Why SRAW on 50D?

OK. So far i am happy with the 50D. Af could be better but I am used to the 1DsII. IQ is great and 16 frame buffer is really nice, considering the file sizes. BUT why would I use SRAW when it gives absolutely no expansion of the buffer? (SRAW2 gives me an extra 2 or 3 frames ). Granted the buffer will clear faster but I dont really see why they did this, if the only advantage is twice as many shots on a card? Or is there another advantage other than storage space?

Nope, just storage space

I guess the extra processing to reduce the file means there can be no gain in speed shame really.

Neilyb wrote in post #7676040
OK. So far i am happy with the 50D. Af could be better but I am used to the 1DsII. IQ is great and 16 frame buffer is really nice, considering the file sizes. BUT why would I use SRAW when it gives absolutely no expansion of the buffer? (SRAW2 gives me an extra 2 or 3 frames ). Granted the buffer will clear faster but I dont really see why they did this, if the only advantage is twice as many shots on a card? Or is there another advantage other than storage space?

The main advantage of SRAW1 is that you get an usable 7 MP picture with somewhat less noise than the full 15 MP mode. The example was taken with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 at ISO12800, f5.6, 1/320. Noise was processed with Noise Ninja.

Miguel

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

But resizing a 15Mp shot to 7MP will do the same...?

I sometimes use sRAW1 to reduce the file size for when I don't need a 15.1 mpixel image. Also, sRAW1 images are cleaner than their RAW counterparts.

Neilyb wrote in post #7676543
But resizing a 15Mp shot to 7MP will do the same...?

I don't think so, but it may depend on the algorithm you use to process the shot.

Any way, I have never had the necessity of using ISO6400 or 12800, but if I have to, I would prefer to use SRAW1 with those high ISOs. Even with 15MP, the noise of the 50d at ISO6400 and 12800 is quite nicely reduced with Noise Ninja or Dfine 2.0.

It is nice to have a lot of alternatives at your disposal, and the 50d is quite good at that.

Miguel

Fair points.

ADVERTISING GIMIC...

I don't want or need smaller files... A the low price of today's memory cards, I cannot see why a person would not want the best quality image.

RPCrowe wrote in post #7678107
I don't want or need smaller files... A the low price of today's memory cards, I cannot see why a person would not want the best quality image.

But SRAW arguably provides the best quailty images for high ISOs.

I was about to fill up my CF cards a couple weeks ago. Towards the end, I switched from RAW to SRAW2 and fit in a few more shots.

RPCrowe wrote in post #7678107
I don't want or need smaller files... A the low price of today's memory cards, I cannot see why a person would not want the best quality image.

Actually, I was referring to computer storage. Those 25Mb RAW+Large files fill a hard drive fast .

twoshadows wrote in post #7679091
Actually, I was referring to computer storage. Those 25Mb RAW+Large files fill a hard drive fast .

In my opinion, saving storage is not the main purpose of SRAW1 or SRAW2. The full RAW file is about 20.2Mbytes. SRAW1 is about 12.6 Mbytes and SRAW2 is about 9.2 Mbytes, so not much is gained in hard disk space (as much as what you lose in resolution, that is 7.1Mp in SRAW1 and 3.8Mp in SRAW2). Additionally, disk space today is quite cheap. A 320 Gbytes 2.5" external drive is less than $90 and will hold over 15000 RAW files (I store three copies of every RAW file, in three different hard disks, just to be sure). A 1Tbyte hard disk is less than $120 and will hold almost 50000 RAW files.

Miguel