I do not think many people, other than you, willingly choose to use less resolution than the maximum a camera offers. Storage is cheap compared to buying an $8000 camera to use at a low resolution.
taffy
Well-known
I would love to upgrade to an M10 soon but I have to say that one of the "benefits" of shooting an M8 is that my computer can handle the 10MP files with relative ease (but I do see the newer versions of editing software slowing it down).
Huss
Veteran
Yeah, that makes zero sense.
Then again, other mfgs offer it. Then again if that's your thing, don't shoot Leica.
Then again, no-one who shoots a film M complains that they can't shoot it in 110 format... So why start now?
Then again, I've said then again too many times.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thinking is free
. The fact is Canon has s,m,l RAW in more less serios cameras starting from Canon 5D MKII. And Canon is way more common in use comparing to Leica and Fuji together.Storage is cheap is not technical argument for some one like me who deal with it since nineties professionally, paid for it at work
. First, it is not just one storage, but at least one full backup.
Second, it is not just files to move but metadata. Not quick with my workflow.
Third, I have significant volume of accomulated media since 2009.
Even if I chop it at the end of each year it is still not small.
And honestly, I see zero need to buy much more expensive computer to handle quickly much larger files. What for? In more than ten years of taking pictures daily I had request to print my photos on posters only twice.
We figured it out in another thread. Here is Adobe converter to reduce dng files.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I traded in all of my film gear, along with a few Voigtlander lenses, and my M8 and M9-P on a used M10 from KEH. (I also got a pair of PanaLeica M4/3 lenses for my Olympus pair). I love it.
Went for a drive on Saturday and found an abandoned farmhouse. Good thing I had my camera with me.
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Abandoned Farmhouse, February 22. 2020 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
That is just so great, MaggieO!!
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No digital camera I've ever owned has had "small, medium, large" raw file output options. Lessee, that includes Sony, Canon, Olympus, Konica-Minolta, Pentax, Konica, Panasonic, Nikon, and Leica digital cameras in a variety of models over the years from 2002 to the present...
The misleading thing that many of them did offer was a choice of small, medium, or large size JPEG previews, either embedded in the raw file or as sidecar files in a raw+JPEG shooting mode.
An image file is NOT a raw file, by definition, unless it is the capture from the sensor with naught but the pre-raw file output digital manipulation provided by the A-D converters and any in-stream digital filtering prep work on its way to being the raw data matrix. EVERY camera I've ever used that had in-camera format cropping or sizing of raw files produced a full-pixel-sized image file when converted to RGB for display by a raw converter which ignores the pixel cropping numbers in the raw image metadata, which you can defeat if your raw converter does not allow such operation in its UI (as Lightroom will when using the cropping tool) by editing the active cropping dimensions in the metadata with an EXIF editing app (eg: EXIFtool).
G
The misleading thing that many of them did offer was a choice of small, medium, or large size JPEG previews, either embedded in the raw file or as sidecar files in a raw+JPEG shooting mode.
An image file is NOT a raw file, by definition, unless it is the capture from the sensor with naught but the pre-raw file output digital manipulation provided by the A-D converters and any in-stream digital filtering prep work on its way to being the raw data matrix. EVERY camera I've ever used that had in-camera format cropping or sizing of raw files produced a full-pixel-sized image file when converted to RGB for display by a raw converter which ignores the pixel cropping numbers in the raw image metadata, which you can defeat if your raw converter does not allow such operation in its UI (as Lightroom will when using the cropping tool) by editing the active cropping dimensions in the metadata with an EXIF editing app (eg: EXIFtool).
G
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Nikon Z7 offers small (4128x2752), medium (6192x4128) and large (8256x5504) RAW (NEF) file options, as well as a 12 or 14-bit depth. Not sure about the Z6, but yeah it’s out there.
And yes, I think people might have occasion to choose to shoot at a lower resolution than going full-bore all the time. Especially, say, if you’re shooting an event where you might have 1200 photos to go through and you don’t need them to be these monster files, but you still want the flexibility of a RAW file.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's interesting but is a feature only very recently incorporated into a camera... perhaps a couple of cameras. Certainly nothing that a broad range of folks have been utilizing for a long time.
G
Vince Lupo
Whatever
That's interesting but is a feature only very recently incorporated into a camera... perhaps a couple of cameras. Certainly nothing that a broad range of folks have been utilizing for a long time.
G
Yes you're probably right, though I'm personally not up on the nuances of all the camera manufacturers. I just checked my D800 and it does offer Uncompressed, Compressed and Lossless Compressed, as well as 12 or 14 bit recording for RAW files, so I guess you can vary the size/quality that way.
I can see that, but for personal work? I’d rather have too much information than not enough... you just never know what the future holds.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes true enough, guess I was looking at it more from a working photographer's point of view.
It makes complete sense to me. Also, if the cameras provide it, it must be useful to someone.
trix4ever
Well-known
Canon in about 2011 started small and medium raw with the 7D.
Nikon started sRaw (small raw) in 2014 with the D810 and D4. Reduced the file by 25% in size and resolution. Had many downsides.
Kodak actually invented small raw to allow more images on a memory card back when cards cost a fortune, I believe about 20 years ago. Then of course they stopped making DSLR's.
Just google small raw, there's tons about it.
Despite owning several Nikons with this option I have yet to try it. Could not really see the point although I get the suggestion about event work.
Nikon started sRaw (small raw) in 2014 with the D810 and D4. Reduced the file by 25% in size and resolution. Had many downsides.
Kodak actually invented small raw to allow more images on a memory card back when cards cost a fortune, I believe about 20 years ago. Then of course they stopped making DSLR's.
Just google small raw, there's tons about it.
Despite owning several Nikons with this option I have yet to try it. Could not really see the point although I get the suggestion about event work.
willie_901
Veteran
Working photographers also can benefit from having the maximum amount information at their disposal.
Some clients want in-camera, highly compressed JPEGs sent immediately from the gig.
Some gigs require many hundreds of images (sports photography gigs).
In such cases, retaining maximum image rendering flexibility (i.e. maximum information content) is impractical.