I Will Not Shot in RAW

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Don_Campbell
Contributing MemberPosts: 917
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shoot JPGs
In reply to DonA2, 11 months ago

DonA2 wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

I apologize in advance for being repetitive. Raw capability is more of an aid in small sensor cameras than it is in large sensor DSLRs. That's because it can give you greater control over noise reduction which is more of a small sensor problem. It can also let you control sharpening better than the in-camera processing and it gives you more ability to get the most out of the limited dynamic range of the small sensor.

If you're happy with your results without those advantages, as you seem to be, that's totally fine with me. However, it is not true that raw capability is more important for larger sensor cameras. Those large sensor cameras have far less need for customized noise reduction and customized sharpening and they have far less of an issue with dynamic range.

Don

Don, I got the message on small sensors benefitting more than larger sensors when it comes to DR and noise. However my take is that people who buy small sensor cameras do not go for absolute perfection.  No doubt that RAW allows for greater processing range and one should try for the best end game possible.

Hi Don,

I've looked at your gallery. You clearly are an accomplished photographer and you get stunning and interesting images with your tools. Your gallery illustrates the idea that well-exposed images from advanced P&S cameras produce terrific images in the right hands.

Right now my 3 cameras haven't allowed (without add-ons) for raw and Canon is right that 98% of P&S shooters only use JPEG.  So that is what I refer to when I state that small sensor cams = JPEG shooters.  Personally I will accept some limitations to gain the advantages.  But hey, that's just me.

Small sensors interestingly make for a wide variety of cameras from snapshooters to sophisticated image makers. In the latter category, we have such cameras as the SX50--the camera used by our original poster. I say interestingly, because the small sensor is not just a limitation--it also lends some particular advantages to camera design. Only a small sensor camera permits me to have a 24mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom range in a package that weighs slightly over half a kg.

A short time ago I stood next to a guy who was far more expensively equipped than I, shooting falcons high above us on a cliff. He had a 600mm Canon lens on his DSLR. That rig was mounted on a tripod that was both heavy and by itself was probably more expensive than my SX50. All told he probably had an investiment north of $16K in gear. Clearly that gear is exceptional and highly capable but it is also massive and time-consuming to setup break down. It also has a "reach" of about 1/2 that of my SX50. In addition, I get to quick-release my camera and virtually instantly switch from shooting at 1200mm equivalent to shoot at 24mm equivalent.

My little camera gives me the range to compete in some ways with the $16K kit and still use it for snapshots of grandchildren. Some folks call it a "bridge camera" which I find skips some points in oversimplifying a complex tool. It is an incredible machine capable of terrific images and sometimes it is useful to some of its users to squeeze a little more out of those images than the SOOC JPG gives them.

This all is not my message to you, Don, because you clearly know it without my saying it. You are clearly getting superb results from your cameras and show what can be done with care and skill. It is my message for those like the OP are making the trade-off without knowing exactly what they're trading.

Regards,

Don

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
:)New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow