10-megapixel 14-bit RAW file is approx 17.7 megabytes big
2.5 megapixel 14-bit sRAW file is approx 9.3 megabytes big
The 2.5 megapixel sRAW file takes up a whopping 9.3 megabytes. Is that really practical? Compare the file size to that of a full resolution 10-megapixel RAW file from an EOS 400D --- only 10.8 megabytes. For a smaller RAW file, which of these would people rather have:
9.3 megabyte sRAW with 14-bit and only 2.5 megapixels, or
10.8 megabyte sRAW with 12-bit and all 10 megapixels?
If file size was an issue, I think it would've made more sense to cut down on the superfluous bits instead of drastically reducing the resolution. This is especially true for the EOS 5D Mark II, where some of those 14-bit RAW files can take up as much as 30 megabytes each.
Agreed. The implementation of the sRAW1 format makes more sense on the 5DII, with a usable 10Mp resolution and reduced file size. I wish the 1DsIII had this.
The 14-bit RAWs from my 40D are 10-14MB. Are you sure you aren't shooting RAW+Large JPEG? If your large JPEG is adding around 5MB, you're now looking at 4MB sRAWs.
calemon wrote:
The 14-bit RAWs from my 40D are 10-14MB. Are you sure you aren't shooting RAW+Large JPEG?
Canon's RAW file is a compressed format. The amount of compression largely depends on how much detail and noise grain there is in the scene. Shooting a blank wall at ISO 100 may give you under 10 MB per RAW file. But shooting a landscape at ISO 3200 may result in a RAW file closer to 20 MB than 10 MB.
