Bad news for cRAW - Anyone with same experience?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
ChrisJSLH Regular Member • Posts: 187
Re: The better A-B Example

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

Since the originally flawed assessment (unequal comparison) was against my own experience with some 10.000+ r5 files I did now my own more controled test. Setup was easy: Two ISO12233 charts clued on the door and illuminated partly by a snoot. The R5 set on a tripod with cable release, 1st curtain, with the EF100/2.8LIS Macro at f/7.1, 1/15s, ISO400, MF. In Canlon DPP only whitebalance was set. Two different developments were made. One without exposure correction (fitting the illuminated part of the chart) and another development with setting the high cut of the curve from 255 to 10. i.e. brigthening by a factor of 25,5 or 4,7 exposure steps. See yourself at the screenshot from photoshop if there are significant differences between the left (raw) and right (craw) pics... I see no significant differences with my aging eyes.

Here are the corresponding raw/craw files for your own inspection:

For me this is a much better comparison and aligns well with others I have read. 
While there is a difference in noise patterns, it is just that a difference. Not necessarily better or worse. You have to push exposure really had to get the 'worms' to appear, arguably to the point where you maybe should have considered multiple exposures anyway. 
CRAW is now my default unless I'm shooting in particularly poor light or very high contrast situations where I want something in the deep shadows. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages significantly for me.

 ChrisJSLH's gear list:ChrisJSLH's gear list
Sony RX100 III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow