Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
X-T30
#1
Currently doing the first test with it.

Shocking realization - the RAW files (uncompressed) have a size of 55MB ...
For comparison - the 5Ds R files have a size of around 60MB - at double the resolution
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
Noted same thing Canon vs Sony
EOS RP 26 MP files are substantially smaller than A6000 24MP files around 20% at least, knowing Sony used compressed RAW Canon uncompressed, if I go C-RAW Sony files are more than twice bigger, and we are talking about taking photographs in similar conditions since I often carry both.
I also noted ISO value difference between 7D2 and Sony A6000, usually ISO 100 on Sony is equivalent to ISO 125 on 7D2, even when shooting the grey card
could you also compare ISO sensitivities ?? with same settings for aperture, shutter speed and ISO, A6000 photos are slightly darker compared to 7D2, didn't compare yet vs RP
#3
I could (and probably should) choose compressed files for sure - it just costs 1% in MTFs which is rather irrelevant.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#4
(12-03-2019, 12:14 PM)Klaus Wrote: I could (and probably should) choose compressed files for sure - it just costs 1% in MTFs which is rather irrelevant.

I thought Fuji RAW file compression was lossless. Isn't it?
In this case, there shouldn't be any MTFs difference.

BTW Klaus, do you also have the Fuji 16-80 lens?
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#5
(12-03-2019, 11:44 AM)toni-a Wrote: Noted same thing Canon vs Sony
EOS RP 26 MP  files are substantially smaller than A6000 24MP files around 20% at least, knowing Sony used compressed RAW Canon uncompressed, if I go C-RAW Sony files are more than twice bigger, and we are talking about taking photographs in similar conditions since I often carry both.
I also noted ISO value difference  between 7D2 and Sony A6000, usually ISO 100 on Sony is equivalent to ISO 125 on 7D2, even when shooting the grey card  
could you also compare ISO sensitivities ?? with same settings for aperture, shutter speed and ISO, A6000 photos are slightly darker compared to 7D2, didn't compare yet vs RP

Canon does not offer uncompressed RAW. Canon compressed its RAW CR2 and CR3 files. Sony compression uses a stupid lossy compression with an error in its algorithms that causes artefacts, Canon uses lossless compression in CR2 and lossless and lossy compression in CR3.

There is no way to note a difference in ISO. Things are not that simple with ISO in digital. 
A manufacturer can use 5 different ways to "determine" the ISO settings, with one often used one that uses JPEG output to determine the ISO (with the manufacturer free to apply any tonal curve it likes), So, there is NO standard "ISO 100" "exposure setting". And anyone like DXO "measuring" ISO accuracy are just doing nonsense.

Only with tools like RAWdigger you can really look at differences in "sensitivity" without applied tonal curves messing things up, and this does NOT determine which "ISO" is right when looking at different cameras.
#6
(12-03-2019, 12:14 PM)Klaus Wrote: I could (and probably should) choose compressed files for sure - it just costs 1% in MTFs which is rather irrelevant.

I'm wondering how you will shoot compressed files with dataloss. Fuji says:

LOSSLESS COMPRESSED
RAW images are compressed using a reversible algorithm that reduces file size with no loss of image data. The images can be viewed in RAW FILE CONVERTER EXFUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO, or other software that supports “lossless” RAW compression.
#7
Ah, Ok. Didn't know that it is lossless. Makes me wonder why they are offering uncompressed mode at all then.

Markus has ordered the 16-80mm - whatever this may mean.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#8
Well, the "uncompressed" RAW for the X-T2 I had to use for nearly a year, because the sleepy heads at Capture One didn't support the lossless compressed Fuji RAW Sad But these days Fuji officially recommends C1 and delivers support (and also money, I guess) to Denmark. So, a RAW converter not supporting lossless compression still might be a reason to use it, but else there's no point.
#9
(12-03-2019, 05:08 PM)Klaus Wrote: Ah, Ok. Didn't know that it is lossless. Makes me wonder why they are offering uncompressed mode at all then.

Markus has ordered the 16-80mm - whatever this may mean.

Well, compressed files would take more time to process, since you need to uncompress them before working on them. Also, with the price and available space of modern HD and SD cards, you simply don't need to save as much space as you needed to.

Finally, many simply don't trust compression, even companies assure them they are lossless.
#10
(12-03-2019, 05:08 PM)Klaus Wrote: Markus has ordered the 16-80mm - whatever this may mean.

The lens is sitting on my desk... but my X-T30 still hasn't arrived  Undecided
Editor
opticallimits.com

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)