Digicam RAW -vs- DSLR RAW

[HiltonP]

I have been doing some extensive research into Panasonic's Lumix LX-2, and the Canon G7 (with some distraction from the FujiFilm F30 and Lumix FZ-8).

Needless to say the issue of RAW capability receives much discussion. In one review the Lumix LX-2's JPG files are compared alongside its RAW (and similarly processed) files. The two show relatively little difference. In other reviews the comment is made that due to the small sensor sizes of the digicams the true benefit of RAW cannot be realised.

My questions to LL'ers who use digicams capable of RAW capture are :
1.  Can you see a noticeable difference in your RAW files over their JPG equivalents?
2.  Do your digicam RAW files provide as much post-processing advantage as your DSLR RAW files?

[HiltonP]

Anyone? . . .

[61Dynamic]

I have the LX1:

1. Absolutely

There are downsides to a smaller sensor of course. One thing is with minor tonal differences which would show up fine for a SLR don't fair well with a P&S (i.e. Grass appears kinda smeared). That being said, such detail smearing is noticeably when the camera is shot in RAW than jpeg. The in-camera noise processing obliterates any subtitles which may be in the image. For the LX1 at least, the differences between RAW and JPEG are quite noticeable and I would imagine it would be the same for the LX2.

2. No

I find that how far I can take tonal edits in the raw converter are more limited than with SLR images due to the smaller amount of information recorded by the sensor. The adjustments I can make still surpass what can be done to a Jpeg by a long shot.

To put it simply, a P&S raw file will fall apart more quickly than a SLR raw file but no where nearly as quick as a jpeg.

[jimhuber]

I have the Canon PowerShot S70, and am comparing it against the Rebel XT and 5D.

1. Absolutely (see previous reply by 61Dymanic)

2. The S70 has less adjustment latitude than the Rebel XT, which in turn has less adjustment latitude than the 5D. But I don't know how much of it has to do with the sensor size, or pixel size, or how much of it has to do with the age of the sensor design and materials since each of these DSLR sensors is not only larger but also newer and has larger individual pixels.


To me RAW is absolutely preferable in all circumstances to JPEG:
wider dynamic range
easy adjustment of minor exposure errors (< 1 stop)
easy adjustment of white balance (though I believe Lightroom will let you fix JPEGs easily)
And of course you don't have compression artifacts

[RonBoyd]

I have a Canon G6 (7.1mp) and a Canon 20D (8.2 mp).

1. There is tremendous difference between jpg and RAW in both cameras. Certainly the biggest difference is the total control one has with RAW as apposed to the camera's internal "developing" process but it doesn't end there. In any event, the differences are the same in both cameras.

2. I find no difference between the processing of the RAW images from the two cameras. The technical aspects (the settings) of capturing an image is the same with both cameras -- the only difference being the fixed vs changable lens.

I might add (at the risk of a "sour grapes" impression) that I, too, would be the proud owner of a G7 if only for this jpg/RAW issue. In fact, I had the funds set aside specifically for that purpose. (I had gone from a G4 to the G6.) I suspect that the funds will be waiting for the next generation unless some other brand of  P & S, with those specifications, captures my attention. In the meantime, there is nothing that I don't like about the G6. Of course, I can say the same about the 20D although the 5D has my attention.

Ron

[BernardLanguillier]

I intend to do a comparison using the Ricoh GX-100 I have just purchased.

I have only shot RAW (DNG) so far, and the results are interesting, but I was not impressed so far by the highlight recovery capability compared to the DSLR I use.

My guts feeling is that RAW has some benefits compared to jpg, but that those benefits on the Ricoh are clearly not as great as they are with DSLR.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Gordon Buck]

(I had gone from a G4 to the G6.)

?

[Jonathan Wienke]

IMO, RAW is even more important on digicams with their smaller, noisier pixels than it is on DSLRs. Having more bits of real data per pixel makes noise removal easier with fewer artifacts, and a properly-calibrated RAW converter will give you better more accurate color than the camera JPEGs. And you don't have to deal with compression artifacts when shooting RAW.

[HiltonP]

Thanks for the replies folks.
Appreciate your input.