File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What's the difference between SLR RAW and P&S RAW?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern682Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:05:15 17:24:51Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return Not DetectedFocal Length35.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> ac
One comes from an SLR's sensor, the other comes from a P&S's sensor.
>> Anonymous
Well, I figured that much.

Anyway, I have this feeling that P&S's RAW suck, but SLR's don't, how wrong I am?
>> ac
>>47692
P&S sensors suck, SLR sensors don't.

So... yeah.

(Also, the number of P&S cameras that offer RAW as an option is vanishingly small)
>> Anonymous
>>47693
Mostly this for sure, but the average P&S (if it even has raw) usually takes several seconds to save a raw image. Expect to wait 5 or 10 sec. between shots even on the top of the line models. Any modern DSLR has a decent amount of RAM and can do at least a half-dozen raw shots in a burst.
>> ac
Also, since this isn't entirely clear to a lot of people:

"RAW" isn't really an image format. It's the sort of blanket name given to a whole class of formats which are basically just the raw sensor data out of a digital camera. Canon's "Camera Raw" (CR/CR2) format is completely different form Nikon's NEF, and both are completely different from the closest thing there is to a "standard" raw format, Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG). Canon and Nikon haven't bothered with DNG because, well, they don't have to. They're the 800lb gorillas.

So, the only meaningful way to describe the difference between the RAW format of an SLR and the RAW format of a P&S is that one comes from an SLR's sensor and one comes from a P&S's sensor. It wasn't a flippant answer.
>> Anonymous
>>47723
CCD
CMOS
Foveon
>> ac
>>47723
Size is directly related to quality, is the thing. A larger sensor of the same resolution means larger photosites, which means more real photons hit it in the same amount of time, which means less noise.

Granted, this isn't the only factor. Newer technology is generally better than older technology. And it's certainly possible to have two sensors of the same size and generation where one's utter shit and the other's made of equal parts silicon and win.

So... I think the answer to your actual question is yes. They're both bigger and better.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>47725
and a flargle blarg gaboobajoob to you too. that was absolutely the least helpful thing that has ever happened to me.
>> ac
>>47728
If it helps, I know exactly what he's talking about, and it's still *in no way* an answer to your question.
>> slim !yE5LOsLjxQ
>>47729
it helps clarify who i'm talking to at least...
>> Anonymous
>>47729
Hey, when you're talking about sensor quality the most important factor _is_ the type of sensor. You just cant compare CCD with Foveon by size, they're completely different!
>> illogical
>>47693
Some of the Canon Powershot A series offers RAW mode if you use the CHDK loader.
>> ac
>>47740
Resolution != quality.

A good CMOS is better than a bad CCD. A good CCD is better than a bad CMOS. There aren't really any low-end Foveons, so I can't really say anything about bad Foveons, but there are CMOS sensors and CCD sensors on both sides of the Foveons.
>> Anonymous
Could someone explain to me the differences (beyond what they -are) between CMOS and CCD sensors, and the advantages and disadvantages of each?
>> ac
>>47808
Doesn't actually matter. CCDs used to be better than CMOS, CMOS caught up (and passed CCDs if Canon's PR is to be believed).
>> Anonymous
i tend to favor cmos sensors.

especially for those "i will buy a digi slr but just shoot on auto and ONLY do some basic auto level corrections" people.

ccd vs. cmos is super close as far as my usage goes, but in the point and shoot/entry level range cmos WINS.
>> bw !ef8V18P/FY
>>47808

CMOS is more finicky to fabricate, but to make a long story short, it can have better low-noise performance at the same ISO as a CCD sensor. Aside from a few old oddball bodies, all Canon SLRs use Canon-made CMOS sensors, and this is why they have a reputation for excellent high-ISO performance. Not necessarily better resolution, just less noise.

CCD sensors are cheap to make and high-resolution, and CCD SLR sensors (Sony makes most, Samsung and Panasonic are distant runners-up) are big enough that noise isn't usually a problem until ISO800. It's a mature technology. Almost all P&S sensors are Sony-made CCDs. (Fuji rolls their own sometimes.)

LBCAST is similar to CMOS in design, and Nikon uses it on some of their top-end SLRs. Very high quality sensors; low noise, high resolution.

Foveon (from Sigma) is interesting (3 layers of sensors, one on top of each other) and has some theoretical benefits (better resolution and color accuracy) but there's some serious practical problems with them. Avoid until they're ironed out.
>> thefamilyman
>>47814
how about the SuperCCD from Fujifilm, they seem to walk all over cmos sensors in p&s range
>> Anonymous
>>47814

disregard everything in this post. i was thinking of something else.
>> Anonymous
>>47824
fuck maybe i wasnt thinking about something else. i am way tired.