AI is a term that has different meanings in different settings and contexts. I don't think anybody has a monopoly on what AI must mean or not. Since AI has also become a popular marketing term, many may want to use it to label their new technology perhaps to get attention to it or to distinguish it from the old technology.
Is there any sort of 'intelligence' in the AI AF of these cameras. I think there is even if it doesn't learn and doesn't improve itself. It is still a sort of 'intelligence' compared to the old dumb AF.
I really don't see any point in getting stiff on what the term 'AI' must indicate or implicate or not. There are matters around AI that must concern or seriously worry us, the ordinary human beings. Being picky on the vocabulary of these emerging new technologies is the least of my concerns.
hasenbein wrote:
And in the press release the usual bullshit of "AI white balance" and "deep learning".
This camera, like all others, doesn't contain a trace of AI. AI would mean that the camera learns through your shooting experiences, so that each individual copy over time develops individual reactions to shooting situations. Of course this isn't the case, each copy of a certain camera model reacts in the same way, and that reaction doesn't change over time.
CVP have a great review (imo the best) for hybrid shooters.
?si=j-OmnKlAPDbdIvfs
I'll give this a pass and wait for the A7RIV.
Only thing it has for me is 4K120p which is nice but incredibly limited use cases.
The AI chip as I've been told (by a Sony rep) is a chip that does use machine learning to make decisions. Whatever buzz words they apply, the AWB and to a lesser extent but still noticeable, the AF in my 7RV have been stunning.
Lots of people in this thread having very strong opinions on what AI (an ill-defined concept) is or isn't.
The camera probably has some deep learning stuff like classifiers, which are as much AI as anything else.
This idea that you people have that the camera needs to be learning from the customer using it for it to count as AI is entirely hallucinatory.
Well your opinion is nonsense— mine comes from over 40 years working in Information Technology, first as a programmer and systems analyst, and most recently as the lead engineer on multiple AI Software development projects for major companies… so my opinion is not based on nonsense. As an example, I was the lead for the first AI Application for Data Cleansing in the Pharma Industry. So get the hell outta here with your nonsense
Cliff L. wrote:
I'm not sure what the readout speed of the stacked sensor in the R5 II is, but looking back at my hummingbird images from this past summer, I noticed a few instances of wing distortion, so even a fully stacked sensor is no guarantee of avoid rolling shutter effects. No such issues with the A1, though.
---------------------------------------------
octo wrote:
It is AI. Definition being: "The ability of a computer or other machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence." => there is no mention of self learning here. You can produce AI without self learning. And Chess with the Alpha-Beta algorithm, before the engines started to use NN/NNUE is one such example, those engines were not learning anything, they were pre-trained, and yet, they're still AI.
Edit: Actually, even those very new Chess engines using NN/NNUE are still not learning anything. The training is done somewhere else, and the engines themselves are just using the trained data, and applying it, just as those Sony cameras are doing with subject recognition.
You're thinking "self learning" and that is a subset of what "AI" is....Show more →
I’ll admit that there isn’t a universally accepted definition of AI. For the companies I worked for, we defined what AI meant form a business requirements perspective…so there was no confusion or missed expectations upon delivery.
In most my projects, AI system were initially trained on ground truth data and had to have a mechanism to be retrained based on data generated from the processes the AI application itself produced. So from my perspective and experience non of these camera systems are being retrained on the data individual users are generating from their cameras. Sure, firmware updates could retrain the models, but it’s from a narrow perspective.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
It’s not generative AI, which is likely what you are indicating. It’s more like Machine -Learning AI, which automates complex programmed algorithms (deciding which to apply, to what extent, etc.), like focus calculations and image processing. But it’s debatable if it’s true AI.
Hasenbein is describing a continual learning model. This is a small subset of what’s considered AI, so I would consider his definition to be too strong
Jazzgear296 is right that it’s not generative AI, however he is also likely wrong that Hasenbein is trying to describe a generative AI model.
Hasenbein, white balance is a value you can measure directly with a colorcheckr or grey card. For this reason I don’t understand why there’s a need to learn from the end user! Sony can take a bunch of photos, together with the colorcheckr ground truth in different environments to create a dataset for an AI model to learn from.
If such an AI model is tested to be able to predict the white balance with better accuracy than the hand written algorithm, than this is a good thing for everyone
BobSac wrote:
CVP have a great review (imo the best) for hybrid shooters.
?si=j-OmnKlAPDbdIvfs
I'll give this a pass and wait for the A7RIV.
Only thing it has for me is 4K120p which is nice but incredibly limited use cases.
The AI chip as I've been told (by a Sony rep) is a chip that does use machine learning to make decisions. Whatever buzz words they apply, the AWB and to a lesser extent but still noticeable, the AF in my 7RV have been stunning.
Funny, the only setting I ever record any video on with my cameras is 4K 120p. Absolutely perfect for doing slow-motion, and motion is always what I'm trying to capture in my videos. Just goes to show different users have different use cases, and I'm sure Sony knows that and targets accordingly.
I would agree the improvements in AWB and AF have been great in recent years, and they are trained using AI data models, even if they aren't perhaps applying that in a way some would like to consider "AI" in camera (and let's be honest, we don't fully know *what* is done in camera).
The AI in the Sony cameras refers to a pre-trained neural network. The weights of the network are set and not adjustable by the user... the AI chip in the camera does the elaboration based on the inputs not the training . training requires GPU like horse power and is done offline during product development.
from late 1990's till 2010's Canon used to call their continuous servo "AI servo" AI stood for "artificial intelligence" of course those cameras had no ML, neural network or anything remotely close to that.... just rigid one size fit all algorithms... so by that token Sony is legit AI.... but it's not same level of AI as in a Tesla self driving tech for example. it could even be a simple regression model rather than convolutional neural network.
marketing aside, It's not trivial to make a camera that can "learn" from a user in the field, for example in terms of training AF, if the camera misses focus and ends up with a total blur, how is the user going to classify what it should have focused on after the fact using a total OOF frame? it's not that simple in this case. to re-optimize those weights one would need to feed in specific images of the novel subject with variable focus distances and other criteria...
Training AWB in the field might be possible by the user if they had access to calibrated targets but why would anyone want that ? We pay Sony to do it for us and if shooting RAW, the same training can be done in the RAW conversion software AWB profile where it is much more effective with the computer horsepower behind it.... and each individual can train the profile to their liking...
so not sure what a camera that "learns" in the field from the "photographer" even means... ? camera is a tool and not meant to become a photographer by itself...
the new camera seems to be a nice addition with 30 fps blackout free shooting.
NJPhotographer wrote:
The A7v looks amazing and pretty perfect for my uses. However, the A7iv still works great for me, so I'm in no hurry to buy the this new one.
same, my a7iv is still perfect for all my shooting needs, and i have the perfect apsc camera as well 6700 which is just as fast as the new m5, with the sigma 1.4 its a perfect sudo fast FF camera.
Guest8967 wrote:
I know some might be disappointed by the video features, but as someone who primarily just shoots wildlife, this camera is a dream come true. I have an A7RV and didn't want to pay the 8000 CAD for the A1ii. Getting the A7V is a no brainer, pre-capture, no blackout, high DR electronic shutter, 16 stops of DR checks off every wish I had. It even qualified for Sony's student discount when I pre-ordered!
Now comes the question of do I sell my A7RV to buy a GFX100RF as a travel camera...
its going to have 16 stops due to shooting hdr or extreme NR. no one has tested it yet my guess it wont be as good as the 74
Ordered one. Would love to see if there are low light high ISO improvements compared to the IV.
That and the battery life is the only thing I was a little disappointed over coming from the III.
I've been an A7iv owner since 2021 and I'm going to pass on this camera. If I was a sports or wild life photographer I could get excited by the A7v, but the video capabilities not going beyond 4K is disappointing. As has been mentioned by a few others I can't believe that they are still using the old 3.69 million dot EVF. How much added cost or battery consumption would it have meant if they had given us 5.76 or 9.44 million dots? I'll bet it was pretty miniscule.
B Landau wrote:
I've been an A7iv owner since 2021 and I'm going to pass on this camera. If I was a sports or wild life photographer I could get excited by the A7v, but the video capabilities not going beyond 4K is disappointing. As has been mentioned by a few others I can't believe that they are still using the old 3.69 million dot EVF. How much added cost or battery consumption would it have meant if they had given us 5.76 or 9.44 million dots? I'll bet it was pretty miniscule.
A7V is basically a budget A1ii with less resolution.
There is enough packed into the A7V to probably dissuade a good number of potential A1ii sales or A7S/FX. Sony had to save a few bullet points to differentiate their product lines.
Don't think it is about minuscule incremental costs. There are other features like improved body/grip of the A9iii/A1ii that didn't get trickled down. Sony basically gave A7V everything important for "most" entry level consumer but not every luxury. They want to nudge you up the product tier.
