Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Nov 2014 (Saturday) 14:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Does shooting in Raw+ Jpeg low down the buffer more than shooting just RAW?

 
EOS-Mike
Goldmember
Avatar
1,022 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 207
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Nov 15, 2014 14:15 |  #1

I guess the thread title says it all: Does shooting in Raw+ Jpeg low down the buffer more than shooting just RAW?

I never shoot Jpeg alone. I kind of wish I could (because the buffer rate is far less of an issue), but I'm not that brave. So I usually shoot RAW + Jpeg. That slows things down a bit, obviously.

Will shooting in only RAW be faster than shooting RAW + Jpeg or does it not matter?

Thanks


Sony A7 III
All my Canon gear is on sale here.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,106 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1124
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 15, 2014 14:22 |  #2

Yes. You are pushing more data through the buffer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Nov 15, 2014 14:24 |  #3

It depends somewhat on the camera, but yes it does slow things down. My 5D3 is a LOT slower and has a much smaller buffer when I shoot raw + jpeg as opposed to raw.

You don't really need to ask the question on a forum though. Just set your camera to shoot both and fire off a burst, then switch to raw only and fire off a burst and compare the two




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS-Mike
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,022 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 207
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Nov 15, 2014 14:30 |  #4

sandpiper wrote in post #17273676 (external link)
It depends somewhat on the camera, but yes it does slow things down. My 5D3 is a LOT slower and has a much smaller buffer when I shoot raw + jpeg as opposed to raw.

You don't really need to ask the question on a forum though. Just set your camera to shoot both and fire off a burst, then switch to raw only and fire off a burst and compare the two

Good point. Doh! :oops:


Sony A7 III
All my Canon gear is on sale here.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Jun 2014
     
Nov 15, 2014 16:30 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

I just put my 6D through the buffer-drill. I use a Sandisk Extreme class 10 45mb/s card. Settings: iso 100, f/2, 1/4000. Listed number is shots at full speed; I stop counting when the buffer slows down the frame rate.

Raw: 23 frames (owner's manual says 17)
Raw+JPG (large/fine): 9 (manual says 8)
JPG (large/fine): I stopped at 50, seems unlimited (manual says unlimited)

In each case the buffer was clear by the time I could look for a red light. I usually use JPG (l/f) for action stuff. I had no idea the 6D could go 23 frames deep and be ready to shoot again in a second or two.

EDIT: Added data from user manual. I guess I can use my 6D for action stuff! I always default to the 60D for that.


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,973 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1600
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 15, 2014 20:09 |  #6

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17273845 (external link)
EDIT: Added data from user manual. I guess I can use my 6D for action stuff! I always default to the 60D for that.

I guess that would depend on if you would be focal length limited when shooting with the 6D. Your 60D will still have the advantage of getting on for almost twice the linear resolution of the 6D. Thats a pretty good advantage if you are focal length limited on the FF sensor.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Jun 2014
     
Nov 15, 2014 21:11 |  #7
bannedPermanent ban

BigAl007 wrote in post #17274187 (external link)
I guess that would depend on if you would be focal length limited when shooting with the 6D. Your 60D will still have the advantage of getting on for almost twice the linear resolution of the 6D. Thats a pretty good advantage if you are focal length limited on the FF sensor.

Alan

Certainly true! Would you talk to my wife about a 200-400 w/1.4x and maybe a 600 f/4 for Christmas?


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,973 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1600
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 16, 2014 08:52 |  #8

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17274271 (external link)
Certainly true! Would you talk to my wife about a 200-400 w/1.4x and maybe a 600 f/4 for Christmas?

Well how about you suggest that they are necessary, and introduce the price. Then "settle" for the new Sigma 150-600 Sport? After all it will be about 92% cheaper. That must be an easy ask after the Canon options.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2n10
Cream of the Crop
17,062 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 1144
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Sparks, Nevada, USA
     
Nov 16, 2014 08:55 |  #9

BigAl007 wrote in post #17274913 (external link)
Well how about you suggest that they are necessary, and introduce the price. Then "settle" for the new Sigma 150-600 Sport? After all it will be about 92% cheaper. That must be an easy ask after the Canon options.

Alan

And the Sigma weighs less IIRC.


John
Equipment
My Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GeoKras1989
Goldmember
Avatar
4,038 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Jun 2014
     
Nov 16, 2014 09:29 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

BigAl007 wrote in post #17274913 (external link)
Well how about you suggest that they are necessary, and introduce the price. Then "settle" for the new Sigma 150-600 Sport? After all it will be about 92% cheaper. That must be an easy ask after the Canon options.

Alan

Right now, I can't talk my wife into a 70-200 f/4 non-IS. She thinks I should get a JOB, before I buy more toys. Where do women get these strange ideas? I have time to shoot now. I need it now. :)


WARNING: I often dispense advice in fields I know little about!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,973 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1600
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 16, 2014 15:37 |  #11

Yes well those little things like jobs and money seem so important to wives don't they. Like you say though, jobs are such a pita they just take so much time away from hobbies and other more interesting passtimes.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JWdlft
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Feb 2013
     
Nov 16, 2014 16:05 as a reply to  @ BigAl007's post |  #12

@ EOS-mike: If you shoot only Raw, running it through Canon's Digital Photo Professional, in batch, should produce identical Jpegs to what you get in camera, based on the picture style you use. If you change anything in the picture style on camera, make the same changes in DPP.
That's the theory anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,955 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 261
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
     
Nov 17, 2014 03:04 as a reply to  @ JWdlft's post |  #13

Well, perhaps not identical, but pretty similar. But you don't have to change the settings if you use DPP to process your RAW files, as DPP knows about the camera's settings and will use them as a default.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Nov 17, 2014 06:52 |  #14

apersson850 wrote in post #17276610 (external link)
Well, perhaps not identical, but pretty similar.

Well, not quite 'identical' but almost 'indistinguishable'.

Here's a gif showing 100% crops from the in-camera jpeg and the DPP-processed raw data.

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/DPP%20vs%20JPEG.gif

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,973 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1600
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Nov 17, 2014 08:37 |  #15

Frank looking at those images my first guess would be a difference in the level of JPEG compression being applied to the images. The changes all seem to be with fine detail areas of the image.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,001 views & 0 likes for this thread
Does shooting in Raw+ Jpeg low down the buffer more than shooting just RAW?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is JohnBonney
1031 guests, 359 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.