Was I WRONG? Comparison of cRAW and RAW using the Canon R5
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Compared to "normal" RAW, cRAW offers a smaller file size, which increases the camera's buffer (important for continuous shooting/action) and you have to spend less money on memory cards, SSDs or hard drives and backups? But what is the quality like, what losses do you have to accept? Are there differences in photos in the high ISO range? Do tonal value breaks or compression artefacts occur during processing?
Here you can download the test photos: www.dropbox.co...
I use Topaz DeNoise AI to reduce noise in my pictures. Test it 30 days for free (affiliate link): www.topazlabs.com/denoise-ai/ref/901/
I can see a difference in the saturation, sharpness and dept of field smoothness. Not much but I do notice it. My thought process is why buy a 45 megapixel camera if you don't upgrade the computer and other auxillary components around the camera to match. I was having this discussion with my wife about 1 hour ago. Nice photos on both sides. I guess I am sort of a pixelpeeper.
Thanks for the feedback! For me the biggest argument is the improved buffer of the camera. Storage is also not so much of an issue for me
I think I can see differences only on post editing images with flatter backgrounds. I do a lot of aerial photos and I use a lot of the dehaze process to bring back more details in sky and use Luminance color dials to bring down some brightness and I felt that I see more of cubic artifacts occurring when using cRAW
That’s interesting to know, thanks for sharing
Thanks. Good to have another review of this stuff after some time.
Thank you
The difference is in colors, especially in highlights. It’s not big but it’s noticeable when you compare head to head.
I didn‘t manage to see the differences so far, but then I will try again 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I did see that too from the first glance, was focused on noise and details. Take a look with attention, that cRAW colours looks like the same, but a bit less rich, less gradations.
You're awesome; keep the great content coming!
Thanks!
I have done testing on my R5 for a day. cRAW does not denoise well at higher isos. iso6400, 12800 or even 25600 is often needed to get that shot. I shoot a lot of dragon flys in flight. When shutter speed of 4000th or faster is needed, but the light is poor, high isos are the norm.
After the denoising process, Feather detail might be able to be preserved at iso 12800 in raw, but, in craw, no. My results are a comprehensive no. I will not shoot craw. There is no real benefit shooting craw on the r5, only down sides (denoise issue, 12bit).
Using a fast card in the RF, means I can shoot 12fps mech rull raw, + jpeg for 150shots straight befor the buffer fills, and the r5 slows to 2fps. Lift my finger for 1sec, and go again. By fast card, I am referring to my 512GB Sandisc cfexb 1400MBs write. Eshutter 20fps burst, is one sec on, one sec off, the 1 sec on again.
Electronic shutter ? I have a love hate relationship with it, and am in mech shutter most of the time. Small fast moving birds like swallows in flight, or dragonflys in flight, the e shutter has terrible rolling shutter, and at least half the shots must be discarded due to bent wings.
Flying birds are often fly though shadows then bright sun. 14bit raw mech shutter helps taming the high lights.
After 1 year of the r5, I rarely use the eshutter now due to weird bent wings.
Thanks for sharing your experiences, that’s very interesting. I was shooting 1000+ images of dragonflies and swallows in flight using the electronic shutter. For swallows I can’t remember of a single file very rolling shutter was an issue, for dragonflies it was an issue for around 1% of the shots.
I will try the denoise comparison in more detail though. I ran two files through topaz denoise for testing and the result looked similar
Obturador mecânico 14 bits o eletrônico 12 bits é isso mesmo?
Great tests and well done, Fabian! I was a bit concerned about cRAW and now I am going to give it a go!
Glad if it was helpful 😊
Thanks for your thoughts!
You’re welcome
Amazing results.... I'm like you, I could see no difference and I REALLY tried! The only difference that I might test is to overlay the duplicate shot and switch back and forth. This is kind of pixel peaking, but it might be interesting if the camera and everything else is kept exceptionally still. In a print of the shots even that test would prove generally so small that it would be irrelevant!!!! Great test!!!!
Thanks for your comment 😊
Excellent episode. I was already using CRAW for moving subjects, but I think I'll configure it also for still subjects / electronic shutter, just like you. Thanks!
Thanks for your comment 😊
Hi Fabian, great channel. I switched pretty much to CRaw on all Canon RF bodies, I see no difference whatsoever at any scenarios. No more Raw, just cRaw 100% of the time. Files are tiny, especially on 24MP bodies like my R8, they are ridiculously small and it happens the buffer when shooting at high speed.
Yes, the buffer is the main reason I switched
My current camera only has RAW but I know I'll switch to CRAW when I upgrade. Storage is expensive and burst rate buffer is important for wildlife.
There is a difference if you're screwing the exposure by more than 2 stops. Other than that, for well exposed images: zero difference.
I still keep it at normal RAW for landscapes, just to be on the safe side
I will never be an actual photographer until I develop an authentic, posh speaking accent like this; superbly done.
I‘m trying my best to hide my swiss accent 😅
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Please don't, it's beautiful and we love it.
Great tests! Another thing I find interesting is dynamic range of high quality JPEGs, while im strictly RAW only, I find it interesting that people say you can't recover details from a JPEG at all, but I done my own tests and you can raise shadows and recover highlights just not to the same degree as a raw. There is still data embedded and people shouldn't think of old JPEGs as a complete write off
I completely agree, for many situations jpeg would be enough. I did a more exhaustive test on this once, maybe I will do a video here about that as well
The only downside I’ve found with cRAW is that you can’t do DLO in DPP4 anymore. The EF f/1.8 lenses benefit hugely from DLO, the RF lenses not so much.
If you’re below ISO800 there’s a much bigger difference between electronic shutter and EFCS on an R5.
Pretty much all my natural light pictures are craw plus electronic shutter, the built in focus stacking also benefits from a larger buffer.
Thanks for your input! I‘m not using DPP anyway, so I never notices this limitation
@Koen Kooi What big difference do you see between electronic shutter and EFCS on the R5 and ISO below 800?
@@ichbinderneue939 less degradation when playing with the shadows and highlights sliders in Lightroom. And at ISO100 you can get the exposure more wrong and save it in post :)
@@KoenKooi DPP has superior lens correction. All Canon lenses look just that much sharper using DPPs lens correction. Especially older lenses.
I switched…. I switched… seems like a no brainer. It would be interesting to see someone find some definitive differences!! Thanks for testing!👍🏼
You‘re welcome!
I’ve compared raw and c-raw files and I could tell any difference on a monitor. Maybe I’ll make some prints and compare the two.
Also a good idea!
Timely video!
Glad to hear
I think I’ll use CRAW as a back-up
You mean writing RAW on one card and craw on the other?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography that’s what I wanted to do, yeah. But isn’t actually allowing me to do this! 🤷🏽♂️
Yes, I thought so as well. Maybe too much data to process?
If you still use s-rbg colors on canon, no raw is better. Because canon and Sony still struggle with red and orange on that setting.
If you shoot raw, the color gamut (sRGB vs adobeRGB) doesn’t matter 😊
What?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography been using both Sony and Canon with s-rgb. Yes it matters. Their s-rgb raw is always +10 saturation on green and red. While Adobe keeps saturation on neutral. And yes, we are talking raw, not jpg.
I probably wouldn’t purchase an R6 II if it only had dual SD cards with no CFe. It takes too long to offload my photos using SD & my thunderbolt reader is only CFe probably because SD is slower read / write. Hate it when my R5 randomly decides that my main card is SD.
If you remove the CFe card and close the door, the camera automatically makes the SD card the main card. Just leave the door open and it won’t do this 😊
You can set in the menu that the CFEXPRESS card will always be your main card (maybe also called priority card). Just go the shooting/playback folder menu and set it 😃
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I’ll have to double check but I think I set that. I’ve stopped loading the SD card in the slot since most times I don’t need it, my 256 GB is usually enough, it’s just an annoyance & nice to have an overflow card available.
@@EverythingCameFromNothing yeah I think it’s something to do with the order I’m inserting the cards but it seems random.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography It doesn’t matter what you set the main card to. If you remove the main card, and close the door to the cards, the main card will revert to the card that is still inside the camera. The only way to avoid this is to leave the card door open and the camera off when removing the main card
Merci pour cette vidéo très intéressante, je profite de cette occasion pour vous demander votre avis sur un choix de caméras. Avoir deux canon r6 ou un canon r6 et un canon r5? Sachant que mon travail est orienté photo.
Hmm, hard to say. I often prefer two identical cameras, but the R5 offers some clear advantages over the R6
Merci je vais encore peser le pour le contre il me décidé
... and the EOS R :)
I tend to forget that one 😅
Since cards are so cheap it makes no sense to use compressed raw on any camera
I disagree. I would have lost many opportunities because of hitting the buffer when shooting uncompressed raw
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography this is why u need a high performance camera, R6 mk2 is crippled on purpose
I‘m also talking about other cameras such as the R5
Isn't canon raw just as much better as Apple raw, than the original raw? 🤔 Which is actually just ai raw, instead of real raw.
What do you mean with Canon Raw and original Raw? Every manufacturer has its own raw format
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography canon raw = c raw.
Are you sure it’s not cRaw=compressed RAW
Awful review, my friend. I was looking for bringing the exposures to the max up and down. There's where the difference would be found. Not in ""correct exposure", but in Dynamic Range.
I tried to push the shadows to a level I also need it in practice and found virtually no difference. But if you push for 6EV this might change