a sports camera! 5-20% of the Sony Alpha 1 RAW file is just a waste of space and time....Show more →
I guess only a waste of space and time if you don't make use of embedded jpegs. But a lot of us have wished for a full size jpeg since the beginning of Sony MILCs. So I'm happy. Canon and Nikon have been doing this forever. Having this full size jpeg is going to speed me up since now I don't have the camera writing RAW+Jpeg which is surely slower than writing just RAW with a full size embed. Considering I'm not jumping down the CFe-A hole until it makes financial sense, this should help my use of SD cards also.
Holger wrote:
26.6 fps ? Wait and see after people play around with it. I just remember a recent post of someone trying to get 20 fps on the A9ii. He needed to switch IBIS off, stuff like shading compensation etc.
Until people try different settings we should not rush to such conclusions as you are often up to.
I do not rush to conclusions. Mark Galer explicitly details why the Alpha 1 can only do 26.6 fps with a tracking AF in his YouTube review at the 28 minute mark:
TopPixel wrote:
I do not rush to conclusions. Mark Galer explicitly details why the Alpha 1 can only do 26.6 fps with a tracking AF in his YouTube review at the 28 minute mark:
?t=1686
I know that video. I still am not convinced he really tested it with other possible parameter combinations. He got that with the settings he used for this video. Sure.
arbitrage wrote:
I guess only a waste of space and time if you don't make use of embedded jpegs. But a lot of us have wished for a full size jpeg since the beginning of Sony MILCs. So I'm happy. Canon and Nikon have been doing this forever. Having this full size jpeg is going to speed me up since now I don't have the camera writing RAW+Jpeg which is surely slower than writing just RAW with a full size embed. Considering I'm not jumping down the CFe-A hole until it makes financial sense, this should help my use of SD cards also.
The average size of the Alpha 1 RAW files with compression is 57 megabytes. You are not saving any time or space with Sony RAW files that big.
Sony A9ii compressed RAW files are 24-25 MB. The Alpha 1 raw files have double the resolution but are 1.28x bigger in file size. That means the Alpha 1 RAW files are 28% less efficient!!! And all because of those dang full size embedded JPEGs no sports shooter wants.
Holger wrote:
I know that video. I still am not convinced he really tested it with other possible parameter combinations. He got that with the settings he used for this video. Sure.
So you are saying Mark Galer is secretly Tony Northrup?
TopPixel wrote:
So you are saying Mark Galer is secretly Tony Northrup?
Are you trolling again or can't you read?
I said he got the results using the parameters he used in the video. But I doubt he used all possible combinations to definitely say you can only get 26.6 fps with tracking as you claim.
) does not exist yet I like the pursuit. Canon R5 is definitely one the best cameras that I have ever used. I don't really care of video so not worried about the overheating but like I said it just feel foreign. Maybe I need to spend a lot more time with it. 