No RAW! Will this be a mistake?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by [BnH], May 8, 2004.

  1. [BnH]

    [BnH] Guest

    F717 not F707 don't have RAW file type .. they only have TIFF which is as
    good as processed RAW.

    =bob=

    "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    and
    > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
    >
    >
     
    [BnH], May 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. [BnH]

    michael Guest

    I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in and
    converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
     
    michael, May 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. [BnH]

    Rick Guest

    Neither the F707 nor the F717 has a raw mode.

    "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message news:...
    > The F707 has RAW?
    >
    > "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
    > news:409c4b0a$0$16600$...
    > > F717 not F707 don't have RAW file type .. they only have TIFF which is as
    > > good as processed RAW.
    > >
    > > =bob=
    > >
    > > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the

    > fact
    > > > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    > > and
    > > > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Rick, May 8, 2004
    #3
  4. [BnH]

    Mark M Guest

    "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    and
    > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?


    The biggest loss with skipping RAW and going directly to TIFF is that you
    lose all ability to directly control the way the actual sensor data is
    initially interpreted. While most casual shooters won't care, those with
    the skills and real visual discernment lose out big time.

    While tiff files will give you non-comporessed images of high quality, which
    can be re-saved without artifacts (unlike jpegs), you essentially are stuck
    with the CAMERA dictating how the creation of that tiff file will take
    place.

    That is a MAJOR loss when compared to the ultimate control one has with RAW
    conversion options.
     
    Mark M, May 8, 2004
    #4
  5. "michael" <no more spam> wrote:

    > Do you think I'll regret not having RAW...or will tiff be fine?


    IMHO, RAW is close to meaningless on consumer cameras. At ISO 100 on a dSLR,
    there's lots of latitude to be squeezed out, but the consumer cameras are so
    noisy that there isn't much point to it. It is useful for not having to
    comit to a white balance when you take the shot, but AWB gets pretty close
    most of the time.

    FWIW, the lowest compression jpegs out of the Sony cameras are
    indistinguishable from tiffs; Sony did a good job on the jpeg implementation
    and settings in the cameras.

    The F717 has a histogram and can use third party flashes, so I'd recommend
    the F717 over the F707. But for only a bit more money, the Canon 300D is a
    much better camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 8, 2004
    #5
  6. [BnH]

    michael Guest

    The F707 has RAW?

    "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
    news:409c4b0a$0$16600$...
    > F717 not F707 don't have RAW file type .. they only have TIFF which is as
    > good as processed RAW.
    >
    > =bob=
    >
    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the

    fact
    > > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    > and
    > > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    michael, May 8, 2004
    #6
  7. [BnH]

    michael Guest

    Do you think I'll regret not having RAW...or will tiff be fine?

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Neither the F707 nor the F717 has a raw mode.
    >
    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message

    news:...
    > > The F707 has RAW?
    > >
    > > "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
    > > news:409c4b0a$0$16600$...
    > > > F717 not F707 don't have RAW file type .. they only have TIFF which is

    as
    > > > good as processed RAW.
    > > >
    > > > =bob=
    > > >
    > > > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about

    the
    > > fact
    > > > > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the

    RAW in
    > > > and
    > > > > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    michael, May 8, 2004
    #7
  8. "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the

    fact
    > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    and
    > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?


    I have been using digital cameras since 1998 and never felt the need to
    use RAW (nor TIFF for that matter).

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 8, 2004
    #8
  9. [BnH]

    Rick Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:c7hock$j0r$...
    >
    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote:
    >
    > > Do you think I'll regret not having RAW...or will tiff be fine?

    >
    > IMHO, RAW is close to meaningless on consumer cameras. At ISO 100 on a dSLR,
    > there's lots of latitude to be squeezed out, but the consumer cameras are so
    > noisy that there isn't much point to it. It is useful for not having to
    > comit to a white balance when you take the shot, but AWB gets pretty close
    > most of the time.
    >
    > FWIW, the lowest compression jpegs out of the Sony cameras are
    > indistinguishable from tiffs; Sony did a good job on the jpeg implementation
    > and settings in the cameras.
    >
    > The F717 has a histogram and can use third party flashes, so I'd recommend
    > the F717 over the F707. But for only a bit more money, the Canon 300D is a
    > much better camera.


    Personally I would have liked to see what the F717's sensor
    was capable of, beyond 24-bits. The camera has 14 bit A/D
    converters, and it would have been nice to have the option to
    see these 42-bits in their uncompressed glory. If Sony didn't
    feel it necessary to include an extended-TIFF mode they
    should have at least included a RAW mode.

    Rick
     
    Rick, May 8, 2004
    #9
  10. [BnH]

    [BnH] Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:c7hock$j0r$...

    > The F717 has a histogram and can use third party flashes, so I'd recommend
    > the F717 over the F707. But for only a bit more money, the Canon 300D is a
    > much better camera.


    Err ... not when you pair the 300D with a 35-300 L lens David.
    F717 and F707 lens are amazingly VERY sharp.
    Too bad they are using Memory stick ..
    if not, its quite handy to have one prosumer of that quality to put in the
    car.

    =bob=
     
    [BnH], May 8, 2004
    #10
  11. [BnH]

    Alfred Molon Guest

    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

    >> Do you think I'll regret not having RAW...or will tiff be fine?

    >
    >IMHO, RAW is close to meaningless on consumer cameras.


    You've never used RAW on a consumer digicam, have you ?

    > At ISO 100 on a dSLR,
    >there's lots of latitude to be squeezed out, but the consumer cameras are so
    >noisy that there isn't much point to it.


    With the 5050 I'm using RAW gives you extra latitude, which is
    especially useful when the scene has a lot of dynamic range.

    >It is useful for not having to
    >comit to a white balance when you take the shot, but AWB gets pretty close
    >most of the time.


    White balance is perhaps the major reason for which I use RAW. The white
    balance of the 5050 used to drive me crazy. In addition, with RAW you
    can do all image optimisation steps *before* JPEG compression - and you
    have the option of saving as TIFF if you prefer. A huge advantage over
    JPEG.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, May 8, 2004
    #11
  12. [BnH]

    Alfred Molon Guest

    "michael" <no more spam> <"michael" <no more spam>> wrote:
    >I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    >that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in and
    >converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?


    It all depends on what your ambitions are. RAW will give you more
    latitude, useful in difficult lighting situations. And with RAW you can
    do all image enhancement steps *before* JPEG compression and the
    original uncompressed data is available to you. I shoot exclusively RAW
    and would never go back to JPEG.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, May 8, 2004
    #12
  13. michael wrote:

    > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in and
    > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?
    >
    >


    It's not good news if you want to squeeze maximum quality out of the
    image, because the JPEG and TIFF are fixed settings, and only a firmware
    upgrade (not generally done by Sony) can alter them. I'm using the
    Minolta A2, and the TIFF and JPEG settings are respectively huge and
    grotty, while the RAW file - when they updated their software last month
    - was able to produce much better images.

    The software can interpret the raw data so many possible ways that
    errors or artefacts can be removed - lens aberration can be controlled,
    fine detail can be enhanced, colour balance changed, mistakes made when
    setting white balane (auto or manual) or exposure can be corrected,
    often without any trade-off in quality.

    I was very disappointed with the A2 based on its best JPEGs and I'm now
    very happy with it based on what I can extract from raw files.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 8, 2004
    #13
  14. "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in and
    > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?


    See... http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/717sd9

    The top row is the F717, the bottom row is a less expensive DSLR. No
    comparision, and the F717 isn't really small enough to justify the
    poor image quality on convenience.

    As for no RAW mode, it really rules out the camera for anything but
    fun snapshots. RAW is used to correct flaws in all shots that JPEG
    can never recover, like exposure and white balance, in addition to
    having 4096X the color palette. All shots can be optimized, and it is
    amazing what can be saved using RAW mode.
     
    George Preddy, May 8, 2004
    #14
  15. [BnH]

    dylan Guest

    Flaws in exposure and white balance, now what make of cameras could George
    be referring to ?

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the

    fact
    > > that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    and
    > > converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?

    >
    > See... http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/717sd9
    >
    > The top row is the F717, the bottom row is a less expensive DSLR. No
    > comparision, and the F717 isn't really small enough to justify the
    > poor image quality on convenience.
    >
    > As for no RAW mode, it really rules out the camera for anything but
    > fun snapshots. RAW is used to correct flaws in all shots that JPEG
    > can never recover, like exposure and white balance, in addition to
    > having 4096X the color palette. All shots can be optimized, and it is
    > amazing what can be saved using RAW mode.
     
    dylan, May 8, 2004
    #15
  16. [BnH]

    Trevor S Guest

    David Kilpatrick <> wrote in
    news:c7ic37$eth$:

    <snip>

    > firmware upgrade (not generally done by Sony) can alter them. I'm
    > using the Minolta A2, and the TIFF and JPEG settings are respectively


    Your A2 must be different to mine, I have no TIFF setting, only various
    levels of JPEG, RAW & JPEG and RAW. I only work in RAW now, having seen
    the "light", praise the lord ;)

    --
    Trevor S


    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
    -Albert Einstein
     
    Trevor S, May 8, 2004
    #16
  17. [BnH]

    George Kerby Guest

    On 5/8/04 6:25 AM, in article
    , "George Preddy"
    <> wrote:

    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    >> I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the fact
    >> that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in and
    >> converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?

    >
    > See... http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/717sd9
    >
    > The top row is the F717, the bottom row is a less expensive DSLR. No
    > comparision, and the F717 isn't really small enough to justify the
    > poor image quality on convenience.
    >
    > As for no RAW mode, it really rules out the camera for anything but
    > fun snapshots. RAW is used to correct flaws in all shots that JPEG
    > can never recover, like exposure and white balance, in addition to
    > having 4096X the color palette. All shots can be optimized, and it is
    > amazing what can be saved using RAW mode.

    Moron...


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, May 8, 2004
    #17
  18. [BnH]

    netnews Guest

    I agree,
    I have a D60 and a 10D that I have had 20x30 prints made from jpeg and they
    look great!
    I don't use RAW much at all.

    --
    David Holliday
    HollidayPhoto
    www.HollidayPhoto.com



    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:c7hock$j0r$...
    >
    > "michael" <no more spam> wrote:
    >
    > > Do you think I'll regret not having RAW...or will tiff be fine?

    >
    > IMHO, RAW is close to meaningless on consumer cameras. At ISO 100 on a

    dSLR,
    > there's lots of latitude to be squeezed out, but the consumer cameras are

    so
    > noisy that there isn't much point to it. It is useful for not having to
    > comit to a white balance when you take the shot, but AWB gets pretty close
    > most of the time.
    >
    > FWIW, the lowest compression jpegs out of the Sony cameras are
    > indistinguishable from tiffs; Sony did a good job on the jpeg

    implementation
    > and settings in the cameras.
    >
    > The F717 has a histogram and can use third party flashes, so I'd recommend
    > the F717 over the F707. But for only a bit more money, the Canon 300D is a
    > much better camera.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    netnews, May 8, 2004
    #18
  19. [BnH]

    Guest

    In message <409cb1a6$0$4321$>,
    "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote:

    >Err ... not when you pair the 300D with a 35-300 L lens David.
    >F717 and F707 lens are amazingly VERY sharp.


    True; the lenses on the high-end non-DSLRs tend to be extremely sharp in
    the area captured by the sensor; sharper than most regular Canon lenses
    and many of the L lenses as well. It must be easy to design a sharp
    lens when the area of capture is tiny. A lens designed for 35mm film
    must remain fairly sharp at the corners, and lenses that do that well
    are very expensive (except in the 50mm range, which seems to be easy).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 8, 2004
    #19
  20. [BnH]

    Guest

    In message <3v0nc.5161$>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote:

    >"michael" <no more spam> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> I'm about to by the Sony F717 (maybe the 707) just not sure about the

    >fact
    >> that it is either jpg or tif....granted I would just be bring the RAW in

    >and
    >> converting it to a tiff....what's your experience?

    >
    >I have been using digital cameras since 1998 and never felt the need to
    >use RAW (nor TIFF for that matter).


    That tells us more about your standards than it does about RAW.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , May 8, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Q3VyaW91c01hcms=?=

    New computer wireless PCI adapter setup mistake recovery

    =?Utf-8?B?Q3VyaW91c01hcms=?=, Feb 14, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    579
    =?Utf-8?B?Q3VyaW91c01hcms=?=
    Feb 15, 2005
  2. David Hodgson

    erased flash by mistake, now not booting

    David Hodgson, Mar 2, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    840
    David Hodgson
    Mar 2, 2004
  3. Sarah
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,823
    Erik Freitag
    Nov 30, 2004
  4. elliotth123

    Made a mistake Cisco router 3640

    elliotth123, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    elliotth123
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. elliotth123

    Made a mistake Cisco router 3640

    elliotth123, Sep 22, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,694
Loading...

Share This Page