RAW v Jpeg?

happysnapper64

Veteran Member
Messages
5,421
Solutions
8
Reaction score
814
Location
NW England, UK
Moon.
Moon.

I shot this recently with 7D + Tamron 150-600. Just a hint of sharpening with Picasa + some cropping. I have never done any RAW yet & would be curious as to whether processing in RAW would improve it at all? I would like to make a largish print, around 24" x 24". C&C welcome.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
"I would never want to join a club that would have me as a member" Groucho Marx.
 
I assume the larger sensor of my 5D2 would be better than either my 7D, or Oly E-M1?
It's a well-regarded camera. But with your subject matter, you had better have a longer lens to match the sensor, otherwise, with cropping, you'd lose all of its advantage, and maybe more.
I'm sorry Scott, longer than what? I don't recall mentioning a lens, other than the 150-600 that I took the moon shot with? Apologies if I have mis-understood you.
With the 35 mm format sensor of the 5 D Mk. II, you'd need a lens that is 60% longer than what you used on the 7D in order to get the same angle of view.

You shot the mood at 552 mm with the 7D; for a 5D, the equivalent focal length would be 883 mm. A teleconverter might work, as would a longer lens (and here we are talking serious expense!), but cropping to get the same angle of view probably wouldn't make much photographic sense, at least in terms of resolution, so you might as well use the 7D.
 
Thanks for clearing that up Mark. I was however, enquiring about the best of the 2 cameras, 7D & 5D2, to use to take a RAW image, not necessarily of the moon, but any subject, just to try my hand at it. I do understand the crop factor thing, are you saying that the 7D will be a better option anyway, because of the FOV factor? If I was to shoot a scene of colourful trees, which camera would be best for producing a good RAW image,? [I hope I have explained myself ok]
I'm not an expert in Canon, so someone else ought to provide more details. But generally speaking, the 7D wins with regards to both price and telephoto reach, as well as weight, while the 5D is probably better all-around with image quality (depending on the lenses you are using, of course), due to it's greater number of pixels and 2.56x the sensor surface area. Both are fine cameras, by the way, and are rather desirable, even if neither are the latest-and-greatest.

I guess the question is how often you'll be shooting extreme telephoto?
 
Thanks for clearing that up Mark. I was however, enquiring about the best of the 2 cameras, 7D & 5D2, to use to take a RAW image, not necessarily of the moon, but any subject, just to try my hand at it. I do understand the crop factor thing, are you saying that the 7D will be a better option anyway, because of the FOV factor? If I was to shoot a scene of colourful trees, which camera would be best for producing a good RAW image,? [I hope I have explained myself ok]
I'm not an expert in Canon, so someone else ought to provide more details. But generally speaking, the 7D wins with regards to both price and telephoto reach, as well as weight, while the 5D is probably better all-around with image quality (depending on the lenses you are using, of course), due to it's greater number of pixels and 2.56x the sensor surface area. Both are fine cameras, by the way, and are rather desirable, even if neither are the latest-and-greatest.

I guess the question is how often you'll be shooting extreme telephoto?

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com
Hi Mark & Lee,

Hope you don't mind my interfering.

I'd generally say get the FOV so your subject covers the largest part of the image...

Does that make sense?

--
Cheers Mike
Check
 
Last edited:
I'd generally say get the FOV so your subject covers the largest part of the image...

Does that make sense?
Yes, fill the frame with the subject is generally good advice. A common n00b problem is having a tiny subject directly centered in the middle of the image, surrounded by uninteresting detail.
 
It might help in the early stages but I'm against it if you really want to master raw development. The reason comes from how we think of "correct" exposure. There are alternative definitions or meanings of "correct exposure".....
Gerry
I just wanted to say thank you for an extremely helpful and insightful post.

I've only recently started taking JPG+RAW, vs just JPG, and I still usually reserve JPG+RAW for low-light. I've been playing with the RAW files a bit, and like how I can easily change white balance, or tweak exposure levels.

I just learned the term ETTR the other day (I have a lot to learn). I typically shoot to make them look "right" (the way I want, which is typically targeting what the scene looks like to me) on the camera's display. I have recently been using the histogram more often, to check and make sure that I haven't obviously over/underexposed.

But I hadn't considered intentionally making them look "wrong" on the camera's display, and driving the exposure to the right in the histogram, to let me "fix" them after transferring to a computer.

I am in the middle phase of RAW vs JPG, unwilling to give up also saving in JPGs. As was said, they're small, so I'll likely keep shooting both for now. But yours is excellent advice for why I should consider paying more attention to RAW & histogram, and less to JPG & what the camera displays. Thank you!
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top