Is sRAW just software?

[gasrocks]

I noticed the MKIII will have an sRAW file option. Is this just software? In other words, could we expect firmware updates to other bodies (my MKIIN, for example) to include sRAW in the future?

[Jon]

Yes and no; it's doubtless just software/firmware but I'd be amazed if they introduced firmware upgrades for any older gear to add this. Possibly in other new models, but I'm not altogether sure what need it's supposed to fill.

[coreypolis]

I wouldn't expect it either. I also don't see its purpose unless we have control over the file size. As is its too small for practical work unless its web only

[Doug Pardee]

could we expect firmware updates to other bodies (my MKIIN, for example) to include sRAW in the future?

Based on history, no.

Canon has never added any features to any of its DSLRs with a firmware update, except (very rarely) to allow new Canon accessories to be used with existing DSLRs.

[Lostboy77]

I wouldn't expect it either. I also don't see its purpose unless we have control over the file size. As is its too small for practical work unless its web only
The sRAW file sizes were requested by Pros (mostly in the Media) who wanted all the benifits of RAW without the massive file sizes. These are for people who don't need hi resolution and take a massive ammount of pictures that have to be filtered through. With the smaller files the time for both transfer and browsing would be greatly reduced. It, of course, also allows many more shots to fit on your media card. There are quite a few media photographers who still prefer using their 1D classics for this very reason. I also heard that when the sRAW file is saved that the pixel data from 4 pixels is averaged into one after all other processes take place (like signal amplification under high ISO usage) which creates a substantially smoother (less noisy) picture at high ISO levels. It would be interesting to see how this actuailly works out in real world practices.

[coreypolis]

The sRAW file sizes were requested by Pros (mostly in the Media) who wanted all the benifits of RAW without the massive file sizes. These are for people who don't need hi resolution and take a massive ammount of pictures that have to be filtered through. With the smaller files the time for both transfer and browsing would be greatly reduced. It, of course, also allows many more shots to fit on your media card. There are quite a few media photographers who still prefer using their 1D classics for this very reason. I also heard that when the sRAW file is saved that the pixel data from 4 pixels is averaged into one after all other processes take place (like signal amplification under high ISO usage) which creates a substantially smoother (less noisy) picture at high ISO levels. It would be interesting to see how this actuailly works out in real world practices.
I know what its for ;)

My point is that if you can select the jpeg file size, you should be able to do the same. If I ever wanted a print from a sRAW image I'd be pretty **** out of luck.

[jr_senator]

My point is that if you can select the jpeg file size, you should be able to do the same.

RAW is for those that want everything and are willing to pay the price (large files=slow and limited amount). sRAW is a 'standard', that is a certain size of RAW. Now why would anyone want anything more? If one wants the best then they can shoot RAW, if not then they can select from several JPEG sizes. What purpose would several RAW file sizes have?

[coreypolis]

RAW is for those that want everything and are willing to pay the price (large files=slow and limited amount). sRAW is a 'standard', that is a certain size of RAW. Now why would anyone want anything more? If one wants the best then they can shoot RAW, if not then they can select from several JPEG sizes. What purpose would several RAW file sizes have?
you could say the same with jpeg ;)

2.5mp is too little for most work, but full size is overkill for alot too

[jr_senator]

you could say the same with jpeg ;)

2.5mp is too little for most work, but full size is overkill for alot too

Then one can choose what size JPEG file they want. What purpose would several RAW file sizes serve? If one wants the best then they use RAW. If they want a smaller file then they use one of the JPEG files. Again, what purpose would several RAW file sizes serve?

[coreypolis]

Then one can choose what size JPEG file they want. What purpose would several RAW file sizes serve? If one wants the best then they use RAW. If they want a smaller file then they use one of the JPEG files. Again, what purpose would several RAW file sizes serve?
if you can adjust the jpeg settings, why not RAW? I don't want to shoot jpeg, and sRAW is too small for my use, and often RAW is overkill.

its not like its a complicated of expensive request, what harm does it do? :rolleyes:

[jr_senator]

I started a poll in this forum.

[remixity]

If the 1Ds Mark III comes out at 22mp, I'm guessing there will be different sizes such as sRAW, mRAW, etc.

I highly doubt Canon would introduce sRAW into older models. Chuck Westfall forwarded my suggestion to include the extra auto rotate option (rotate on computer and not on camera) on older bodies. Apparently, they either don't care to update older models, or they don't want to make anything that slightly resembles a major update.