RAW size -- S, M, or L?

I shoot in RAW and have always used the large setting, but wondered recently what difference it owuld make in pp'ing, printing, etc to use a smaller size thereby getting more images on a card?

Unless you absolutely need the extra space, just go with full sized shots. Smaller raws are less efficient at keeping data, and will let you store less MP/MB. On the mkIII, the 4mp small raw is 9mb, while the regular one is 14mb.

Size matters! Bigger is better =P

themadman wrote in post #9444188
Size matters! Bigger is better =P

It always comes back to that, huh?

For weddings I use mRaw unless I expect an image will be printed over a double page album spread. Prep's done in mRaw, ceremony and wedding party photos mostly in full raw, speeches in mRaw, guest photos in mRaw or sRaw. I like the smaller RAWs as they require less storage space (500 images/30 weddings a year it adds up quick) and are processed more quickly.

So...for just snapshots for memories...not even to be printed...is it worth shooting in L RAW?

It's all a matter of personal preference in regards to your workflow -- there's no "best" way about it. I never take my bodies off of just straight Raw but then I am not in the habit of being a "snapshot" shooter, I'm not a wedding photog, etc, so I want all my shots to be potentially "keepers.

At this point there is no gain in image quality from the sRaw processing so the only "gain" is in the smaller file sizes and it's up to you as to whether that beats out the added control you may have with the uncompressed Raw.

In the future, I hope to see "smart binning for these sRaw images so that, for example, we could have a 50MP camera/sensor that can quickly process and put out say 20MP sRaws that are actually cleaner than a full Raw -- wouldn't that be cool?

hello people wrote in post #12165264
So...for just snapshots for memories...not even to be printed...is it worth shooting in L RAW?

For a few casual shots, yes.

But re-read Tim's reply... From experience, Tim knows which raw level will deliver the quality he needs, while optimizing storage space. The key words are "FROM EXPERIENCE".

I was thinking about this very topic yesterday....

You see, a while back, people noticed that it's "easy" to take poorer IQ images with a 7D compared to a 30D.

The theory thrown out at the time (and I really wish I could find the thread to quote exactly - sorry) was with everything else being equal, holding an 8.2MP sensor still enough so that details of an image cross over less photocytes is minutely easier than holding an 18MP sensor still enough so that details stay within each (much smaller width) photocyte.

Thus, I was wondering exactly what happens in our cameras when we switch from sRAW to mRAW to RAW? I've tried looking through the Japanese Canon stuff, and can't find an answer. So, if one isn't going to crop, but shooting conditions are challenging, perhaps using mRAW might give a better hit-rate?

And then, there's the question of download/PP time.
I really can't add a new PC to my "presents to myself" list at the moment, so my humble 2.5gigs of RAM are much happier dealing with mRAW 7D files than full-RAW.
And that makes a difference to me.

So, if the sensor if switching off photocytes, it should make no difference regarding my first comments....but if mRAW links photocytes, it would/could explain why I found shooting mRAW 'easier' from day one (or was it day 2?) after I got my 7D.

Anyone got the absolute facts?

Around $30.00 for a 8gig CF card.....Go large and stay large. You can always throw away megabytes from your images later if you want during PP. Its nice to know no matter what the image is for that you have the most amount of data captured to start with.

Many, many years ago I shot a great picture with my 35mm SLR (I thought it was great, anyway). Trouble was, I had opted for cheap color reversal film ("slides" to you kids ) and cheap processing, and the IQ was very poor. Ever since then my philosophy has been always be ready for that once in a lifetime opportunity and don't go cheap, whether it be film or megapixels.

Rimmer wrote in post #12170373
Many, many years ago I shot a great picture with my 35mm SLR (I thought it was great, anyway). Trouble was, I had opted for cheap color reversal film ("slides" to you kids ) and cheap processing, and the IQ was very poor. Ever since then my philosophy has been always be ready for that once in a lifetime opportunity and don't go cheap, whether it be film or megapixels.

Heh! It reminds me of when I used to just load all-purpose ISO 200 film in my camera. But I came back from a road trip once and had some nice shots from it and went through a local photo shop to get them sent to the lab to be enlarged to 11x14 prints. The owner of the shop looked at one of the prints and said something like "Wow, that's a great picture! To bad it was done with ISO 200 film -- it could otherwise be printed poster size and look fantastic!"...but by then I was getting out of film so I never did anymore great scenes but using say ISO 25 or 50...

This is an older thread now.

I occasionally used to shoot small raw to reduce storage and processing time. Turns out it doesn't really decrease processing time, and storage space is cheap.

My current cameras don't have small raw formats, they're 12MP so they don't need it, so I shoot everything full raw. I've made mistake once or twice forgetting to reset back to full raw so these days i'd probably just shoot full raw anyway.