for wedding work

im hearing from a few photogs that have them that they are shooting in s-raw,,files are too big and a pain to process,,,,,how true v/s untrue. for guys that have a 5dmk1,,other than the obvious iso capabilities of the new 5dmk2,,any other big reasons to consider an upgrade.

having a hard time deciding to get another original 5d or getting a 5dmk2,,especially if im going to be shooting s-raw all day

IMHO, sRAW1 is one of the smartest features on the 5D2, and I use it all the time for corporate events. It's brilliant for assignments where speed of workflow is important and where 21Mp resolution is not needed.

10Mp is big enough for nearly any editorial use, including double-truck (one of mine from the recent Microsoft CEO Summit is the opening spread for the cover story in the June 22 issue of Fortune).

I also find that high-ISO noise at 100% is less apparent when shooting sRAW1. At this resolution I think the 5D2 is as good as D3 or D700 in this regard.

I'm exactly the opposite.

I can't see the point of buying a 21 meg camera and then deliberately crippling it down to 10 meg.

And if I was having my wedding shot and I found out the photographer wasn't using the best quality he could because he couldn't be bothered to process the bigger files I'd be going elsewhere for my wedding shots.

David

My PC at home is dual core processor, just the normal speed one, I found no problem to handle over 500 raw files after shooting in my friend's wedding party (you know how big and how long a Chinese wedding). Only issue is on the HD video editing. The quad core is going to be a normal set up for home PC, it will treat the 21MP's file like nothing and solve the HD video editing issue.

IMHO, sRAW1 is fine for weddings. Shooting 1-2k total shots on a wedding with full RAW can be a big HD space eater. The 21MP resolution is an overkill for albums. Full RAW comes in handy for advertising work and/or exhibit quality large print images.

i am sure if you are just a fly by night wedding photographer normal raw is fine. but i would hardly say sraw is crippling, it on adds to the features.

I shoot pretty much everything in sraw. things i would not shoot in sraw are commercial shoots where images are going up on banners.

but try shooting six weddings a month and using full on raw. it is overkill and time consuming. i guess part of being a "pro" is knowing what you need vs. wastefully using that which you don't.

the quality of sraw is pretty much the same as regular raw in my experience. but for fun, compare a 3200 ISO image in sraw to that of a raw file from a 5D I and see how much better it is.

My personal real world experience of shooting weddings for a living says sraw is not only fine for weddings, but it is smart as well.

I noticed a big change in Mac performance when I switched from 5D 12MP files to 1Ds3 21MP files. Much slower... and very annoying when I have a lot of editing to do.

Problem is, I am so used to 21MP files, that I would find it difficult to "downgrade" them to 10MP's. The 1Ds3 sRAW are too small in size for my usage anyway (like 5MP)...

So, when buying the 5D2... the best possible solution is to upgrade my system

Also, when using only the center AF point of the 5D2 (because the outer ones are too unreliable), I need all the rez to crop afterwards...

wstu wrote:
IMHO, sRAW1 is fine for weddings. Shooting 1-2k total shots on a wedding with full RAW can be a big HD space eater. The 21MP resolution is an overkill for albums. Full RAW comes in handy for advertising work and/or exhibit quality large print images.
1k to 2k you are kidding right
this is overkill

also if you are a wedding photog a real one I would think you would have
the computer to handle any file...quad core i7 is cheap 799 from Dell this with 2 hard drives in raid zero will work...

I also use SRAW - when I don't need big files. It is much much faster and don't eat disk space
For example - all small school events ...
But when I'm in nature and want to take good photo, then use BIG RAW

I only shoot sRAW when i don't have enough CF-space to cover an event.

I never liked it, as it holds way less detail than the 21mp raw file.

I didn't see any actual benefit in noise either

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=717652

slowdad wrote:
for wedding work

im hearing from a few photogs that have them that they are shooting in s-raw,,files are too big and a pain to process,,,,,how true v/s untrue. for guys that have a 5dmk1,,other than the obvious iso capabilities of the new 5dmk2,,any other big reasons to consider an upgrade.

having a hard time deciding to get another original 5d or getting a 5dmk2,,especially if im going to be shooting s-raw all day

I'm supposing you have a source for a new 5D1 body. However, the 5D2 body has enough improvements to make it the more desirable maintenance replacement for a wedding professional, even if a new 5D1 body is available.

For a professional, replacing a 5D1 with a 5D2 is not an "upgrade," it's a maintenance replacement. Getting a 1Ds would be an "upgrade."

5d2 is an upgrade.

in case you need help:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/upgrade

RDKirk wrote:

For a professional, replacing a 5D1 with a 5D2 is not an "upgrade," it's a maintenance replacement. Getting a 1Ds would be an "upgrade."



Hmm, 21 meg files and liveview make it a nice upgrade for me.

Very good camera though the 5D is, the 5DII is significantly better

David

thanks for everyones input.

i guess im having a hard time because with the old 5d that i have,,it shoots 12 mp files and works very well. i really love the camera. but all the technology in the 5dmk2 is great and tempting,,especially the high iso features,,but i do cover weddings so it like whats the point. most guys i know that shoot weddings are shooting s-raw with it,,so im giving up 2 mps,,gaining high iso for 3000.00. i can p/u a low milage 5dmk1 for 1200.00 all day and adorama still has original 5dmk1 new in a box for about 1800.00.

guess im in the mind set of why get it for iso performance if im going to be shooting it with less horsepower than what im doing now ??

slowdad wrote:
thanks for everyones input.

i guess im having a hard time because with the old 5d that i have,,it shoots 12 mp files and works very well. i really love the camera. but all the technology in the 5dmk2 is great and tempting,,especially the high iso features,,but i do cover weddings so it like whats the point. most guys i know that shoot weddings are shooting s-raw with it,,so im giving up 2 mps,,gaining high iso for 3000.00. i can p/u a low milage 5dmk1 for 1200.00 all day and adorama still has original 5dmk1 new in a box for about 1800.00.

guess im in the mind set of why get it for iso performance if im going to be shooting it with less horsepower than what im doing now ??

5D is more than capable and a lot cheaper... business-wise the choice is clear... now how to satisfy your inner-gearhead?

really,,im far from a gear head but i do get the point. ive tried the new 5dmk2. no doubt, the iso performance is awesome especially at 3200. the larger viewfinder is a nice feature. i do use live view on the 40d but not that often. self cleaning sensor would be nice. but jeeze,,last week we shot 1050 images for a wedding. probably 1/2 were with the 5d. guess im going to have to break down next year and get one because i really like full frame for weddings.but as you have said,,the old 5d is so very capable. im stuck on the s-raw comments and for me,,video is something i will not use.

I considered picking up a new 5D mark 1 for holidays etc, perhaps you should do that, give yourself an identical backup while they are still available.

If your gear does the job why change?

David

dhphoto wrote:
I'm exactly the opposite.

I can't see the point of buying a 21 meg camera and then deliberately crippling it down to 10 meg.
David

+1: You need a bit longer time to transfer files from the CF card on your PC harddrive, but the rest works as smoothly with those RAW files as with older ones.