5DMKII sRAW + full size jpegs

James Pardon

James Pardon

Messages
1,102
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Didn't know this myself, some may do some may not but thought I'd share.

The 5DMKII when shooting in sRAW (10mp mode) also contains the full 21mp jpeg version, very cool if you need to do a crop but are using the 10mp raw version.
 
Not a bad compromise if you're short on disk space, but it's relatively cheap so why not save the full-size RAW?

Having paid a lot of money for the level of the detail that you get with the 5D2, it seems a false economy to discard part of it, even if you are keeping a hi-res jpeg.

My £0.02 :cool:

A.
 
I've just bought myself a 1TB drive for my ever growing collection of RAW files. I think it'd be cheaper to do this rather than realise that the sRAW or jpeg that you've got doesn't look quite as good on the monitor as it did on the camera screen, and thus having to go out and do the shoot again!!

1TB drive for £60 odd quid vs shooting in sRAW/jpeg to save disk space - there's only one winner!
 
For things like weddings where 10mp is more then ample sRAW's going to cut down on your processing quite a bit depending on what pc/mac you have, but need to crop a photo heavily then that 21mp jpeg is going to come in handy
 
+1 for full RAW

sRAW only loses details, and doesn't gain anything. Processing is very quick with lightroom and hard disks are very cheap. Well if you could afford 5D2 with top glass you can also afford a top mac and 1TB very easily. There cannot be any discussion about it. There could be only laziness and bad workflow.
 
daugirdas said:
+1 for full RAW

sRAW only loses details, and doesn't gain anything...
Click to expand...

That's an interesting statement... Would you care to explain where you came by this information? I'm currently looking into how cameras like the 40D/7D etc actually process the data collected in both formats and thus far, I haven't been able to find much apart from one or two people who are suggesting that maybe there's some pixel binning going on.

According to a thread I read elsewhere, there are quite a few wedding photographers who aren't bothering to use full RAW because sRAW suits their purposes... I'm kinda tempted to follow suit if there's a benefit beyond smaller file sizes.

Cheers,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
That's an interesting statement... Would you care to explain where you came by this information? I'm currently looking into how cameras like the 40D/7D etc actually process the data collected in both formats and thus far, I haven't been able to find much apart from one or two people who are suggesting that maybe there's some pixel binning going on.

According to a thread I read elsewhere, there are quite a few wedding photographers who aren't bothering to use full RAW because sRAW suits their purposes... I'm kinda tempted to follow suit if there's a benefit beyond smaller file sizes.

Cheers,
Si
Click to expand...

pixel binning is a dream for the next 1D series. It doesn't exist for now. The downscaling is done by quick CPU rescaling (so you lose pixels). No dynamic range or better SNR is gained. Useless.

Then again *some* wedding togs are just lazy and cheap businessmen (no insult for anyone on here). You can get away with 10MP, absolutely, but 21MP will give you the option to sell the extra large print, or make larger crops, etc. It is always worth it to save all data (I am primarily a scientist, and throwing the data away is the worst thing to do).

If you want smaller file size, then maybe the cheaper 1D mk2 would be all you need with better AF and FPS?
 
daugirdas said:
I am primarily a scientist, and throwing the data away is the worst thing to do
Click to expand...

Now that I can agree with. However lower file sizes when shooting a large event could be very useful if a given storage medium is at a premium.
 
daugirdas said:
....You can get away with 10MP, absolutely, but 21MP will give you the option to sell the extra large print, or make larger crops, etc. It is always worth it to save all data (I am primarily a scientist, and throwing the data away is the worst thing to do).
Click to expand...

So, if I'm going to employ a pro to do a shoot, I should be choosing someone with a 5D2 over a 5D or a 7D over a 40D ;)

Seriously though....
Using a lens that cannot resolve to the resolution of the sensor or having a sensor that cannot support the resolving power of the lens is also throwing away data. Shooting at f/11 on a 7D is throwing away data. Clipping highlights whilst under exposing shadow areas is throwing away data.

However, by far the biggest loss of data we all suffer is not being in the right place at the right time with a finger on the button.

Bob
 
daugirdas said:
pixel binning is a dream for the next 1D series. It doesn't exist for now. The downscaling is done by quick CPU rescaling (so you lose pixels). No dynamic range or better SNR is gained. Useless.
Click to expand...

Hi,

As I asked before; where are you getting this information from? I understand that you're entitled to hypothesize but I really would love to see some facts that support your statements.

daugirdas said:
...Then again *some* wedding togs are just lazy and cheap businessmen (no insult for anyone on here). You can get away with 10MP, absolutely, but 21MP will give you the option to sell the extra large print, or make larger crops, etc. It is always worth it to save all data (I am primarily a scientist, and throwing the data away is the worst thing to do)...
Click to expand...

'Some' wedding photgraphers are lazy... and so are some scientists (I know a few) ;) but that's hardly the issue here. Just as you use certain procedures in your work, so do wedding photographers. There is anecdotal evidence to support the statement that smaller formats/files aren't necessarily detrimental to the image quality that the end user sees. At a pixel-squinting level, I'm sure there are differences but if you present a client with a wedding album and they're happy with the result, I fail to see the reasoning behind having to shoot at full resolution.

Regards,
Si
 
Canon Bob said:
Diffraction started swallowing your pixels long ago.

Bob
Click to expand...

I thought diffraction was only visible at apertures smaller than f/16...saying that I think the biggest factor with diffraction is down to the number and quality of the aperture blades in the lens used at small apertures such as f/11 and onwards.
 
Bendihossan said:
I thought diffraction was only visible at apertures smaller than f/16...saying that I think the biggest factor with diffraction is down to the number and quality of the aperture blades in the lens used at small apertures such as f/11 and onwards.
Click to expand...

On your 5D, then you'd be unlikely to notice the effects until f/16. The higher pixel density of the 7D will result in a much lower f-stop showing the onset...theorectically around f/6.3 but practically around f/8.
The shape of the aperture blades will have negligible effect in the bigger picture when considering any normal lens.

Bob
 
I doubt that diffraction is noticeable at f/8 on a 7D. I'd like to see evidence of that as it would shock me!
 
Bendihossan said:
I doubt that diffraction is noticeable at f/8 on a 7D. I'd like to see evidence of that as it would shock me!
Click to expand...

Mathematically, it kicks in at f/6.77 so it's likely that some moderate cropping with high definition subjects at f/8 will be affected if the lens is good enough to provide the detail....I suspect that the 100/2.8 ISL macro falls into this category.

Bob
 
Spiritflier said:
Hi,

As I asked before; where are you getting this information from? I understand that you're entitled to hypothesize but I really would love to see some facts that support your statements.
Click to expand...

If I must - http://www.onelouderphoto.com/2008/09/18/canon-5d-mark-ii-concert-photography-first-impressions/

It is not a 'proper' journal reference, but this will do. No, 5D II does not use pixel binning.

The true binning process would involve reading out from several pixels as one, combining their area. This would obviously require very high MP sensor (think 50 mp+) to have practical applications as a fraction of pixel can't be used individually. The "binning" is done in postprocessing (hint: dedicated RAW converters always do a better job).
Regardless of my or anyone else's thoughts and comments you are free to use any settings you want if they work for you.


Canon Bob - your comment does not entirely reflect on my post. Working with different cameras bring up many variables such as pixel density. Downscaling doesn't change sensor pixel density and DR, but that could be helped in PP (with a bit of loss from the 14 bit RAW)
 
daugirdas said:
If I must - http://www.onelouderphoto.com/2008/09/18/canon-5d-mark-ii-concert-photography-first-impressions/

It is not a 'proper' journal reference, but this will do. No, 5D II does not use pixel binning...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the somewhat equivocal reference...

One wonders why Canon would see fit to add these file sizes if they didn't think there was a genuine and practical use for them. From what I've experienced, there seem to be a fair few professional photographers who agree with their decision to include them! ;)

It would seem that real-world experience is still more pertinent than speculation!

Regards,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
One wonders why Canon would see fit to add these file sizes if they didn't think there was a genuine and practical use for them.
Si
Click to expand...

There is a reason. Canon thought it could be a substitute for somewhat mediocre AF, and stop pixel peepers complaining that much. [/sarcasm] Seriously, not everything Canon does is always the best for consumer.
 
I don't see the point of sRaw. Surely if you want to minimise files sizes and processing time, you just have to set the camera up properly, learn how to get the exposure and white balance right, and save to JPEG. What's the point of getting a 5D2? :thinking:

Canon Bob said:
So, if I'm going to employ a pro to do a shoot, I should be choosing someone with a 5D2 over a 5D or a 7D over a 40D ;)

Seriously though....
Using a lens that cannot resolve to the resolution of the sensor or having a sensor that cannot support the resolving power of the lens is also throwing away data. Shooting at f/11 on a 7D is throwing away data. Clipping highlights whilst under exposing shadow areas is throwing away data.

However, by far the biggest loss of data we all suffer is not being in the right place at the right time with a finger on the button.

Bob
Click to expand...

So true Bob :thumbs: Of all the great photographs in history, the number that are technically 100% and truly max out the equipment they were taken on, is actually very small. The subject, and the moment, is everything.

If I could use a camera-phone and be guaranteed a great subject every time, I'd be very happy. As it is, I shoot everything to maximise image quality, deluded in the hope that if it's sharp then it must be good.

Bendihossan said:
I doubt that diffraction is noticeable at f/8 on a 7D. I'd like to see evidence of that as it would shock me!
Click to expand...

Prepare to be shocked. Here's a link to DPReview's test of the macro lens Bob mentioned, 100L 2.8 IS, on a 50D. Sharpness peaks between f/4 and f/5.6 and that is diffraction.

If you then switch to the same test on a full frame 5D2, it peaks around a stop higher, f/5.6-8. Diffraction is format related, as well as f/number. I'm personally pretty skeptical about pixel density having anything other than a theoretical influence and it certainly doesn't stop manufacturers from producing ever-higher pixel counts and photographers getting sharper pictures as a result.
 
I don't see the point of sRaw. Surely if you want to minimise files sizes and processing time, you just have to set the camera up properly, learn how to get the exposure and white balance right, and save to JPEG. What's the point of getting a 5D2?
Click to expand...

I'm looking at it purely from say a wedding photographers point of view. You know the desired outcome which is a print for the album, a 21 megapixel version compared to a 10 megapixel version when on the paper is going to look near enough identical. Unless you want to blow it up billboard size you're saving processing time, hard drive space and you can cram more shots onto your cf card. When doing 1000+ shots at a wedding that's a lot of processing and space. But come the time you need to lop off 50% in a crop, you'll be down to a 5 megapixel image that may not do the print justice, being able to extract that full size 21megapixel shot from the sRAW file may just save the day and be useable.

With it still being RAW and not jpeg you're giving that extra room to adjust in Photoshop where jpeg may not be so forgiving. That's the way I see it anyway.
 
Whatever the case, it certainly isn't going to stop me from shooting at f/8-f/11 when the occasion calls for it :)
 
Bendihossan said:
Whatever the case, it certainly isn't going to stop me from shooting at f/8-f/11 when the occasion calls for it :)
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop me either, not for a moment. I still get very good sharpness up to f/11 on my crop 40D, though it's certainly going off at f/16 and f/22 is frankly not recommended if it can be possibly avoided.

But those tests on the link I posted are derived from real world images off a real sensor from a 50D. Diffraction at work. I think it just goes to show how, in general, pixel-peeping and the current obsession with sharpness (which I also suffer from) is largely an illusion in practise. You can only get near maxing out even an average camera/lens with absolutely immaculate technique and optimised settings. When you're out and about that just doesn't happen very often - and it doesn't seem to matter much.
 
HoppyUK said:
It doesn't stop me either, not for a moment. I still get very good sharpness up to f/11 on my crop 40D, though it's certainly going off at f/16 and f/22 is frankly not recommended if it can be possibly avoided.

But those tests on the link I posted are derived from real world images off a real sensor from a 50D. Diffraction at work. I think it just goes to show how, in general, pixel-peeping and the current obsession with sharpness (which I also suffer from) is largely an illusion in practise. You can only get near maxing out even an average camera/lens with absolutely immaculate technique and optimised settings. When you're out and about that just doesn't happen very often - and it doesn't seem to matter much.
Click to expand...

100% agree with you, at the end of the day if the image calls for a small aperture...use one! There's a lot of fuss made over pixel peeping (I do it too) where people complain about minor imperfections in glass and sensors....well if you're pixel peeping you're going to!! :bonk: Don't get me wrong though, pixel peeping has it's advantages for the same reason but in the real world Joe Consumer won't be able to tell the difference and unless you're printing massively large images with your face against the paper nobody else will either ;)
 
Dan76 said:
I've just bought myself a 1TB drive for my ever growing collection of RAW files. I think it'd be cheaper to do this rather than realise that the sRAW or jpeg that you've got doesn't look quite as good on the monitor as it did on the camera screen, and thus having to go out and do the shoot again!!

1TB drive for £60 odd quid vs shooting in sRAW/jpeg to save disk space - there's only one winner!
Click to expand...

i hope you already have another to back them all up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top