It's great that they explained the sRAW format, but I'd like to see real life examples and know the true resolution of the images. Those things have a greater impact on my decision than any description of what sRAW is.
From that website, it appears that for D4S, for the sRaw "The pixel count is 4 times less than with regular NEF files". I think unless Nikon has changed the algorithm, the pixel count for D810 should be 9 MPx. However, the files sizes are similar to the 12 bit lossy compressed full size NEF files. For me, sRaw is not of much use, however, it maybe useful to others.
Look what I got in for testing! I've done three minutes of testing so far, enough to answer a couple of the burning questions I had:
The good: This feels like a Nikon again! Not like the D800, which in sluggish handling reminded me more of the old Fuji dSLRS. Even the Live View works very quickly, feeling like the Nikon D4s, and has no green cast whatsoever.
The bad: As expert assumed, the sRAW implementation is not what we would have hoped for. The files are about the same size as a 12-bit, compressed full-size NEF (28.5 mb versus about 30 mb), and converting to DNG makes them even larger. So the real solution for smaller, "semi-RAW" files is to shoot it large and downsize to lossy DNGs later, saving you on hard drives and bandwidth but not cards.
form wrote:
It's great that they explained the sRAW format, but I'd like to see real life examples and know the true resolution of the images. Those things have a greater impact on my decision than any description of what sRAW is.
Did you read the article? While they didn't post any images to prove it, Nasim is very thorough.
"Nikon D4s, an sRAW file is roughly 12 MB, while a full resolution 12-bit Lossy Compressed NEF is around 13 MB, so it only makes sense to use the latter format"
AND
"In full resolution the D810 can shoot 34 frames before the buffer fills up, while shooting in sRAW only yields 18!"
Those 2 things alone and I'll avoid SRAW. He did use the d4s vs the d800, but I the implementation is the same.
Pointless to shoot sRAW when you can just shoot a 12 bit compressed NEF. WAY more flexible than a sRAW, way more resolution to work with, and the same file size.
sRAW isn't RAW at all, you might as well shoot JPEG and save even more space.
Extremely minor issue though. I don't think many buy a D810 and are truly disappointed about it's 9MP performance. Get a D700, D3,D3S,Df, etc. if you want great, small, files for less money. Or just shoot 12 bit and/or batch downsize to 9MP if you want it that bad. So many reasonable, easy, workarounds that it's simply a non issue.
RAW is either RAW or it isn't, but I was also hoping that SRAW was going to be more than a gimmick. There are plenty of ways to compress image data without sacrificing image quality.
The reason I was interested in sRAW is that I would like to use my D810 to shoot weddings and shoot at 36mp for the formal shots, and then change to sRAW for the candids and party shots. Would be ideal so I don't have to carry that 3rd camera. So to hear that sRAW isn't really raw and that the data is pretty much useless is disappointing.
Adam73 wrote:
The reason I was interested in sRAW is that I would like to use my D810 to shoot weddings and shoot at 36mp for the formal shots, and then change to sRAW for the candids and party shots. Would be ideal so I don't have to carry that 3rd camera. So to hear that sRAW isn't really raw and that the data is pretty much useless is disappointing.
Is it the file size or resolution you were hoping for in sRAW?
Just switch to 12bit compressed NEF for candids if you want the small file size, or simply batch process your candid photos down to 9MP (or whatever resolution you want) after the shoot if you want lower resolution. Takes no time at all to do either, and would be super easy to sort in an image viewer. You can even put those quality settings in My Menu so you can change them in a matter of seconds as you move between formals and candids.
You're right that sRAW is fairly useless, but there are workarounds that result in better, more flexible files that take no effort at all to implement if you REALLY want 9MP or small files.
