RAW vs cRAW

[HDNitehawk]

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?

[Kayaker72]

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

[Fast Glass]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

Looks like pretty much purely a benefit based on this testing: https://fstoppers.com/education/ther...cameras-527209

[Kayaker72]

Bryan also did a very nice comparison.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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).

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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?