The new Sony A7R IV has dual SDXC UHS-II card slots. The UHS-II designation means that extra pins are on the card to allow extra high speed reading and writing with cameras that support UHS-II. Cameras lacking that support read/write at slower speed.
Sony A7R IV
Terence M writes this just as I was looking into it!
What are your highly recommended SDXC cards for the Sony A7R IV? What about the Sony Tough cards, are they the best?
File size
Shooting 61-megapixel images is going to demand a lot of storage space and fast write and read times, both for writing and image review.
Sony 16-shot high-res mode will generate up to 16 * 125 = 2 gigabytes per capture uncompressed and still 16 * 62 = a gigabyte per capture compressed. Unless Sony comes up with a lossless compression format, guaranteed full image quality requires uncompressed format. That’s a storage disaster for both mult-shot and the 10 fps mode.
CLICK TO VIEW: Fast SDXC UHS-II camera storage cards
You’ll need a lot of storage on your computer. Consult with Lloyd for how to do that well and how to validate data integrity over time and across backups and originals on any media, Mac or Windows.
CLICK TO VIEW: High Capacity Computer Storage
Write speed bandwidth
Plus, 10 fps means 1250 megabytes per second for uncompressed raw, and still a huge storage challenge at 620 MB/sec for compressed raw. You probably won't be fond of uncompressed raw at 10 fps for that reason! The fastest cards seem to write at 200 to 300 MB/sec.
But here are some links that steer you to what look like solid options. It seems that UHS-II at high speed does not come cheap.
I don’t like to count on “up to” write speed as that can be misleading—I want to see “minimum sustained write speed” quoted—many cards don’t say. For example, the SanDisk 128GB card below claims “up to 260MB/sec” but only guarantees that it won’t drop below 30 MB/sec—8 times slower! Similarly, the ProGrade offering guarantees only 90MB/sec, which is good, but far short of its 200MB/sec max speed. The Lexar 128GB offering guarantees a minimum 90 MB/sec which is quite good.
Then there are the Angelbird offerings which confuse the issue by claiming “sustained write speeds of 260 MB/sec” in conjunction with “minimum write speeds of 90 MB/sec”—confusing, but that’s as good a performance as seems to be available—but Sony Tough series matches it.
Below are some hand-picked candidates. I’m inclined to go with Sony SF-G Tough Series UHS-II SDXC card for several reasons: (1) absence of the annoying write-protect tab, (2) almost certain compatibility, (3) guaranteed minimum 90 MB/sec. I would much prefer a 256GB capacity but with dual card slots, dual 128GB cards is perfectly viable.
Fast SDXC UHS-II camera storage cards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-07-19 - SEND FEEDBACK
Related:
checkerboarding, digital sensor, exposure, lighting, MTF and Micro Contrast, Multi-Shot High Resolution Mode, Panasonic, pixel shift, Sony, Sony A7R IV, Sony mirrorless, Sony Multi-Shot High-Res mode, true-color sensor
Sony A7R IV
The new Sony A7R IV has many appealing improvements, with Sony once again leading the technology race and while improving the ergonomics/haptics too. Just how other competitors can respond without still lagging behind is unclear, especially with Sony controlling the sensor market.zz
CLICK TO VIEW: Sony A7R IV + Highly Recommended Lenses
I will be buying the Sony A7R IV as it is a compelling upgrade in many ways. But I fear that the one feature that most interests me might turn out to be dead on arrival for field shooting: the Sony 16-Shot High-Res Mode feature.
How Sony 16-Shot High-Res Mode works as I understand it
Sony has done a poor job of explaining just how the 16-Shot High-Res Mode feature works . The video is a nerd thing showing how pixels and sub-pixels overlap and say nothing about shooting speed, inter-frame time gap (if any), card-write time, or post-processing issues, such as how motion is handled. Or whether Sony’s required computer software processing is better than its prior toy-grade implementation.
Here is what I gather, and I hope I am mistaken about some of these points:
- The Sony A7R IV makes 16 exposures using pixel shift in various ways to in effect quadruple the number of pixels captured, and with each having full RGB true-color information. In theory, wonderful quality. This is somewhat different than Panasonic S1R, which makes eight (8) exposures. So presumably Sony’s peak quality will be superior.
- The Sony A7R IV apparently stores sixteen (16) separate files on the camera card, for a whopping gigabyte or more for a single capture. That’s a striking difference in two ways: 16 separate files and a 1000+ megabytes versus the 342MB single raw files of the Panasonic S1R (plus optional single-shot frame)—Sony is a 3X larger hit—a huge nuisance and waste of space and you'd better have a very fast SDXC card.
- Sony apparently does zero in-camera processing for multi-shot. Compare that to Panasonic which uses sophisticated in-camera processing to produce a single convenient raw file usable immediately in any raw converter.
What’s appears to be unworkable with Sony’s implementation
With those assumptions, here are my concerns, which have many undesirable implications for both capture and processing.
1. Exposure time
Sony’s current pixel shift on the Sony A7R III interposes a minimum 1/2 second delay between exposures (adding 1.5 seconds to the total time required). In the field as a practical matter, this guarantees motion/lighting artifacts resulting in godawful checkerboarding, disgusting me so many times that I gave up on pixel shift on the Sony A7R III. And that is only 4-shot pixel shift! It is why I lauded the Panasonic S1R, which exposes its 8 frames as fast as the exposure time allows and has sophisticated in-camera generation of a single raw file.
The chance of motion/lighting artifacts for 16 vs 8 exposures is in practice not just twice as likely. It is probably 10X higher under so many field conditions. I might be able to time an 8 frame exposure on the Panasonic S1R such that wind or lighting issues are minimized, but it’s drastically harder to do so for twice as long a time—lulls in wind and shifts in lighting are impatient with photographers. Already on the Sony A7R III, 4-frame pixel shift has been proven to be troubled even under ideal conditions.
With sixteen frames instead of four, any delay adds up to a lot of time in terms of subject changes, which includes shadows/lighting as the sun or clouds move!
Even assuming zero inter-frame delay for 16 frames, sixteen exposures is a lengthy duration in which motion artifacts and lighting changes guarantee problems, even under ideal conditions.
Therefore, unless the Sony processing software has exceptionally sophisticated ways of dealing with motion/lighting artifacts that are far superior to the Panasonic S1R, I see no hope for field use.
Checkerboarding with moving water
f6.3 @ 1/160 sec PixelShift, ISO 100; 2019-07-10 19:05:37
Sony A7R III + Voigtlander FE NOKTON 21mm f/1.4 Aspherical
[low-res image for bot]
Checkerboarding with moving water
f6.3 @ 1/160 sec PixelShift, ISO 100; 2019-07-10 19:05:37
Sony A7R III + Voigtlander FE NOKTON 21mm f/1.4 Aspherical
[low-res image for bot]
2. Lack of in-camera processing, no raw file, huge file count
Sony’s 4-frame pixel shift on the Sony A7R III is a huge hassle: if I want to delete the single capture, I have to delete 4 separate files one-by-one. With 16-shot mode, will I have to delete 16 frames one-by-one?
Storage needs are problematic. With the Panasonic S1R, 324MB finished raw files on the Panasonic S1R are one thing, but 1000+ megabytes scattered across 16 separate files is quite another.
Perhaps 120 images on a 128GB card = buy a pocketful of expensive storage cards—fast SDXC UHS-II cards are not cheap, and that speed is important.
Because there is no in-camera raw file produced as with the Panasonic S1R, there is no way to determine whether the final assembled image is OK in terms of focus and depth of field—this cannot be done satisfactorily at normal resolution but that’s all the A7R IV has—16 separate images at standard resolution.
I know this from extensive field experience with the Panasonic S1R that I have to be able to check the full resolution multi-shot image. With the S1R, the shot discipline demands are the hardest of anything I have ever done with any camera, and the Sony A7R IV increases that substantially over the S1R (16% more resolution, linearly). Yet Sony defeats any ability to verify the essentials of focus and depth of field, by not providing any high-res image in-camera.
3. Workflow
Not being able to review the full resolution image in camera as with the Panasonic S1R is a very serious field-usage flaw with the Sony A7R IV, bad enough on its own.
But consider that Sony’s solution is to require usage of Sony imaging software. That’s a serious headache for workflow, versus just importing into Lightroom or Photoshop. And it might be iterative, meaning, do and redo and redo and redo in the Sony software with various parameters to fix artifacts. Assuming it even can.
In the best case Sony’s imaging software will perform brilliantly and using all CPU cores and GPU power, with sophisticated handling of motion/lighting artifacts accruing from field use. I am not feeling hopeful on any of those points.
It’s also possible that Adobe could do something useful, but that never happened for 4-shot pixels shift, so it seems doubtful.
Stefan I writes:
I’m a long term subscriber and I absolutely appreciate your work. You’ve saved me save money, several times, as your recommendations have been spot-on. The last time I almost bought a Leica 24-90mm SL zoom, planning a transition to the Panasonic S1R, but your well executed review made me reconsider, at the last minute.
I’ve been waiting for the multishot capability to be added to the Sony ecosystem ever since the Sony A7R III came out. For my large gallery prints (2m to 3m wide) there are never enough pixels. Currently I’m doing all sorts of stitching (flat, nodal, mixed) combined with focus stacking or lens tilts / swings. But it’s very time consuming, and I would rather spend my time on composition and light than technicalities.
I have a question: Based on your experience with Panasonic’s multishot implementation, and with all sorts of lenses, will there be a meaningful difference at 200+ true-color megapixels, at f 5.6 / f8, between a Voigtlander FE 65mm f/2 APO and Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon (or even a Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for that matter) ? Same thing about the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.4 vs Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon.
I appreciate the 21mm FOV a lot more than 28mm, but hanging on to my Otus, and lugging it around just for the sake of absolute IQ and resolution. Again, we are talking about optimal shooting conditions: f 5.6 to f8 for all lenses, solid tripod and head, remote etc.
I’m tired of lugging around adapted DSLR bricks, I would really like to trade in my Otuses for Voigtlanders - the 110 APO has already made an excellent impression, but then, again, I haven’t tested any of my lenses on 200MP shots. Your thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Best regards,
DIGLLOYD: I am more than a little concerned that the Sony 16-shot high-res mode implementation will not be field usable as is the Panasonic Multi-Shot High-Res mode. There are numerous drawbacks in its implementation also.
the Leica 24-90mm f/2.8-4 Vario-Elmarit-SL ASPH OIS was at best a mediocre performer on the Panasonic S1R in multi-shot high-res mode coupled with seriously damaging focus shift—just not a reliable instrument for the purpose. I didn’t publish many results with it, so disappointing was it, which is not to say it’s bad, just that it is way below the results I could get with the primes, or the Leica 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Super-Vario-Elmar-SL ASPH.
But to the point: Zeiss Otus lenses did not behave as I expected on the Panasonic S1R. While I was able to achieve high-grade results, field curvature in the outer zones and unexpected focus shift that does not exist on the Nikon D850 caused me some grief. It suggests an interaction with sensor cover glass—high performance lenses can be quite sensitive to relatively small differences in cover glass thickness. Along with the size and weight, this also makes me ponder whether other choices are better.
Accordingly, when I explore the Sony 16-shot high-res mode implementation, I will be paying close attention to how Zeiss Otus lenses behave, and I also intend to test the Voigtlander FE NOKTON 21mm f/1.4 Aspheric, Voigtlander FE MACRO APO-LANTHAR 65mm f/2 APO and Voigtlander FE MACRO APO-LANTHAR 110mm f/2.5. Since they are native-mount and designed fresh for Sony cameras, I expect very high performance. Which is not a statement that color, flare control and other aspects are up to Zeiss Otus levels—just a comment on resolution.
In my view, Zeiss is not taking the mirrorless market seriously: the failure to produce reasonable size/weight lenses for mirrorless with better than Otus-grade performance (quite possible with an f/2 or f/2.8 lens speed) is a strategic mistake IMO, at least if there is any desire to remain relevant. Something half the size of an Otus with Otus+ performance and a stop or even two less speed would be VERY appealing. While the Zeiss Loxia and Zeiss Batis lenses are strong offerings, they can no longer claim to be the best—witness at the least the stellar Sony FE 135mm f/1.8 GM and the Voigtlander FE NOKTON 21mm f/1.4 Aspheric.
CLICK TO VIEW: Sony A7R IV and Highly Recommended Lenses (partial list)
