mRAW vs Full RAW (5DIII specific)

Full Or Medium RAW

  • 5DIII - Medium RAW

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • 5DIII - Full RAW

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • 5DII - Medium RAW

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5DII - Full RAW

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all

Something I've been discussing with a friend recently is Medium RAWs vs Full RAWs, in particular on a 5D Mark III.

We both shoot weddings.

Uptil now I have always shot m-RAW and he has always shot Full-RAW

My last wedding this weekend just gone, I shot full RAW for the full day, and other than file sizes, I cant immediately see a huge difference.

The Full RAW images maybe a little sharper straight from camera, but the Medium-RAWs sharpen up to the same after a little PP.

It just made me wonder what other weddings togs using 5DIII's or 5DII's are doing?

Cheers
 
Why would you half the resolution of the shots that you're taking for a wedding?

If your client wants a large print (ie 30") then you've compromised the quality of your image.
 
DemiLion said:
Why would you half the resolution of the shots that you're taking for a wedding?

If your client wants a large print (ie 30") then you've compromised the quality of your image.
Click to expand...

Canons flagship 1DMkIII was 10mp a few years ago and there was nothing wrong with it and that's even smaller than the mRAW setting on the 5DMkIII.

Shooting in full RAW is of absolutely no benefit to me at all and in actual fact costs me money as my HDD's fill up faster so I can't see the point of it.
 
Ballyman said:
Canons flagship 1DMkIII was 10mp a few years ago and there was nothing wrong with it and that's even smaller than the mRAW setting on the 5DMkIII.

Shooting in full RAW is of absolutely no benefit to me at all and in actual fact costs me money as my HDD's fill up faster so I can't see the point of it.
Click to expand...

By a whopping great big 72 x 48px. Wow!


The 1DIII was great when it came out (AF issues aside) but that was in 2007.

I still don't understand why you would want to cripple yourself by emulating technology that's over 6 years old.

Even Nikon have abandoned that archaic stance!
 
DemiLion said:
By a whopping great big 72 x 48px. Wow!

I still don't understand why you would want to cripple yourself by emulating technology that's over 6 years old.
Click to expand...

Did you actually google the file size of the cameras to see what the difference was? Maybe you should take a break and get some fresh air?

Anyway, I'm not crippling myself. Bookings are up 25% on this time last year. Turnover per wedding booked in 2014 has increased by 72% on 2013's weddings. Where am I crippling myself? All I'm doing is being efficient with HDD space and my time by not having to process enormous files. Every single file takes longer to upload, edit, save, upload to net, delete etc. Thats my time and it's time I don't need to waste.

I and 100% of my clients so far have no use for enormous files. I print 20" x 16" spreads that look stunning in their albums from my archaic files :)
 
Ballyman said:
Did you actually google the file size of the cameras to see what the difference was? Maybe you should take a break and get some fresh air?

Anyway, I'm not crippling myself. Bookings are up 25% on this time last year. Turnover per wedding booked in 2014 has increased by 72% on 2013's weddings. Where am I crippling myself? All I'm doing is being efficient with HDD space and my time by not having to process enormous files. Every single file takes longer to upload, edit, save, upload to net, delete etc. Thats my time and it's time I don't need to waste.

I and 100% of my clients so far have no use for enormous files. I print 20" x 16" spreads that look stunning in their albums from my archaic files :)
Click to expand...

I assume that you use a Canon 1D mk3 for your shots (certainly going by your exif you are anyway)
Do you shoot full RAW on it or sRAW? I suspect that you are using full res RAW files.
So by today's standards why use sRAW/mRAW instead of full res RAW just seems absurd.

I kind of see your point your trying to make however memory/storage is cheap, computers are fast as is internet connections so loading/processing/uploading time between mRAW and full RAW is negligible in my eyes.
 
stupar said:
I assume that you use a Canon 1D mk3 for your shots (certainly going by your exif you are anyway)
Click to expand...

I used to use 2 x 1DMkIII. I now use 2 x 5DMkiii. Smaller, lighter, better focussing, better low light capability, same file size :)
 
Porfessional printers output at ~250PPI. Given a magnifying glass and best possible print output you may notice the difference between M-RAW and F-RAW at sizes above 18"x12". Realistically, I doubt many eyes will be keen enough to notice differences between 10.5 and 21MP modes until beyhond 24"x18", unless some major cropping has taken place. Wedding togs tend to be pretty good at composition, so I doubt much cropping is ever necessary.

I always use F-RAW, but to be honnest I never need it. As already said, storage is dirt cheap nowadays so why not get the best quality possible, even if it is not necessary for final output? The only time I would use M-RAW would be if my memory cards were almost full, and I had forgotten spares. Even then, I would probably just shoot full jpeg instead or M-RAW.
 
Last edited:
Interesting query - currently I use F-RAW (not for weddings as I'm not a pro), I used to do heavy cropping but not as much now as I'm getting the bulk of it right in the first place, so am left wondering of the advantages for sticking with Full as I primarily upload to Flickr and sometimes go as far as small posters.

I did read the link above but found it vague as its a general comparison and would be interested in the feedback of you all about the 5D3.
 
Full RAW. I can't see the point in having detail available but choosing not to save it. Especially as storage is so cheap.
 
There are a few factors that need to be considered when you assess the images, Nick.
If the lens you use isn't capable of resolving enough line pairs/mm for the sensor then you won't see as much degradation as if you use one which can....and very few can resolve enough for the sensor. In short, a shot with a 100mm Makro Planar at f/8 is going to suffer more than a 24-70 wide open.
Another factor is the colour depth and dynamic range...the chrominance sub-sampling will be reduced by a factor of 4 and this may or may not be obvious with all subject matter.

Bob
 
The times I shoot in raw I always shoot Large raw. TBH I've never shot in anything but full size jpeg and best resolution or full size raw on any camera I've used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top