Canon 7D S-RAW/M-RAW Question

With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would be
tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of full
resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before, I have a
few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as opposed to
normal RAW's?

2) As the camera is processing/converting the raw sensor data, does it still
give the same non-destructive white balance flexibility as normal RAW files?
Does the camera add any noise reduction/sharpening during the conversion?

3) Do the files stay 14 bit?

4) Do they convert to DNG OK?


Alternatively, any links to some good info would also be appreciated.

(BTW, it's not so much the RAW file sizes I'm concerned about, it's mainly
the size of the TIFF working files).

Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would be
tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of full
resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before, I have
a few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as opposed
to normal RAW's?

Well, su less pixels.


2) As the camera is processing/converting the raw sensor data, does it
still give the same non-destructive white balance flexibility as normal
RAW files? Does the camera add any noise reduction/sharpening during the
conversion?

Yes, on WB, no re NR or sharpening- at least no more or less than done
for regular RAW, if any.

3) Do the files stay 14 bit?

Dunno.

4) Do they convert to DNG OK?

Dunno.

Alternatively, any links to some good info would also be appreciated.

(BTW, it's not so much the RAW file sizes I'm concerned about, it's
mainly the size of the TIFF working files).

If you're converting to TIFF, you can downsize there.

But are you considering a camera with this feature, or do you have one
where you might be able to see the results?

--
John McWilliams

"Tyler" wrote in message
...
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would be
tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of full
resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before, I have a
few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as opposed
to normal RAW's?

Yes, you throw about 8Mpxl away.
You better stay with a 10-12 Mpxl sensor.

2) As the camera is processing/converting the raw sensor data, does it
still give the same non-destructive white balance flexibility as normal
RAW files?

Yes

Does the camera add any noise reduction/sharpening during the conversion?

Unknown

3) Do the files stay 14 bit?

Yes

4) Do they convert to DNG OK?

Only Adobe knows

Alternatively, any links to some good info would also be appreciated.

(BTW, it's not so much the RAW file sizes I'm concerned about, it's mainly
the size of the TIFF working files).

The DNG will also be huge.

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...

Alternatively, any links to some good info would also be appreciated.

(BTW, it's not so much the RAW file sizes I'm concerned about, it's
mainly the size of the TIFF working files).

If you're converting to TIFF, you can downsize there.

But are you considering a camera with this feature, or do you have one
where you might be able to see the results?


No, I am considering a new body ATM.

You made a good point about resizing the TIFF. Although, once it's
there, it'll be hard to throw away data. Yeah, I know, it's a
psychological thing.

Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would
be tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of full
resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before, I have
a few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as
opposed to normal RAW's?

Yes - and sorry to have to state what's blindingly obvious, but image
data is discarded, and there's no way to ever get it back.
Converting to dng is a waste of time and disk space.
Your cellphone will probably be able to read all proprietary raw camera
formats in a few years.
The 7d has such high pixel density that most of the time resolution will
be limited by lens performance, diffraction, or technique, but in some
cases it won't be. When pixel density in future cameras has passed the
point where all images are resolution limited by matters other than
sensor resolution, then sRAW format starts to make sense. We're not
there yet.

"Me" wrote in message
...
Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would
be tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of full
resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before, I have a
few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as
opposed to normal RAW's?

Yes - and sorry to have to state what's blindingly obvious, but image data
is discarded, and there's no way to ever get it back.
Converting to dng is a waste of time and disk space.
Your cellphone will probably be able to read all proprietary raw camera
formats in a few years.
The 7d has such high pixel density that most of the time resolution will
be limited by lens performance, diffraction, or technique, but in some
cases it won't be. When pixel density in future cameras has passed the
point where all images are resolution limited by matters other than sensor
resolution, then sRAW format starts to make sense. We're not there yet.



Just because I don't know much about m-raw, it doesn't mean that I'm new to
photography.

Tyler wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would
be tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of
full resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before,
I have a few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as
opposed to normal RAW's?

Yes - and sorry to have to state what's blindingly obvious, but image
data is discarded, and there's no way to ever get it back.
Converting to dng is a waste of time and disk space.
Your cellphone will probably be able to read all proprietary raw
camera formats in a few years.
The 7d has such high pixel density that most of the time resolution
will be limited by lens performance, diffraction, or technique, but in
some cases it won't be. When pixel density in future cameras has
passed the point where all images are resolution limited by matters
other than sensor resolution, then sRAW format starts to make sense.
We're not there yet.



Just because I don't know much about m-raw, it doesn't mean that I'm new
to photography.

So what if you aren't, and if I was a 12yo kid with my first box brownie?

Me wrote:
Tyler wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would
be tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of
full resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats before,
I have a few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as
opposed to normal RAW's?

Yes - and sorry to have to state what's blindingly obvious, but image
data is discarded, and there's no way to ever get it back.
Converting to dng is a waste of time and disk space.
Your cellphone will probably be able to read all proprietary raw
camera formats in a few years.
The 7d has such high pixel density that most of the time resolution
will be limited by lens performance, diffraction, or technique, but
in some cases it won't be. When pixel density in future cameras has
passed the point where all images are resolution limited by matters
other than sensor resolution, then sRAW format starts to make sense.
We're not there yet.



Just because I don't know much about m-raw, it doesn't mean that I'm
new to photography.

So what if you aren't, and if I was a 12yo kid with my first box brownie?

"if"?

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Tyler wrote:
"Me" wrote in message
...
Tyler wrote:
With sensor resolutions getting higher and higher, in theory it would
be tempting to shoot the majority of my photos in M-RAW, instead of
full resolution. However, as I've never used S/M-RAW formats
before, I have a few questions:

1) Are there any disadvantages for shooting in these formats, as
opposed to normal RAW's?

Yes - and sorry to have to state what's blindingly obvious, but
image data is discarded, and there's no way to ever get it back.
Converting to dng is a waste of time and disk space.
Your cellphone will probably be able to read all proprietary raw
camera formats in a few years.
The 7d has such high pixel density that most of the time resolution
will be limited by lens performance, diffraction, or technique, but
in some cases it won't be. When pixel density in future cameras has
passed the point where all images are resolution limited by matters
other than sensor resolution, then sRAW format starts to make
sense. We're not there yet.



Just because I don't know much about m-raw, it doesn't mean that I'm
new to photography.

So what if you aren't, and if I was a 12yo kid with my first box brownie?

"if"?
Okay, I'm 11, and it's a Kodak Instamatic, the Leica M8 and M Class
Mercedes still suck. I don't think that Sony use Nikon's reject
sensors, and I'd much rather own a Hassy H3d 50 with 35-90 zoom than a
Leica S2 for the same money, but as I don't hire models to dress and
undress in the studio, I don't really want either. I didn't like the
Canon 5dII I tried any more than I liked the 5D I owned mainly because
the focus system sucked in low-light and the 17-40 and 16-35 zooms
didn't perform any better than a cheap Sigma 10-20 on Dx. I'd rather
have a high end APS-c dslr than a defeatured FX dslr. I'll never own a
Sony DSLR - not because of the quality of the cameras, but I just don't
like Sony as a company. Nikon really **** me off at the moment, because
they haven't updated the 80-400, and nor have they put VR in the 300mm
f4, and I want a lens that's stabilised and with great optics at 300mm
+, but fits in my backpack along with my lunchbox and junior dictionary.
The 70-300VR isn't good enough at 300mm. Third party zooms/telephotos
suck - but not even so much because of variable quality, but because
they don't make what I want. Tamron now puts slow and inaccurate focus
motors in their new Nikon mount lenses, and inexplicably first puts VR
in the lens that needs it least - a fast crop sensor normal zoom. Sigma
abandons their okay (optically) 80-400 OS instead of updating the OS and
making it HSM, and churns out consumer uber zooms with OS and HSM, but
they don't perform very well.
So there you are, if I ran these companies, even though I'm only 11,
they'd make products I want, and IMO the world would be much better place.

"OldBoy" wrote in message
...

4) Do they convert to DNG OK?

Only Adobe knows

Alternatively, any links to some good info would also be appreciated.

(BTW, it's not so much the RAW file sizes I'm concerned about, it's
mainly the size of the TIFF working files).

The DNG will also be huge.



Interesting you mentioned about file size of sRAW converted to DNG. I was
looking around and found this on the Luminous Landscape forum:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...ode=linearplus