Just got the R5.
I see cRAW is an option.
I understand it is a compressed file.
So what is the verdict with this crowd?
Go RAW or cRAW?
Printable View
Just got the R5.
I see cRAW is an option.
I understand it is a compressed file.
So what is the verdict with this crowd?
Go RAW or cRAW?
There is a s little to no difference in terms of quality. I do wonder if the compression takes up computational power which can generate heat as a few times when doing intensive shooting with cRAW I’ve felt the camera warm. If that has happened in RAW, I haven’t noticed but this is very slight and more impressions than anything definite.
In the end, I am shooting RAW. But that is more habit and a slight concern about the heat. If I were you I’d start shooting cRAW and only revert to RAW if you find an issue.
Btw. Congrats on the R5. Great camera. I think you will love it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I use RAW for all my shooting. But I'd like to hear from those, if any, that actually use cRAW and why. Based on the polls doesn't seem like many use cRAW at all.:)
Looks like pretty much purely a benefit based on this testing: https://fstoppers.com/education/ther...cameras-527209
Bryan also did a very nice comparison.
After much reading what I have arrived at is that if you "believe" you need every piece of data saved in case it matters some time in the future when you are PP then use RAW.
Like the old jpeg vs RAW debate. jpeg < RAW.
But now it is jpeg < cRAW < RAW.
While not scientific probably 99% of the pictures I take are good enough using the jpeg setting in the camera.
It sound like 99.999% of the time I wouldn't need RAW and cRAW would be fine.
So the answer for me is if I have the extra space and it makes me happy use RAW. I save both RAW and jpeg files when I am shooting. Gone are the days of PP every single file I shoot. I use RAW if I want to play with a picture later.
Hi Rick....all sounds very reasonable. I actually haven't played with a straight out of camera jpg in years. I have shot exclusively RAW or cRAW and use LR to convert.
But, just to add to all of this is HEIF. So, just to modify your conclusion, now it is jpeg<HEIF<cRAW<RAW.
I haven't shot HEIF yet, but it is 10 bit to jpegs 8 bit. A quick comparison, if interested:
JPEG vs HEIF: Canon commits to HIF | Cameralabs
Doing a quick check of the R5 I do not see an option to save in a HEIF format.
However there is a function to convert from HEIF to JPEG.
From what I read compatibility would be the main downfall at this point in time.
So, not something I have used, but pg 137 of the manual (last page of image quality) HDR PQ needs to be enabled (second tab of camera settings menus). Just playing with my R5, that seems to toggle the jpg to HEIF when you go back to Image quality (tab 1 of camera settings menu).Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Yes, HEIF is not widely adapted. I ran into that last week as a lab manager sent me some iPhone photos that were HEIF. It took some time for me to convert so I could use in a presentation. So, if convenience is what you are after, Jpeg may still be the best solution.
I have been think about long term archiving. In film days a picture and a negative were the archive.
I have RAW backup going back to 2009.
I have read that other formats would be better for digital archiving.
50 years from now what good are our pictures if they can not be viewed.
Any thoughts from anyone on this?
It is hard to imagine future inability to see the billions of jpeg files already in the cloud. For higher fidelity, my guess would be PNG, but that seems less certain to me.
I saved RAW archives for a long time but found that I virtually never re-visited them or re-processed them.
I save JPEGs in my archiving process which includes 3 back ups: 1.an on-line service, 2.thumb drives and 3.Ceramic disks in a safe deposit box.
I archive on line as I go and at the end of each calendar year I make a copy on thumb drive(s) and burn ceramic disks.
I use Verbatim M Discs that hold 25gb each
I had read that TIFF considered the best format for archiving for files.
When I am considering archiving it is different than storage. I doubt in my life time there will be a point that I will be unable to work with a RAW file.
It seems kind of vain of me to think that some distant descendent of mine might be interested in the pictures I have taken but you never know.
Well, I didn't know this was talking about archiving.
But if we are talking about that.:D
I normally never used Jpeg at, all my viewing was done on down sized and sharpened TIFF's. Jpeg was purely for posting on the internet. I always saved the RAW files except in my early days and I now regret so much! Wish I still had them.
And now since I have revamped my computer and monitor situation a lot of images will be reprocessed especially if they are gonna be printed. And how I do things will change a lot. I'm thinking for straight up viewing it will just be full size Jpegs because that is how I end up delivering the end product to the customer so not a huge need to have them in any other extra format. Unless I'm printing I'll be doing that in TIFF and probably another color space. Not decided on which one yet. Definitely saving the RAW files, that will never change.
Shooting only Jpeg's? That's just sacrilegious! Jesting of course. But yeah, that doesn't bode well with me because for one I shoot with post processing in mind. I'm doing stuff to the images to create the end result I want. Besides the out of the camera Jpeg's are of poor quality even if I was able to get exactly what I want out of the camera. Which never happens anyway. Especially the in camera sharpening and noise reduction. It's very mushy particularly at higher ISO's.
But I am doing a lot more for hire shooting and with my personal shooting I'm trying to up my game. I'm trying to take my photography to the next level. Maybe full time pro, not sure yet. But I want to be able to shoot at that level. So no out of the camera Jpeg for me, saving RAW files and post-processing everything.
But that is just me.
I derailed the thread a few posts back. HEIF was brought up and it just morphed from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
There is nothing at all wrong with doing it as you do. For years I was the same. Shooting for a client you defiantly want to the best.
I have quit a few pictures that were published in trade magazines, the local news paper and a few other places.
All of those I definitely used the RAW and PP.
99% of the pictures I take only family and friends may see, honestly they do not see the difference between a picture I PP or just comes as a JPEG out of the camera. At some point I decided to just keep the RAW and go back and maximize the ones that I wanted to maximize.
My thoughts with archiving is this, will someone in the future pic up the picture file and have the right RAW software to open and manipulate the picture. Might TIFF be a better or still common format in the future.
Its an interesting question. I'd say that it is very very likely that software will exist for our lifetimes that can read Canon's RAW file format. I am trying to think of any files that are obsoleted. At best, maybe companies that went out of business, Wordperfect, Lotus 123, etc. But, I even wonder if those files can be read somehow. Even through the various software updates, they are make backwards compatible so I can still open files from the mid-1990's.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Even if Canon suddenly went out of business or decided to stop supporting RAW, both of which I view as unlikely, existing software that can read RAW files still exists. The DPP version on my computer still works and other software makers would likely support RAW for as long as people were using cameras, so there would be a nice long transitional period. I would look at it similar to film or another older tech, you can still develop film, but it is less convenient than it once was.
That said, this is a good thought, but my archival efforts may be lacking. I think I do a good job of backing up with multiple hard drives, one located offsite, etc. But it is all electronic. It hasn't failed me. I can still open and view pictures/videos I took starting in 2003 (my first digital camera). But the most thought I have put into "archiving" is that I buy new external hard drives about every 2 years to keep those others from aging and so I am working off "fresh" backups from my original source.
Thinking about it, and I've done some of this, but I need to print more.
There is a service that can turn your digital files to essentially a color positive which can be scanned later. It's for those that want to be super bullet proof with their archiving and want to future proof their images. Just in case you can't read your images.
Personally I don't think that will ever happen. Worst case scenario you will just have to use legacy equipment and then convert it to TIFF, Jpeg, DNG, PNG etc and then you are golden. That's only if you want to reprocess your old RAW files. But if not I have a hard time seeing TIFF or Jpeg never being able to be read or at least converted to a more mainstream format later on.
But what do I know, I'm just a dude that enjoys his hobby probably a bit to much. Dam, it's been 15 years doing this!
Well, Canon has officially announced the R3! I know I kinda threw it under the bus. But I'm still excited to see it.
There was several things that caught my attention, not least of which was the sensor was DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED by Canon. So this is a time for Canon to shine and one thing that Canon does well is their noise performance, among a lot of things. And while technically a little behind Sony with their current older sensor style. I'm EXTREMELY excited to see the noise performance of the R3! I fully expect to be impressed. I was already blown away with the 1Dx III sensor how well it managed noise. If It can beat that, I'll be stoked.
I guess one thing it doesn't have as high a max expanded ISO. So on paper it leaves room for the 1Dx III to win out. But the native ISO is the same and that is more important to me anyway. ISO 800,000 was really getting noisy anyway, to say the least.:p
Other cool thing I noticed was the 6k video. That is very interesting to see, I thought it be 4K.
24mp still better than 20mp.
I'm still wanting my high resolution pro body. But I have to say, the R3 is looking pretty dang slick as a whole package. Really really slick.
One thing I see the 1Dx III being better at is the mechanical shutter rate. The R3 has 12FPS with the mechanical shutter the 1Dx III has 16FPS mechanical in the viewfinder and 20FPS mechanical through live view. So I can see where their are a few features that might actually make the 1Dx III relevant for some photographers. Especially if the jello affect is something that affects your images in select scenarios. And since those probably be sports photographers they are not loosing out so much on the lens department. Or they might have legacy glass anyway. So it definitely can make sense for some.
But over all, the R3 is looking really awesome and I am curious to see how the reviews fair out.
The electronic shutter is up to 30 fps, so it appears they're leaning pretty heavily on that capability versus the mechanical shutter. If the scan speed is fast enough, it's possible that rolling shutter problems will be greatly reduced. In that case, who needs a mechanical shutter? The scan speed will already be improved thanks to the reduced MP count over the R5, but they've probably found other ways to boost it on top of that. If I didn't already own the 1DXIII, I would probably jump at the R3. But instead I will likely wait for the R1. Meanwhile I'm still quite happy with what I have.
Lol, I just realized I posted in the wrong thread! Haha, moderators, you can move this to the R3 thread.
I didn't realize you had the 1Dx III. I have owned it for 2 months plus I rented it before. I'm very impressed with it for sure. The resolution is lacking a bit for the price tag, but I don't fault it much because it is a different era of camera compared to the R3. In the DSLR world, it's simply amazing. I still am considering just getting a great condition used one depending on how the R3 performs. If it is absolutely phenomenal then I'll have to start doing a lot more photo shoots and advertise myself more.:rolleyes:
But I'm just not sure about jumping ship to the RF mount just yet, I might just wait till the R1 comes out and few more lenses come out.
I got a $6000 hole burning in my pocket.��
Also, I agree. I think for a lot of uses the electronic shutter will be just fine. I know even the best electronic shutters can still have a bit of jello. It's pretty minimal most of the time, but for the discerning photographer I can see it being an issue. Things like the wing tips of birds in flight, baseball bat or hockey stick or puck. Things that go very quickly. Especially stock photos where the standards for artifacts can be really high. At least they were several years ago when I looked at doing it.
But I am willing to bet it is pretty well controlled most of the time and those instances you can just switch to a mechanical shutter and just be at a little lower FPS. 12FPS is still not slow and will get the job done.
I am on my phone for now. I’ll try to migrate this discussion over to the R3 thread when I have full moderation tools.
But, yes, one item canon has already been hyping is much faster read speeds (part of bsi is faster read speeds). The R5 is already good if not very good. We will see, but the R3 is likely good enough in most circumstances, even for discerning eyes. We’ll see.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk