How important is RAW to your shooting?

[Highspeedlane]

My skill level is at best amateur so I need all the help I can get, thus my inclination toward RAW. But there are a few features of my new Lumix that look appealing (post focus selection and HDR) that won't work with RAW, so I need to get familiar with the menus controls for turning on and off quickly. There are just TOO many options on this P&S!

 

[Chapinahat]

Post focus selection sounds more of a crutch than raw shooting! It's I'd assume, a focus stacking mode, which for speed and size would need to be jpg, much like the HDR modes in my cameras. I'd say whatever file format you use, get to know the quirks of the camera first and worry about the output after, Lane!

 

[Legion]

Post focus selection sounds more of a crutch than raw shooting! It's I'd assume, a focus stacking mode, which for speed and size would need to be jpg, much like the HDR modes in my cameras. I'd say whatever file format you use, get to know the quirks of the camera first and worry about the output after, Lane!

It takes a very short burst of 4K, and changes the focus while doing so. It then uses software to compress it into one image, and you can choose the focus point you want to go with. It's clever, but you are limited to a 8mp jpeg, as that is the res of a 4K frame.

 

[ZJ68]

The jpeg engines in my cameras are good enough I don't shoot RAW regularly anymore. It's too much work for not enough benefit. That said I think the idea that it's a crutch is silly. I do have cameras with less than ideal jpeg engines, and shooting in RAW and doing the conversion yourself did result in significantly better images. It depends on your camera.

One thing I really don't like about it is some camera manufacturers (I'm looking at you Canon) drop support for their older RAW formats. All those .CRW files you shot? Canon don't care.

 

[sfeile]

I'm not into it much anymore, but when I was doing model or magazine shoots, I always shot in raw. It captures the most data and gave me the best detail.
If I was doing school sporting events, I normally shot jpeg. I could capture more shots in a 6.5fps burst with less recovery time than I could with the larger raw format. Also, you generally aren't needing as high of a level of detail in your end photo, so in usually didn't hurt anything.

Something to consider from my shooting vs yours, is even your P&S probably has a higher MP count and will capture more detail than my "pro" camera. I bought one camera that fit my needs at the time, and with good glass, served me well enough that I never upgraded. I still use it for the little bit I do and it is a whopping 10.1mp sensor.

Post was and still is a little basic work in my older version of LR, then a few things if needed in an older version of PS. (I turned all my auto update crap off and avoided the subscription rip-off.)

 

[Highspeedlane]

Post focus selection sounds more of a crutch than raw shooting! It's I'd assume, a focus stacking mode, which for speed and size would need to be jpg, much like the HDR modes in my cameras. I'd say whatever file format you use, get to know the quirks of the camera first and worry about the output after, Lane!

Great points Carl. I can see myself using the focus stacking in limited scenarios. This coming week I will be out on travels and it should give me a chance to try some of these features. It will take a while to learn the options of the camera itself. The full manual is over 300 pages!

 

[Highspeedlane]

It takes a very short burst of 4K, and changes the focus while doing so. It then uses software to compress it into one image, and you can choose the focus point you want to go with. It's clever, but you are limited to a 8mp jpeg, as that is the res of a 4K frame.

Exactly.

 

[Highspeedlane]

The jpeg engines in my cameras are good enough I don't shoot RAW regularly anymore. It's too much work for not enough benefit. That said I think the idea that it's a crutch is silly. I do have cameras with less than ideal jpeg engines, and shooting in RAW and doing the conversion yourself did result in significantly better images. It depends on your camera.

One thing I really don't like about it is some camera manufacturers (I'm looking at you Canon) drop support for their older RAW formats. All those .CRW files you shot? Canon don't care.

Yes, that is a consideration for sure. Proprietary one day, obsolete the next...not comforting.

 

[Highspeedlane]

I'm not into it much anymore, but when I was doing model or magazine shoots, I always shot in raw. It captures the most data and gave me the best detail.
If I was doing school sporting events, I normally shot jpeg. I could capture more shots in a 6.5fps burst with less recovery time than I could with the larger raw format. Also, you generally aren't needing as high of a level of detail in your end photo, so in usually didn't hurt anything.

Something to consider from my shooting vs yours, is even your P&S probably has a higher MP count and will capture more detail than my "pro" camera. I bought one camera that fit my needs at the time, and with good glass, served me well enough that I never upgraded. I still use it for the little bit I do and it is a whopping 10.1mp sensor.

Post was and still is a little basic work in my older version of LR, then a few things if needed in an older version of PS. (I turned all my auto update crap off and avoided the subscription rip-off.)

I still have and almost took with me on an upcoming trip, my 10mp Nikon P7000. I could certainly live with that output, but there were a few other features of the camera I was hoping to improve on by buying a new one. While shopping, I noticed the majority of today's P&S's seem to be somewhere around double what they were 7-8 years ago, about 20mp.

 

[starry82]

I can make the case for RAW as not being just a crutch. I recently went on a whale watching tour. The boat was filled with whale watchers and the sea was rough. When a whale would surface all the people would crowd to the side of the boat the whales were on. The only way to get any shot was to hold my camera over my head and point in the direction of the whales, hoping the camera's auto settings would do their best. If I did not have the ability to correct the shots in RAW most would have been horrible, but the added benefits RAW gives you let me save the shots.

 

[sfeile]

I still have and almost took with me on an upcoming trip, my 10mp Nikon P7000. I could certainly live with that output, but there were a few other features of the camera I was hoping to improve on by buying a new one. While shopping, I noticed the majority of today's P&S's seem to be somewhere around double what they were 7-8 years ago, about 20mp.

Thing is, as long as you have a good capture, if you aren't printing above an 8x10, I never saw where lots of megapixels make a huge difference.
That said, sensor size and glass quality play into it a bit as well. Mine is a Canon 40D. I generally use a 24-105L lens.
Large sensor and good glass. When I bought it, it had a magnesium body, good high shutter life, 6.5fps, and fit my lenses I had from my film cameras. (And my budget.)
I've made 16x20 prints out of it with the same quality as you see in a 4x5. But it weighs 12 pounds. It's a lot to carry for just roaming around or hiking. A high mp p&s would be a very nice option at times.

I still like raw, and I don't think it's a crutch. It's a tool meant to be utilized. So you've got more data that allows you to make a wider range of adjustments as needed. So what?
PS is a crutch then too right? Because you can make those adjustments and change your capture completely different. What about auto-focus? Or good glass? Or bracketing mode? Or even a tri-pod?
Those are all tools meant to help you produce the highest quality image you can get. Why not utilize them to the best of your ability?

 

[bberg100]

"Pros" have shot a lot more shots than I and probably have tweeked their camera settings for their style shooting in JPEG. Not having to post processes a couple hundred shots from a wedding, when they have four more to shoot this week, is a huge time saver. The couple pros I know, do shoot RAW when things are a little iffy - weird light, mixed light, etc. One guy who works part time with me shoots a couple weddings a month, he only charges the couple for his time, at the end of the wedding he hands them a SD card with the shots, it is up to them to get whatever ones they want printed wherever.

 

[Highspeedlane]

Thing is, as long as you have a good capture, if you aren't printing above an 8x10, I never saw where lots of megapixels make a huge difference.
That said, sensor size and glass quality play into it a bit as well. Mine is a Canon 40D. I generally use a 24-105L lens.
Large sensor and good glass. When I bought it, it had a magnesium body, good high shutter life, 6.5fps, and fit my lenses I had from my film cameras. (And my budget.)
I've made 16x20 prints out of it with the same quality as you see in a 4x5. But it weighs 12 pounds. It's a lot to carry for just roaming around or hiking. A high mp p&s would be a very nice option at times.

I still like raw, and I don't think it's a crutch. It's a tool meant to be utilized. So you've got more data that allows you to make a wider range of adjustments as needed. So what?
PS is a crutch then too right? Because you can make those adjustments and change your capture completely different. What about auto-focus? Or good glass? Or bracketing mode? Or even a tri-pod?
Those are all tools meant to help you produce the highest quality image you can get. Why not utilize them to the best of your ability?

"Pros" have shot a lot more shots than I and probably have tweeked their camera settings for their style shooting in JPEG. Not having to post processes a couple hundred shots from a wedding, when they have four more to shoot this week, is a huge time saver. The couple pros I know, do shoot RAW when things are a little iffy - weird light, mixed light, etc. One guy who works part time with me shoots a couple weddings a month, he only charges the couple for his time, at the end of the wedding he hands them a SD card with the shots, it is up to them to get whatever ones they want printed wherever.

Great follow-on points gents. Apologies in advance as I am prepping for a long trip overseas today so organizing and packing are going to consume most of my day (though I hope to get on here periodically when time permits) then we take off this evening for Germany.

So here are some follow ups: I've spent a great deal of time getting familiar with this new Lumix offering. Priority for me is moving the features I feel I'll want to use the most over to the custom function positions as I'm terrible at digging into the menus on the fly.

The Lumix DC-ZS70 is extremely feature packed but as others have noted, it is a compromise between camera dimension (sheer portability) and sensor size. Panasonic did the best they could working within these parameters, and of course the most obvious victim is low light sharpness. Not horrible, but of course not as good as a larger sensor is capable of. I can work within its limitations though, and for me its travel compactness and amazing feature set easily make it worth the cost of admission.

Back to the central theme, RAW imaging. If you're a dedicated RAW shooter and have used other maker's formats in good compatibility with your devices and processing software, be prepared for a bit of a setback with Panasonic's .RW2 format. At least that is what happened in my case.

I had no luck getting my Windows 7 laptop to display the .RW2 files, even after downloading and installing Microsoft's codec pack for a range of manufacturer's image formats. No-go with Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 either. I can upload a .CR2 RAW file from my Canon EOS 60D to Google Photos and they display fine. Such was not the case with the .RW2, which it refused to allow to upload.

Adobe .DNG converter to the rescue! This handy and free little tool from Adobe (version 9.12.1) converts the .RW2 format to Adobe's .DNG, which has nearly universal compatibility (or about as close to universal as you can get) with online image repositories such as Google, as well as all the Adobe image processing products. Barring use of this converter I would be forced to upgrade to an Adobe Photoshop Elements version of something like 11 or higher (they're up to 15 now).

Somewhere during the conversion process there is a bit of data loss, as my original 22 Mb RAW files ended up at something closer to 19 Mb's following conversion.

I don't know how much I'll ultimately rely on .RAW. I have sufficient space on my SDXC memory card to take nearly 2000 images if using RAW+fine JPEG at full resolution, so I could just go that route and in those cases where I really need as much data in the image to work with as possible, convert them to .DNG for import into Elements 9. Otherwise it's .jpeg all the way!

I'm still looking to eventually post up some examples of the focus stacking capability of this camera in a post at a later date. I know it might sound gimmicky to some but I believe for many macro shots it's going to be "da bomb" if it executes as advertised.

Have a great photo day everyone!

 

[rasoio]

Have a try with Irfanview (freeware pic viewer) and its plugins, it's usually able to decode and show just about anything..
Have a nice trip, and enjoy Europe! Hope you'll have the opportunity to visit Italy, it's a great season to be here now.
Waiting for a truckload of nice pics when you're back [emoji57]

 

[InFESTation]

RawTherapee and Darktable both have free windoze versions available, both very good at keeping up to date with the various proprietary RAW files.
Enjoy your holidays.

 

[Highspeedlane]

Uh yea, after a couple of quick and dirty, unscientific experiments, using Adobe DNG converter is not my way forward. A RAW image I took with the Lumix DC-ZS70 after conversion retained detail, but image noise was off the scale.

Below is the scene taken with a full size, 20 mp .jpeg (5184x3888), handheld, 1/10, ISO 800.

Showing the enlarged area. Other than enlargement, no other modification:

The same scene taken in .RW2 RAW format and converted to .DNG showing approximately the same area. Noise is off the scale!:

So to reiterate, hardly scientific but distressing nonetheless because if that noise introduction becomes a pattern it will not make the .DNG converted images something I will want to work with.

Indoor and in low light (no flash) conditions I would say the Lumix DC-ZS70 is average. Not horrible but not stellar by any means. I actually can get what appears to be rather good, if not better low light (sharpness and noise-wise) performance from my 7 year old, 10 mp Nikon P7000.

Outdoors in full daylight will be another test and another story.

 

[bberg100]

Keep in mind DNG conversion is mostly a straight data conversion, the JPEG engine in you camera does a noise correction as part of the in-camera processing. RAW is Raw with no in-camera actions.

 

[Highspeedlane]

Keep in mind DNG conversion is mostly a straight data conversion, the JPEG engine in you camera does a noise correction as part of the in-camera processing. RAW is Raw with no in-camera actions.

Ah, so what I'm probably looking at on the .DNG is the undisturbed noise output. That makes sense and should have been something I realized. Thanks!

 

[rasoio]

Most RAWs are actually not that much 'raw', especially when processed/shown with software from the same manufacturer as the camera. The reason for propietary raw formats is to store extra information, besides from the bare sensor pixels dump, and most vendors take advantage of that.
Even Adobe software gives a raw file some embellishment, aimed to please the viewer, if you want to see the truth open the raw file with Rawtherapee or Affinity Photo.
PS: not to mention compressed (lossy) RAW formats from some vendors, and lossy/inaccurate conversion from/to the DNG format... It's a jungle out there [emoji16]

 

[Highspeedlane]

Have a try with Irfanview (freeware pic viewer) and its plugins, it's usually able to decode and show just about anything..
Have a nice trip, and enjoy Europe! Hope you'll have the opportunity to visit Italy, it's a great season to be here now.
Waiting for a truckload of nice pics when you're back [emoji57]

Will do and thanks!

RawTherapee and Darktable both have free windoze versions available, both very good at keeping up to date with the various proprietary RAW files.
Enjoy your holidays.

Thank you!