Do we really need to shoot RAW?

[pradeep1]

This discussion was started in this thread:

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=176664#176664

but I thought I would bring it up from the depths of a side note within that thread to the main level. Do we really need to shoot RAW as Ken Rockwell explains:?:




What does everyone think of this article by Ken Rockwell (a professional photographer - extremely interesting site) that basically says shooting in RAW is a complete waste of time? http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Well, I think he sounds kind of resentful in the article. Looks like he hates the new digital era, its as if he is a photographer from the old film days that is having trouble adjusting to the new. Just because he does not have time to 'piddle' with photoshop, doesnt mean the rest of us don't. I really enjoy photoshop, it is a tool to make our photos better, not much different to buying a better flash or a tripod to improve your photos.

What I have noticed is that I really don't need RAW. I shoot RAW when I have a specific "thing" I want to do in mind. Like playing with some settings or white balance, or trying something extreme. But most of the time, I shoot SuperFine Large JPGs and they serve me just fine. I read Ken Rockwell's exposition on the RAW format, and although he is opinionated, I don't stray too far from what he is saying. He could kick all of our collected *sses in photography with one hand tied behind his back using JPG mode. Check out his portfolio. Also, in my own work, I shoot JPGs and all of my photos in the portfolio link given below were shot in SL JPG mode and are wonderfully detailed. This should be made into a new thread to debate over.

Even my now "famous" bumblebee wings picture:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1775592&size=lg

was shot as a JPG. I'll tell you, with my slow G3, if I was shooting RAW that day, I would have never caught this fast moving bee. I've printed this picture blown up past 11X13 and it looks great with good detail and crisp wings and hair.

What do you guys think?

[shniks]

I dont use raw currently. I cant afford to buy more memory cards at the moment, so I am using superfine jpeg. I tried fine jpg and also smaller sized jpeg, but was disappointed with the difference in quality. I think I will use raw in the future (when I finally save more $$$) because of the increased versatility. But I cant really say if quality is much different, haven't used raw enough to make a valid judgement.

[Duke107]

after seeing that bumble bee photo, I'm going back to JPEG.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I was presented with this article some time ago,. here is what I had to say about Ken's article then...

*********************************************

Although the very breif first paragraph on jpeg was indeed to the point and spot on,. Your pal Ken lost me in the first sentence of the second paragrph "RAW" where he immediately isolates himself by referring to all of those who shoot raw as "people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling"

I won't go on too much about this first statement... other than to say that for some of us twiddlers,. the very reason we use RAW is to minimize the amount of twiddling it takes to get the image correct. As RAW files are inherently open to easier and more fluid manipulation,. it takes me far less time to get a RAW file "right" than it does with a jpeg.

His second sentence is that "RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for"

So,. now he has not only alienated anyone who uses the very file type that the camera manufacturers recommend you to use,.. but then he goes on to belittle anyone who would have the audacity to use a digital camera for any subject other than those that are on the "KenRockwell.COM official approved subject list ©"

What is this guy the RIAA? Orin Hatch? John Ashcroft for goods sake?

But this is the crowning glory;

For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use RAW. RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for. Unfortunately this is becoming popular among amateurs, but remember that for amateurs the fun is in making the photo, and for fun digital is king. Personally I focus on the final image, for which big film excels.

Essentially translated,.

my film plane is bigger than yours,. there fore I am much better than any digital photogrpher who is by inference an amateur"

:roll:

Fine,. keep shooting large format at $10.00 a shot for film and leave us digital amateurs alone. Why even delve further into the benifits of a digital file type if by doing so you have ranked yourself among us weekend shooters of toy digitals?

Anyway,. any one with such clear and obvious prejudice and animosity towards anyone who does anything in any way other than "his" way... is in no position to be considered an even handed judge of any subject whatsoever,. let alone a subject that his own passions have clearly blinded him to any kind of open minded understanding of the what he has perceived to be the wrong way of doing things.

An arogant blow hard with zero objectivity.

Lastly what is the point of the article?

He can't sway opinion with it,. as it is written specifically to anger anyone who does not agree with him 100%

So,. the article is written to coddle and preserve his own strong beliefs? Why?

I just don't get it.

As to RAW Vs. jpeg,. I think this article does nothing to help answer a question that really not only doesn't need to be argued,. but it doesn't even need to be asked.

The answer is far to simple to merit such violence.

They both serve different purposes and application. They are both valid for different people using there photography for different tasks.

And no one task has any more legitimacy than another. This guy is taking it to the level of religious dogma where only those that pray to my God get to go to heaven and evryone else is wrong and goes to hell. Bull!

[shelbix2020]

RAW is also for people who don't yet get perfect exposure right when they make the image, although of course JPEGs also allow these adjustments.
- Ken Rockwell

does this guy have ANY experience with RAW? ... or JPEG??

He sounds like some child who wont give into digital photography... thats great he uses film, film is cool, but he doesnt have to write a full web page about JPEG vs. RAW and keep promoting film lol

edit: I usually shoot JPG unless Im taking macros of flowers

[slejhamer]

No one NEEDS to shoot RAW.

With my infrared-modified G1 I have gone back to JPEG, choosing instead to use custom WB before I shoot and keeping contrast low while exposing for the highlights. I still might need some adjustment, but I have only a 128mb flash card for that camera and jpeg simply gives me more shots per shoot.

But with my 10D I shoot only RAW, because the workflow when using conversion software like Capture One is incredibly efficient and a huge time saver.

[kb244]

Um , Raw is perfect for post-processing. For example, you can change the image in Photoshop CS to different camera settings, than your orignially set. Because you save each color channel seperately in a raw ( 16/12 bit ) as opposed to the JPEg's 8bit, you lose alot of information. I use raw to change the exposure compensation, shadows, contrast, lens aspect and such after I had taken the picture. Very useful if you need to correct a problem, or set a certain white balance. Editing can be done in raw without loss of quality. But its more on a professional level, so Its upto the photographer to find usefulness in what they do.

[JayB]

Question. What is the fuss about Mr Rockwell arguments. Admittedly they could have been phrased better but in the main he is correct.

A professional photographer who is in a time related seneraio (news or similar) just does not have the luxury of waiting for the file to be transferred let alone converted then adjusted.

His caveat about formats is well understood in the computer world. Very few people have 5 1/4" disks let alone the drives to read the data on them. Tiff/tga/png and even raw are all formats that will fall by the wayside over the next few years so what software are you going to get then to read these precious files. At least negatives like books are semi permanent and viewable / readable.

An example taken from the UK. Several years ago mid 80's the BBC commisioned an electronic doomsday book. State of the art then. 20years on nothing could read the data, specialist software/hardware had to be commisioned to restore the information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2534391.stm

This could lead on to another thread.

For those that did not read the BBC article the original 1086 doomsday book is still going fine in the records office at Kew.


Getting back to the subject, I am not a professional, I own both film and digital based cameras and I prefer my G5 over my Minolta optical because of speed and convience (processing cost is also a factor ). Yet when necessary I will use the optical camera, Ultra wide lenses, fast telephotos, ultra high speed film, ultra low speed film. Hourse for courses.
And if going somewhere where I have never been before the chances I will take both medium.

-------------------------------

Yet for all the bantering in this thread I agree with CyberDyneSystems comment that it does not answer the RAW vs JPG answer at all.

At the end of the day what does RAW have over JPG and the converse. It will boil down to what is best for the end user and how they work.

All we can say with any certanty is that

- it has a range of "x" stops vs jpgs "y"
- has a certain number of bits per channel
- post vs in camera processing causes these things to happen to your final image
- and similar

And to make recommendations, based on personal experience and those of professional testers, like Steves Digicams web site.

The problem lies in defining the starting points and the reference standards.

Eg on my 2.4Mhz P4 with 1Gb memory it takes around 5 minutes to convert Raw to Tiff using canons own software. Yet I have not mentioned what, if anything, I have running in the background using computer resources, speed/size of hard disks, swap space. Even operating system - although by implication I am using MS windows (XP, 2000 ?). So my figure is worthless. So time of conversion is not worth looking at.

Some say Breeze Bowser or PhotoshopCS convert better. Better than ? what are your starting points. Is it a case of they look better - if so is your monitor calibrated - (CRT vs LCD) - Screen age, colour temperature of display etc.

What is your final destination: web, print, digital photobook.

If its print, the list of options goes on and on - Paper/inks/drivers/printer model...........

etc. etc.

Jay

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

:D
Ridiculous.
JPEG is very nice for some shots, RAW rules for ALL shots, I would hate to loose that one perfect shot because I shot RAW.

All DSLR pictures need sharpening and levels according to me, so better do this in RAW than in a lossy format.

Sharpening in camera is an idea but also a comprimise in quality.
For journalists JPEG is fine and the best solution, for the serious photographer I only believe in RAW.

Greetings,
Frank

[garethhhhh]

A professional photographer who is in a time related seneraio (news or similar) just does not have the luxury of waiting for the file to be transferred let alone converted then adjusted.


This is not always true


They both serve different purposes and application. They are both valid for different people using there photography for different tasks.

Just look at what Sports Illustrated recomend their photographers shoot:
www.siphoto.com
(see camera settings)

There is no right or wrong, I will not form an opinion either way.
Shooting JPEG or RAW is a means to an end. Think about what that end is for you before you decide what format you want to shoot. :wink:

[Laziferous]

I'm no professional, and being so, I don't have any deadlines. I shoot in RAW almost always. It's just more flexible for me.

If I shoot an IR shot with a custom white balance, then shoot something else and forget to change it, it's very easy to correct. If I had to correct it as a .jpg, it just wouldn't happen. Just too much work... and I'm pretty sure I could never totally recover it. I need that flexibility, because I'm rather scatterbrained.

I'm one of those amateurs that shoots landscapes with a digital camera. I also like to twiddle with images, and 16-bit TIFF's are much "cleaner", and much more permissive when it comes to editing. In my opinion, it's fun. I wouldn't do it if it weren't.

I agree that both formats have their own pros, and cons. For what I'm doing, RAW just works better for me, but I also see the benefits of .jpgs, especially write speed.

[JayB]

A few comments:-

garethhhhh:

I agree I made a generalisation, but this was more to deal with Kens musings than specifics. I have seen press users use digital. But what format were they sending in. Prob jpg. I edited out my earlier thoughts about range/resolution of ccds vs film - and which would win.

Re Sports Illustrated : You have to discuss your picture before sending which implies that you already have the image saved to a facility from where you can upload it. So post processing may or may not have taken place.

I also agree that whatever format, jpg, raw or film it is a means to an end - hourse for courses as I said earlier.

J.A.F. Doorhof:
Raw Rules : Sounds like a mantra. You made a statment can you define why it rules for you and under what circumstances.

If I was using some computers I might not be able to use raw because the format is not supported, the machine itself lacked resources etc.

Laziferous:
When using the G5, like you I shoot in Raw. Yet my other digital camera does not have RAW output so its jpg when I use it.

"I shoot in raw, because its more flxible for me". Could not agree better with that or your other comments, but I could not say that to another user who has never used RAW because he has no comparison - more flexible than what.


Jay

[kb244]

:D
Ridiculous.
JPEG is very nice for some shots, RAW rules for ALL shots, I would hate to loose that one perfect shot because I shot RAW.

All DSLR pictures need sharpening and levels according to me, so better do this in RAW than in a lossy format.


Um, wrong. RAW is completely uncompressed, so whatever you could shoot in JPEG will be the same in RAW. The difference is just that raw saves every single bit of data, and can take longer to write onto your compactflash card cuz of the larger size. a Digital SLR doesnt need sharpening or levels, it helps even with a point and shoot like the G3 I used to have, but doesnt need to be. The biggest factor is, with a G3 it takes forever to shoot raw, with most digital SLRs it does not. The raw feature is avalible to you on a G3. but because of how slow the camera is raw isnt ideal shooting format if you need to do sports, actions, quick, anything of tha tnature. Also if you shoot with a G3/G5 , you dont even need Large/Superfine, with my G3 I have always shot in Large/Fine and have yet to really notice a difference between fine and superfine, even when printed out 8x11.5

All in and All, I definitly disagree with the statement that DSLR people shoot in raw, cuz their pictures wont come out right the way they are shot.

Also I am on a Athlon XP 2500+ , which is roughly a 1.7Ghtz machine, no freaking way is it going to take me 5 to 6 minutes to convert a raw to a working format like a 16/12 bit tiff. In photoshop CS, I open up the raw window, change the exposure I need to, then click ok, it loads it into photoshop was a 16bit working picture, i can mess with it from there, and all this happens in less than 30 seconds.

[Laziferous]

"I shoot in raw, because its more flxible for me". Could not agree better with that or your other comments, but I could not say that to another user who has never used RAW because he has no comparison - more flexible than what.
I thought that was a given. Since this is a Canon forum, and we're talking about Canon cameras, the only other alternative to RAW, is .jpg right? I don't know of any Canon cameras that capture in any other other format other than RAW, or .jpg.... doesn't mean they don't exist, I just don't know of them. I have been known to make references to things I don't know much about though :? (Ansel Adams for instance :shock: ).

[eric1]

i read somewhere that Raw IS compressed, something like 1/3 of
a fully uncompressed TIFF file.


eric1

[CyberDyneSystems]

The argument about jpeg and professionals needing to use it for immediate reults only applies sometimes.

See the Sport Illustrated link above

The Argument that RAW conversion and manipulation takes longer than jpeg is erroneous.

This argument is only true if you are willing to accept the jpeg file as complete from the cameras output. If any software manipulation is intended, then the use of RAW files can, and often does result in quicker more flexible workflow. Yes it takes practice,. and perhaps additional software, but once these hurdles are conquered the results are worth the investment

To knock someone for taking the time to learn to use the additional equipment is like knocking somone for taking the time to use a light meter,. or to set up a stable tripod.

Each additional step in photography that we take to make the best of our images offers a compromise in ease of use,. but most of the time we are willing to take the time to learn the extra step,. knowing that by using the light meter or tripod or cable release, or whatever extra step... we may have to spend a little more money on the additional equipment,. a little more time learning to use it...

...but the results are worth the investment


To say that all digital professionals do no post processing and just take the image as it is developed by the incamera jpeg conversion, is the same as saying that all film professionals use polaroid instamatics so the pictures can be handed to the clients immediately ???

So no professionals ever used a dark room?

Of course they do/did.

It added time,. it was a HUGE extra amount of learning,. skills, equipment to tackle dark room development...

...but the results were worth the investment




*********************************************
One last time...

RAW Processing IS the Digital Darkroom.

Your requirements for dark room processing may vary.

The one time I Know that RAW is the more appropriate file type is when I KNOW I will be doing some post processing work.

And lastly,. since when was developing in your own darkroom the equivelant of resorting to soem kind of "cheating" to fix a mistake ???

It Never was. And it still isn't.

And,... the results are worth the investment

[CyberDyneSystems]

i read somewhere that Raw IS compressed, something like 1/3 of
a fully uncompressed TIFF file.


eric1

There is no data loss with RAW. There is a form of compression in some RAW files,. and even more space is saved by the fact that they are not yet "image files" this is why a RAW file of 6 MB will balloon up to 18 MB or so when a TIFF is made from them.. the additional info that makes it viewable as an Image file is not carried around in the RAW file,. it is only within the Camera and the Software that reads it.

[jukas]

I've been shooting nothing but Large Jpg in my 10D nad have been mostly happy with the images, but I like the idea of having more post processing abilities.

At the risk of sounding dumb (too late!) I have no clue how to work with a Raw image once the shutter button has been pressed and the image captured.

Can anyone give me the basics in a play by play format?

[kb244]

Well basically if you have Photoshop CS, you dont have any problems, you canjust open the CRW right up, change some of the camera settings int he dialog that pops up, click ok to load it into photoshop for working, typically good to work in 16-bit mode, but then when you want to save the final image to jpeg, make sure you change the mode to 8-bit, then you can go forth.

There should be a thread somewhere where alot of people showing their RAW workflow, it used to be for me, I had to convert into a tiff using some kind of program, and that was a pain in the butt for me. I like Photoshop CS ability to open it right up and get going with it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I've been shooting nothing but Large Jpg in my 10D nad have been mostly happy with the images, but I like the idea of having more post processing abilities.

At the risk of sounding dumb (too late!) I have no clue how to work with a Raw image once the shutter button has been pressed and the image captured.

Can anyone give me the basics in a play by play format?

Two things to do,.

1. dig through the EOS froum on this site,. and read stuff that has questions about RAW or whichever software you are using.

2. You could learn a LOT by reading up on Roger's sight here;
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/

[jukas]

Two things to do,.

1. dig through the EOS froum on this site,. and read stuff that has questions about RAW or whichever software you are using.

2. You could learn a LOT by reading up on Roger's sight here;
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/

Thanks much, I'll poke around there :D

[pradeep1]

Who added the last option in the poll? I don't remember putting that one in? Help, moderators?

[pradeep1]

An interesting side to this entire argument:

Sports Illustrated Digital Workflow

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821

"The process starts with the photographers, the large majority of whom are shooting this Super Bowl with Canon EOS-1D cameras, which they are instructed always to set for simultaneous RAW+JPEG shooting."

This would be my ideal of shooting mode...best of both worlds...RAW+JPEG. If only I had unlimited storage capacity. :roll:

[clorich]

I hate to stir this debate more, but does anybody else notice more noise when shooting RAW? (I have a G2)

[CyberDyneSystems]

What software do you use to convert the RAW image?

Some of the RAW converters seem to introduce noise.. PSCS for example.

Also,. I am totally guessing.. (don't have a G2) but [art of the G2's internal jpeg processing might include a noise reduction algorithm?

[4walls]

The G2's raw file includes a "loss-less" compression. The files are almost the same size as a SL JPG file. I wonder if this loss-less compression is leading to the noise.

The G3's raw files are not more noisy than the JPG's from what I can see.

but does anybody else notice more noise when shooting RAW? (I have a G2)

[pradeep1]

I have not noticed any more noise in RAW files unprocessed or converted to JPG in comparison to SL JPGs. I use BreezeBrowser to convert my RAW to JPG or TIFF and it does a good job of not introducing noise.

CDS, I didn't know the RAW converter in PS-CS does that? It is hard to believe...I always thought PS would have the top tier converter.

8)

[kb244]

Well Raw, is just that, its a raw dump of what each channel of the sensor receives. The Raw I would imagine should be no noisier than any of the other compression format, as the noise is supposed to be introduced at the sensor level ( or in the program convertor level ). So I would be a tad confused as to why raw would produce more. I assume the statement would go that, JPEG because it is compressed, might cancel out the tiniest noise by blending the nearby pixels, where as RAW taking every pixel into consideration will show up the noise that would have normally been blended out in a lossly compression method.

[clorich]

^^^^^^^
That's what I was thinking. But CDS is right on - I've been using PS CS. When I tried Canon's software, the noise level was exactly the same as S JPG. The "As Shot" settings also yield much different (worse) results in CS - nothing even close to what ImageBrowser (OSX version of BB) or JPG gives me.

Until now I was sticking with JPG due to my lack of PS skill. But BB is giving me much better results tonight. Maybe it's time to switch...there goes my free time.

[kb244]

^^^^^^^
That's what I was thinking. But CDS is right on - I've been using PS CS. When I tried Canon's software, the noise level was exactly the same as S JPG. The "As Shot" settings also yield much different (worse) results in CS - nothing even close to what ImageBrowser (OSX version of BB) or JPG gives me.

Until now I was sticking with JPG due to my lack of PS skill. But BB is giving me much better results tonight. Maybe it's time to switch...there goes my free time.

I dont know about you , but I never get noise other than same as the Jpeg would produce in Photoshop CS. But Right now I'm using a Digital rebel to shoot raw, I never shot raw on my G3 ( was too painfully slow for me , also at the time I was using Photoshop 7, and I did not fully understand the benefits of raw other than full quality ).

[CyberDyneSystems]

The additional noise in PSCS RAW conversions seems to be pretty well established. I was using PSCS exclusively for soem time,. but now I'm trying to get more comfortable with C1 as it just gives better results.

If you think that your CS conversions aren't introducing any noise,. than you are just like I was when I first heard it,. in denial or you just haven;t taken the time to compare side to side.

It is Definately there. :(

A shame too,. as I think the PSCS RAW tool interface is by far the best.

I still use it,. don't get me wrong. But if I have images where i need to maintain a smooth as glass background,. I will avoid PSCS.

[kb244]

There really isnt any denial, as I never seen any reason to switch. All of my pictures have produced good quality, and I had not had anything to complain about, but also I shoot at ISO 100 whenever possible. If a side-by-side comparism was the only way to tell, then why bother? By the way are we talking bout raw conversions from the G3 or the rebel?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh.. sorry,. That may make all the difference too...

I was using a 10D.. and I suspect all of the 6MP CMOS Canons would have the same issue,. but it may be limited to them for all I know...

Now I'll have to do some additional research... :wink:

[kb244]

Oh.. sorry,. That may make all the difference too...

I was using a 10D.. and I suspect all of the 6MP CMOS Canons would have the same issue,. but it may be limited to them for all I know...

Now I'll have to do some additional research... :wink:

Well I can always provide you a raw of mine to download if you need to test that.

[pradeep1]

^^^^^^^
That's what I was thinking. But CDS is right on - I've been using PS CS. When I tried Canon's software, the noise level was exactly the same as S JPG. The "As Shot" settings also yield much different (worse) results in CS - nothing even close to what ImageBrowser (OSX version of BB) or JPG gives me.

Until now I was sticking with JPG due to my lack of PS skill. But BB is giving me much better results tonight. Maybe it's time to switch...there goes my free time.

The RAW converting algorithms in BreezeBrowser yield crisp JPG files in my experience.

[pradeep1]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

[Ogrt48]

I dont like that Ken guy at all, he's so full of himself.

[ilya]

I stopped shooting Raw recently. No political statement here, just that my keepers are keepers in either format. If I need to recover something I know that it won't be perfect and I'll ditch it.
PSCS does introduce noise, and the colors are not the same if you were to use C1, in my experience. But to me, and its just me, the benefits now are marginal. maybe in a while i'll feel different.

edit: rockwell writes for the clicks and click throughs. period end of story. so stop clicking on his site.

[S230]

This is certainly an interesting topic because I used to shoot in JPG but now when there's opportunity I would shoot in RAW. I personally think it really depends on the type of hardware available and purpose. If it's just simple shots of buildings, groups, etc. Then JPG is sufficient. But if you do portraits, or macros, etc., then RAW is best choice. I think what's overlooked is the G3's processing or buffering is not as fast as some of the EOS's ie. the Rebel or 10D, therefore it's painfully slow and can miss a shot.
For the Rebel, you can take 3 shots and depends on the speed of your memory card, it can free up pretty quickly.
Disk-space and post-processing power is also important. If you have an older generation machine with limited storage, then it's a nightmare. but nowadays, it's not uncommon that we use Pentium 4 class or with Dual Processors with tonnes of disk space which makes converting and playing around with Raw better.
CF cards in the camera is also a big factor. Depending on size and speed it can handle. I doubt the G3 can take advantage of buffering or speeds like 80x therefore it's noticably slow when taking photos.

I did comparisons lately and came to the conclusion that RAW is slighly better but not too much. How I've done it is also judged by multiple people with the same conclusion.
I've used the Digital Rebel (6mp) on a tripod taking a circuit board for consistency. I then took a photo in the highest JPG and in RAW. With the RAW, I later converted into TIFF for viewing. Later enlarged to 1600% viewing and counted the pixels on the individual letters. The jpg does show signs of deteriorations (unable to tell the pixel next to iteself). While the TIFF image, you can still see slight difference for further sharpening.

I hope this helps.

[bunnyz]

I also use raw. Bought this camera because it does shoot raw. I have a 20D and I wanted a small camera to carry in my purse. The G6 isn't exactly small but it did have raw.
I also found that postprocessing and getting the color right was exactly why I use raw. Much faster then fooling around with photoshop. I use Breeze Browser Pro which works on both of my cameras and usually just a change in white balance and plussing or minusing the exposure and I am done. I don't process all my pics. I take a lot of a subject and then pick a few.
Cards are cheaper then they use to be.
As far as our fellow photographer, he still has good eyesite or a large wallet who uses medium and large format. I have an RZ67 but the eyes need autofocus and the pocket just doesn't have the green stuff for autofocus in that format. Also you need mucsles to carry that stuff. I have seen people in the field using really large format for scenic stuff but that was their thing and that is all they were doing. A planned shoot with the tripod and all the gadget and plates of film. That kind of photographer I am not. Just enjoying myself with whatever I wish to do when I want to.
bunnyz