# M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?



## billnelson75 (May 14, 2013)

Just curious what most are using with their 6D or even Mark III? M RAW to save file space, or "full" RAW? According to the manual it is faster to shoot in full RAW, but the files are about 30% larger. How much quality will I lose if I shoot in M RAW? What are the drawbacks? When would you shoot ful full RAW, and when would someone shoot in M RAW? Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?

Any info or help on this would be great, thanks!


----------



## bycostello (May 14, 2013)

full u shot raw for the flexibility in posdt


----------



## Click (May 14, 2013)

Full RAW for the same raison as bycostello


----------



## Dick (May 14, 2013)

billnelson75 said:


> Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?



Because M RAW is processed from the full RAW?


----------



## Rams_eos (May 14, 2013)

Good question because why using an inferior raw file?
The purpose of getting the most of a picture is lost!

Some good explanations from Canon:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/file_types_raw_sraw_and_jpeg.do

Hope it helps,


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 14, 2013)

of course i only use the worst quality formats available to me.
i would love to have a 16 color grayscale format but canon does not listen.

that´s why i bought an expensive DSLR system....


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2013)

Rams_eos said:


> Good question because why using an inferior raw file?
> The purpose of getting the most of a picture is lost!
> 
> Some good explanations from Canon:
> ...



Wrong !


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Wrong !



What's 'wrong' is Canon's explanation of M RAW. It doesn't have 'all the advantages' of RAW because the data aren't raw. A RAW file is just that - the actual pixel luminance values with the color assignment from the CFA. The M RAW file is de-mosaiced and color interpolated (and 1/4 of the pixels are double-interpolated - their color value is interpolated from their already-interpolated neighbors).


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong !
> ...




I did actually explain, or rather try to explain why the statement in red is wrong, but I kept getting 'access denied' ! All it would accept in the end was 'wrong' ;D

s or m RAW still allows conversion to a 16 bit TIFF, and thereby important post processing data, a very useful feature for working photographers who may shoot over 1000 frames at an event, any number of which may require pp.


----------



## billnelson75 (May 14, 2013)

According to the manual, the M Raw uses 11M pixels, so what I should have probably asked is if this is equivalent to a full RAW file shot with an 11m camera? I had a 5D, which was only 12M, and it still took beautiful photos, but it sounds like there is some degradation of the data to get the 20M pixel photo down to 11. Which probably doesn't make it worth it. Thanks for the help everyone.


----------



## mitchell3417 (May 14, 2013)

What about sRAW. Isn't it better than mRAW in terms of it's interpolating pattern? It takes 4 pixels and makes them one.


----------



## mhvogel.de (May 14, 2013)

billnelson75 said:


> ...Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?...


i'm using full raw, for the reason that m raw can not be processed with dxo software.

i would use full raw under most other circumstances as well, except emergencies (running out of memory-cards when shooting, pp.), though the storage-costs are affordable & i'd rather have the additional resolution. i do not see the disadvantages of the full resolution raws.


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 14, 2013)

I use SRAW1 on de 5D2, and MRAW on the 7D. Just to reduce file size as 10 megapixels is enough for me. Quality-wise I am perfectly happy with the reduced raw size, also in comparison with the full raws. I use DPP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 14, 2013)

billnelson75 said:


> Just curious what most are using with their 6D or even Mark III? M RAW to save file space, or "full" RAW? According to the manual it is faster to shoot in full RAW, but the files are about 30% larger. How much quality will I lose if I shoot in M RAW? What are the drawbacks? When would you shoot ful full RAW, and when would someone shoot in M RAW? Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?
> 
> Any info or help on this would be great, thanks!



You lose a decent amount. Those RAWs are not even truely full real RAWs, they've been debayered and so on already and give up a good bit of resolution and reach.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 14, 2013)

billnelson75 said:


> Just curious what most are using with their 6D or even Mark III? M RAW to save file space, or "full" RAW? According to the manual it is faster to shoot in full RAW, but the files are about 30% larger. How much quality will I lose if I shoot in M RAW? What are the drawbacks? When would you shoot ful full RAW, and when would someone shoot in M RAW? Also, why would full raw, with larger files sizes be faster in burst mode than M RAW?
> 
> Any info or help on this would be great, thanks!



M RAW are slower because they need a lot of processing to be converted from a full RAW to a pseudo RAW M RAW.


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2013)

billnelson75 said:


> According to the manual, the M Raw uses 11M pixels, so what I should have probably asked is if this is equivalent to a full RAW file shot with an 11m camera? I had a 5D, which was only 12M, and it still took beautiful photos, but it sounds like there is some degradation of the data to get the 20M pixel photo down to 11. Which probably doesn't make it worth it. Thanks for the help everyone.




To give a specific example. Until recently we used a 5D ( 12.7mp) and a 5D mkii (21mp). 

The 'sRaw' on the mkii at 10mp gave significantly higher resolution than the 12.7mp camera. 
Rather surprisingly it also appeared to require more processing time from the computers. 

I've found an example, both at 200% 'cos at 100% on the web I'm not sure you'll see any difference. These are both originally raw shots, converted to tiff, then jpeg'd for the web. No modifications including no sharpening.


----------



## Marvin (May 14, 2013)

I tried using M RAW to shoot real estate. In my workflow I heavily push/pull the highlights/shadows so I need all the data in the file I can get. The very first test shoot with M RAW and I was very disappointed. I simply didn't have the flexibility as I had gotten with full RAW. My advice: never use anything but full when shooting RAW.


----------



## Vossie (May 14, 2013)

I always use full RAW except when I do an occasional timelapse movie, in which case I shoot sRAW or mRAW.


----------



## 9VIII (May 14, 2013)

When I got my 5D2 I was hoping that M Raw would be as good as full Raw downscaled in post.
In the end it seems that in camera downscaling is pretty bad compared to that done on a computer. I know it's a complicated process so it doesn't really surprise me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 15, 2013)

When I shoot for the newspaper I use sRAW because 1. They are much smaller, and 2. If I need to edit, still gives me more freedom than jpeg. All other times I shoot full RAW.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 15, 2013)

Always full raw with 5D III


----------

