photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

When I got my new Sony A 7IV, I populated the top card slot Slot 1 with a Amplim 128 gB micro SD in Amplin Adaptor and the bottom slot,Slot 2, with a 32 GB an Disk Extreme
= 90 mb/sec hc1 U3, C10 card, then formatted both cards in camera My rec. Media Settings for still photog were then set to Slot 1 J- Fine 33M Slot 2 RAW . My Recover Image DB. Slot I and slot 2 were shown as Not Found. Downloading the first few test images into my Photos Library on my Mac 5K 27 inch 2017 processor 3.8 ghz quad core intel core I 5 WITH 40 GB 2400 MHZ DDR4. I got the following which I captured via screenshot.

Surely, I'm not the first UHHer to run up against this. What have I not done during setup (or done and should not have)? How can I get my Mac go recognize Sony's 7 IV version of RAW???

(Download)

chris in nz Loc: New Zealand

Raw support is part of the operating system on a Mac and Apple don’t appear to have done an update for a while - the list on their site doesn’t include that model.
Something like Capture One that uses its own raw engine will be able to read them

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Post one of the files here. Someone might transfer it to their computer and check it with something like an Adobe product or similar. A quick check suggests the A7 IV was added to the Adobe system last October.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Download a 30-day fully operational copy of Fast Raw Viewer (FRV) - https://www.fastrawviewer.com/

The $23 investment for this software, constantly updated for new camera RAW releases, is a very modest investment for excellent usefulness.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

If you are going to download trials and you have a brand new amazing camera, you might consider a Lightroom Classic test.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

When I shoot crop raws on my a7c, I have the same problem. I use adobe dng converter and the photos app can read them. Fastraw viewer looks good to me

faustincpa

I had the same issue with my 7r4 and called Sony. They were more than happy to help resolve the problem. You should call them.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

it's apparently already done
Thanks

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Why waste your time and money with RAW? Monstrously large jpegs from this camera will open in Apples Photos no trouble and will have huge amounts of data for PP

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Well, for one major difference: the bit depth of the RAW file.

Yes, the JPEG and RAW both have the same monstrous amount of pixels. But, the color data supporting each of those pixels is exponentially different.

chris in nz Loc: New Zealand

Raw files have so much more data in the shadows and highlights that you can pull out versus JPG where what you see is basically all you get.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Undoubtedly you are right however, WHAT is the intended end use for the photograph? Is it really necessary to shoot RAW? Apart from extreme situations where one cannot obtain an adequate exposure due to less than optimum light conditions ( and maybe an inadequate camera such as a Canon MILC ) then well exposed jpegs are more than good enough for the majority of end uses IMHO.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

See my comment on CHG_CANONs post

chris in nz Loc: New Zealand

I respectfully disagree. The vast majority of the photos I take are helped with shadow and highlight adjustment which would be difficult or impossible to achieve with a JPG.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Hi Chris - your are indeed entitled to your opinion! Sadly though I think it's one which is not provable.

I have, many times after reading UHH posts on the subject, tried to prove this theory that RAW is better for editing than JPGs. I do set my cameras to give good exposures though and then see little difference on the screen between the 2 files when first downloaded. Anyway I haven't been able to show that RAW is better than JPG for editing in any way. Most of the times there's been little need to edit the RAW at all apart from a little sharpening. I have found however that the RAW files from small sensor cameras are more much editable than their JPG's. Obviously Dynamic range is involved here. APS-C and Full Frame cameras I find there's little difference between the 2 files when displayed on my Retina iMac.

I could, as many have, post examples supposedly showing how much better a RAW file edit is than a JPG edit but there is no way I could prove that's really what I did - I can only show you JPGs anyway and there's no way to record the edits that I made which would prove the theory. Not suggesting anyone would tell porkies about what they'd done but we all know how the Media in particular can "massage" the facts to give an entirely different slant to a story. It is entirely possible to "lie" by omission. Still life must go on - all the way until it ends! Cheers JohnR