Undecided...

[elliottnewcomb]

This argument started with you in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68116949 claiming that there were better images to be gained by using JPEG rather than Raw.

BETTER. you cannot read or don't want to let Nigel be responsible for this compulsive detour. Both cameras shoot either RAW or Jpeg or Both, thus totally irrelevant to OP's question/choice/decision.

Luckily OP writes that she has benefitted from it, that's good, well done Nigel.

What a complete upside down interpretation of me simply informing the OP that IF you give up the very tempting 600mm reach of the wonderful but too big for me RX10m4, there are ways to get 'extra reach' (Smart Zoom) out of the alternate choice, and that the implementation (Smart Telecon) is darn quick.

I pointed out, for OP and others following, that it is a Jpeg Only feature, so they didn't find out about that limitation later.

I never said Jpeg is Better: there, here, or elsewhere.

Nigel now borders on insane, something about repeating the same action expecting a different result? We agreed to disagree after a lot of this RAW/Jpeg started when I joined in 2012.

You border on compulsive answeritis, you have no part in this, and yet .....

--
Elliott

 

[Dak on cam]

This argument started with you in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68116949 claiming that there were better images to be gained by using JPEG rather than Raw.

BETTER. you cannot read or don't want to let Nigel be responsible for this compulsive detour. Luckily OP writes that she has benefitted from it, that's good, well done Nigel.

What a complete upside down interpretation of me simply informing the OP that IF you give up the very tempting 600mm reach of the wonderful but too big for me RX10m4, there are ways to get 'extra reach' (Smart Zoom) out of the alternate choice, and that the implementation (Smart Telecon) is darn quick.

There isn't extra reach. It is just pre-cropped for you, that is all.

I pointed out, for OP and others following, that it is a Jpeg Only feature, so they didn't find out about that limitation later.

It is a way to throw away even more information in advance. That may be convenient: your hard disk does not fill up, and you can shoot longer bursts. But it doesn't get you extra reach.

I never said Jpeg is Better: there, here, or elsewhere.

So extra reach would not be better?

Nigel now borders on insane, something about repeating the same action expecting a different result? We agreed to disagree after a lot of this RAW/Jpeg started when I joined in 2012.

You border on compulsive answeritis, you have no part in this, did you answer OP's question? and yet .....

I just don't consider it polite to suggest actions to people without making them acquainted with the consequences.

 

[elliottnewcomb]

I put this in another thread, but to clarify here once again:

I often view Magnified, or Super-Magnified, waiting for something to occur, bang, finish the shot, that is a technique involving a few features, some are both, some are Jpeg Only.

............................

Super Magnification Viewing to Time the Shot

Not that it would have worked at that distance (Nigel's thread)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4792473

but to see a small part of a distant subject, perhaps wait for something and be able to see it happen, then finish the shot.

Having AF/MF Toggle available, no matter how good AF is, would give you magnification assist to view larger, see better, time the distant shot, and purposely refine the focus peaking on the creature, not the chimney or nest, or on the brick's grout not the creature if a chimney inspector

combine MF Assist with smart zoom: this situation is EXACTLY when changing to lower pixel count, using in-camera sensor crop, and combining that with MF using manual focus magnification assist. You would have been viewing Super Magnified, both seen and waited till the bird looked forward, bang, finish the shot.

Then you do what you do to those pixels in PP as you show here.

Smart Telecon implementation would have gotten you there in 2 button presses, back to 'normal' 20mp 600mm in one more button press. But, unfortunately you would need to be shooting Jpeg Only to use that occasionally helpful feature.

Your rx100m7 would Smart Zoom Smart Telecon toggle 200mm/280mm/400mm, nowhere near as close as what you needed here. Your RX10m4 smart zoom smart telecon toggles 600/840/1200mm back to 20mp 600mm.

.........................................................

Manual Focus Assist is a viewing enlargement toggle, (various model's x factors are similar but slightly different).

from RX100M6 AF 200 mm at 20mp, increase via MF Assist to 5.3x is like viewing 1,060mm correct?

press rear center button, manual focus assist toggles to 10.7x, viewing as if 2,140 mm, wait for it .....

Super Magnification, max smart telecon combined with manual focus assist

rx10m6 smart zoom at 5mp = 400mm sensor crop x 5.3x mf assist is viewing at 2,120mm. toggle to mf assist 10.7x, viewing at 4,280mm.

RX10m4 smart zoom 5mp = 1,200 sensor crop x 5.3x mf assist is viewing at 6,360mm, toggle to 10.7x, viewing at 12,840mm

It becomes a microscope to help you make decisions.

Half press to get back to normal framing view. If using focus peaking, use it while magnified, ignore it at normal framing view it's a mess.

I use AM/MF Toggle to view magnified and wait,



This from Oly Stylus 1 which has instant 2X and MF Assist, and Focus Peaking, and threads for a 1.7X optical teleconverter lens which many of us wish Sony would do like their old DSC-S85 which has body threads for an adapter tube to transfer the weight of the conversion lenses to the body, not the telescoping lens.

...................................

Since the 1" sensor revolution in 2012, this forum changed from real compacts to really capable compacts that offer both RAW and Jpeg, and a large percentage of members here are former DSLR shooters who bring their professional expertise and RAW shooting PP skills here for us.

Elliott

 

[elliottnewcomb]

btw, I wait/take one shot, that's part of why I use this combo of features

I don't shoot continuous because I hate editing. It's the worst part of shooting kids sports when I do take very brief bursts, with a shot of my foot in between bursts if I remember.

A still, IF I need to avoid button press shake, I might shoot continuous for 3 shots, if I remember, or if no motion, self-timer for a 2 sec delay to avoid button press shake.

 

[Digital Nigel]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

 

[tbcass]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

Here's my attempts using Topaz Photo AI. Upscale 2x, lighting adjustments to subjects, Noise reduction and Face AI.





Here after applying superfocus.







--
Tom

 

[Digital Nigel]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

Here's my attempts using Topaz Photo AI. Upscale 2x, lighting adjustments to subjects, Noise reduction and Face AI.



Here after applying superfocus.

I think that's a fail — it's turned all the detail of their hair and faces into a mush.



Here's a different take: applying Gigapixel with a 2x scale to the PL8 output. But, of course, the quality would be so much better if starting from the raw.


PL8 followed by Gigapixel

 

[tbcass]

I wouldn't call it a fail, just a flawed attempt.

 

[Dak on cam]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

My own pitch including geometry correction (on RawTherapee):







Either of our versions makes apparent that the underside of the man's trousers has too little dynamic range left in the JPEG to make anything useful from it. And my switcheroo for the white balance did not make a nice look for the blown highlights. Again, the dynamic range of the raw would have provided a better starting point.

--
Dak

 

[Digital Nigel]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

My own pitch including geometry correction (on RawTherapee):



Either of our versions makes apparent that the underside of the man's trousers has too little dynamic range left in the JPEG to make anything useful from it. And my switcheroo for the white balance did not make a nice look for the blown highlights. Again, the dynamic range of the raw would have provided a better starting point.

Yes, recovery of shadows is one of the major weaknesses of JPEGs. Ditto changing WB.

But I think the PL+Gigapixel version worked best, given the severe limitations of the original.

 

[Digital Nigel]

This argument started with you in https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68116949 claiming that there were better images to be gained by using JPEG rather than Raw.

BETTER. you cannot read or don't want to let Nigel be responsible for this compulsive detour. Luckily OP writes that she has benefitted from it, that's good, well done Nigel.

What a complete upside down interpretation of me simply informing the OP that IF you give up the very tempting 600mm reach of the wonderful but too big for me RX10m4, there are ways to get 'extra reach' (Smart Zoom) out of the alternate choice, and that the implementation (Smart Telecon) is darn quick.

There isn't extra reach. It is just pre-cropped for you, that is all.

I pointed out, for OP and others following, that it is a Jpeg Only feature, so they didn't find out about that limitation later.

It is a way to throw away even more information in advance. That may be convenient: your hard disk does not fill up, and you can shoot longer bursts. But it doesn't get you extra reach.

Yes, it’s a way of instantly degrading an expensive RX100 into a much cheaper tiny sensor compact. Truly something to celebrate!

I never said Jpeg is Better: there, here, or elsewhere.

So extra reach would not be better?

Nigel now borders on insane, something about repeating the same action expecting a different result? We agreed to disagree after a lot of this RAW/Jpeg started when I joined in 2012.

You border on compulsive answeritis, you have no part in this, did you answer OP's question? and yet .....

I just don't consider it polite to suggest actions to people without making them acquainted with the consequences.

 

[Digital Nigel]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

It's a modern Norman Rockwell image, good job seeing the opportunity!

Well, Pandora's Box (Nigels RAW/Jpeg soapbox) cannot be closed can it. Certainly a RAW version would be beneficial in this case. And that's the argument for shooting RAw + Jpeg, have the RAW when you might need it.

The bright background was seen by the metering system which was probably set to full frame, it choked all that background light, and you tried to see your subjects in the EVF or LCD by raising the EV. Your shot, it shows +1.3ev. and it is still too dark. But, you either trust, shoot wide, PP crop later, or use a technique to see to compose. Or, shoot RAW.

It is a pure example of why to use spot metering, to prevent the metering system from seeing surrounding areas, the exact opposite of a singer in a spotlight.

You can keep on lifting shadows in post, this is what I mean by the amount of detail that is captured IF you purposely shoot under-exposed, say -.3 or -.7, planning on lifting the shadows in PP, which is what I often do outdoors, to capture some sky color and detail in the original, lift shadows later.

this is one more step, Windows Photos lift shadows, (all I ever do to any of my Jpegs), but I do work hard to know how to get a better original, or I don't bother taking the shot.



For this type shot, I would have been using spot focus and spot metering, and if I moved my focus spot, the metering spot would automatically followed the focus spot.

IF I wasn't already in spot, I might have quickly used AEL by aiming at a shadow area below the bench, (camera never sees the bright background) pressing the AEL button (pre-configured to left rocker), lifted the camera up, seen my subjects, taken the shot, but the bright background would be blown out.

............................................

I pre-configure my rear left rocker for AEL

AEL is only available by custom assignment. When in use, an asterisk appears in the info line at the bottom of the lcd, at the right end. AEL rocker is adjacent to that asteris, intuitive for me.

b. Spot Metering Point (Center or Spot), Focus Point Link. Move focus spot, metering spot automatically moves with it

.....................................

too far?

I don't usually cut highlights, because skies show a mess very quickly, in this case, the bright background, let's try a bit more shadows lift and cut highlights some, it's subtly easier on the eyes

We raw shooters do know how to edit JPEGs as well, of course. My take:

 

[Dak on cam]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

We raw shooters do know how to edit JPEGs as well, of course. My take:

That looks like it must hurt!







--
Dak

 

[Digital Nigel]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

We raw shooters do know how to edit JPEGs as well, of course. My take:

That looks like it must hurt!

Yes, indeed! There’s so little data left in dark JPEG shadows that funny things can happen if you lift them. This image is an excellent example of why it pays to shoot raw.

 

[Dak on cam]

Yes, indeed! There’s so little data left in dark JPEG shadows that funny things can happen if you lift them. This image is an excellent example of why it pays to shoot raw.

Here is one where I had the camera set up wrong (I repeated the shot but still was interested in what was salvageable):

JPEG:





Recovery from raw:







It's not really a good quality image but one can at least recognize a few more details.

--
Dak

 

[Digital Nigel]

Yes, indeed! There’s so little data left in dark JPEG shadows that funny things can happen if you lift them. This image is an excellent example of why it pays to shoot raw.

Here is one where I had the camera set up wrong (I repeated the shot but still was interested in what was salvageable):

JPEG:



Recovery from raw:



It's not really a good quality image but one can at least recognize a few more details.

Yes, that’s remarkable!

 

[elliottnewcomb]

I think the distinction is that post-processing JPEGs is not necessary at all.

Necessary? No.

Beneficial? Sometimes.

This is how I'd handle it in PL. Of course, the quality would be much better if starting from a raw image, as you could lift the shadows more successfullY:


Edited from JPEG using PL8

Good save, and I like that you used the original version with more red of the Sardi's sign, however OP's edit is more like a modern take of a Norman Rockwell scene. The standee has to go.

--
Elliott

 

[elliottnewcomb]

came across another disaster that shocked me when I was able to get something,/anything out of it. Yes, RAW would have been better, ... I wish I had recorded which software I used on the Jpeg











--
Elliott

 

[elliottnewcomb]

the closest I ever came to trying RAW, bought some software, never crossed the finish line. I'm tempted to read thru it, but after 20 years of balk, there's no point, and I forget as fast as I read.

RAW, No PP, ......HOW??????

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3908580

--
Elliott

 

[Digital Nigel]

came across another disaster that shocked me when I was able to get something,/anything out of it. Yes, RAW would have been better, ... I wish I had recorded which software I used on the Jpeg

You used Windows Photo Editor 10.

A much better save is possible, if you used more sophisticated tools:


Affinity Photo and PAI