stanj wrote: artsupreme wrote:
I would suggest doing some testing to see if you can tell the difference. I don't know anyone who shoots RAW anymore except for maybe one guy who shoots some landscape every few months because he has very little files to cull/store. But for everyone else who's shooting on a regular basis it's cRAW. Give it a try and compare.
I shoot always raw on the R3 because I can tell the difference in the shadows. I shoot raw on the R5 for night photos (long exposures, or very high ISO) because there I can see the difference, too. Everything else cRaw for sure.
I tried craw once. I had looked at lots of analysis and concluded that if the subject is properly exposed and ISO is high (>800) there is not much difference and the files are smaller and you get 50% more in a burst. My tentative conclusion was that craw was okay (as compared to 12bit electronic raw) for wildlife (higher iso) but not optimal for on the tripod work (iso 100/14bit).
But after shooting craw for wildlife, I forgot to switch to raw when I switched to landscape at night.
I turned off craw permanently after that - I did not buy 14bit raw to not take advantage of it. And 80 burst I can make it work with care. And drives are cheap compared to cameras.
The new R5ii is going to be even harder to justify for me, because r5ii electronic is 14bit (unlike the the r5 12 bit), so its likely a bigger downgrade to go craw.
Aug 03, 2024 at 11:14 AM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #16609010 « Canon R5 Mark II Image Thread »
