Are 400mp stills coming to the Canon EOS R5?

Well, doesn't the article explain what it's used for?
I wanted to know what the real world usage of this feature would be since I didn't know. People have already given me good answers for my question, that's the good thing about forums, if you don't understand what a feature is used for you can just ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
Ok, confirmed. 400Mp mode is jpeg-only, there's no raw files for processing on a PC with DPP.
So, not a very useful feature unfortunately.
I have to chuckle when I read comments like this about JPG files. I seriously have to wonder if people who make these comments actually ever tried to use JPG, or if they are just trying to sound like "experts" - after all, the internet is full of "experts" who feel they have to say they shoot RAW only because otherwise they might look like amateurs. The fact that many sports photographers are shooting JPG of major sporting events and their photos look great somehow never registers in their minds. I have been shooting both RAW and JPG for years now - and, as an estimate without any actual data collection, I would say that about 80-90% of my photos, I can edit the JPGs with essentially the same results as when I edit the RAW. I'm not pixel peeping, so that may matter, but unless I have a very tricky exposure situation, or have badly missed the exposure, editing JPGs works just fine (and occasionally the results are better than an edited RAW, since cameras are pretty darn good now at JPG processing). That's my experience, anyway. Others may differ.
 
Upvote 0
I have to chuckle when I read comments like this about JPG files. I seriously have to wonder if people who make these comments actually ever tried to use JPG, or if they are just trying to sound like "experts" - after all, the internet is full of "experts" who feel they have to say they shoot RAW only because otherwise they might look like amateurs.
Almost everyone uses JPEG - for delivery. When I upload images to social networks or photo forums, they're in JPEG format. I'm not an 'expert'. However I do have understanding of what JPEG format is and its limitations compared to RAW - on the software development level.
The fact that many sports photographers are shooting JPG of major sporting events and their photos look great somehow never registers in their minds.
Photojournalism genre requires fast delivery and zero or minimal processing, that's why they shoot jpeg. Because it's delivered right away. JPEG is for delivery, RAW - for processing.
That's because raw camera formats are designed as scene/input referred, and JPEG is output-referred.

I can hardly imagine those huge high-res jpegs will be used in sports photography. Such a high resolution is good for product/landscape/architecture photography. Those genres almost always imply postprocessing.
I have been shooting both RAW and JPG for years now - and, as an estimate without any actual data collection, I would say that about 80-90% of my photos, I can edit the JPGs with essentially the same results as when I edit the RAW.
That's a suboptimal workflow from the technical standpoint.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I have to chuckle when I read comments like this about JPG files. I seriously have to wonder if people who make these comments actually ever tried to use JPG, or if they are just trying to sound like "experts" - after all, the internet is full of "experts" who feel they have to say they shoot RAW only because otherwise they might look like amateurs. The fact that many sports photographers are shooting JPG of major sporting events and their photos look great somehow never registers in their minds. I have been shooting both RAW and JPG for years now - and, as an estimate without any actual data collection, I would say that about 80-90% of my photos, I can edit the JPGs with essentially the same results as when I edit the RAW. I'm not pixel peeping, so that may matter, but unless I have a very tricky exposure situation, or have badly missed the exposure, editing JPGs works just fine (and occasionally the results are better than an edited RAW, since cameras are pretty darn good now at JPG processing). That's my experience, anyway. Others may differ.
JPGs can turn out fine, but RAW gives more flexibility in adjusting exposure, reducing noise, and changing white balance. Those are simple facts.

Everyone has different standards and different uses for photos. White balance is a good example. Modern cameras do a pretty good job with AWB, but some scenes aren't handled well. Some people don't care all that much about WB, because the human brain does a good job of seeing something that should be white as being white.

Yes, sports shooters shoot JPG, but that's due to the urgency of getting the images posted. Many sports photos are not technically great – there is high noise, highlights are blown, green grass isn't very green, player's feet are cut off, etc. Those 'problems' are secondary to the content, so they are tolerated. A portrait or landscape image that is noisy, with blown highlights, off colors and bad cropping would not be tolerated.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
I have to chuckle when I read comments like this about JPG files. I seriously have to wonder if people who make these comments actually ever tried to use JPG, or if they are just trying to sound like "experts" - after all, the internet is full of "experts" who feel they have to say they shoot RAW only because otherwise they might look like amateurs. The fact that many sports photographers are shooting JPG of major sporting events and their photos look great somehow never registers in their minds. I have been shooting both RAW and JPG for years now - and, as an estimate without any actual data collection, I would say that about 80-90% of my photos, I can edit the JPGs with essentially the same results as when I edit the RAW. I'm not pixel peeping, so that may matter, but unless I have a very tricky exposure situation, or have badly missed the exposure, editing JPGs works just fine (and occasionally the results are better than an edited RAW, since cameras are pretty darn good now at JPG processing). That's my experience, anyway. Others may differ.
Back in 1998, my first Digital Cameras used jpg, some offered raw but I did not use it. Several years later, I started using raw. As the processing software progressed down the years, I have had occasion to reuse some of my old photos and found that they were improved greatly by reprocessing while the jpegs are pretty much frozen as is. In cases of low light theater photos, getting a jpeg that had the right colors, removing noise and distortions is much better with raw.
I use jpegs almost 100% for snapshots or photos that I don't want to keep forever, but have to retake them when they have too much noise or colors are too far off.

Sports photographers compete to get their photos to the publisher first. If not, they may not get paid. They often are electronically transmitted direct from camera to the publisher with no post processing so they can be published immediately.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
...

Sports photographers compete to get their photos to the publisher first. If not, they may not get paid. They often are electronically transmitted direct from camera to the publisher with no post processing so they can be published immediately.
I am smart enough to know why they shoot JPG. My point is, the photos look great becaue today's cameras are capable of shootng JPG that look as good as - and sometimes better than - what people produce shooting RAW and editing.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
JPGs can turn out fine, but RAW gives more flexibility in adjusting exposure, reducing noise, and changing white balance. Those are simple facts.

Everyone has different standards and different uses for photos. White balance is a good example. Modern cameras do a pretty good job with AWB, but some scenes aren't handled well. Some people don't care all that much about WB, because the human brain does a good job of seeing something that should be white as being white.

Yes, sports shooters shoot JPG, but that's due to the urgency of getting the images posted. Many sports photos are not technically great – there is high noise, highlights are blown, green grass isn't very green, player's feet are cut off, etc. Those 'problems' are secondary to the content, so they are tolerated. A portrait or landscape image that is noisy, with blown highlights, off colors and bad cropping would not be tolerated.
OK people, I never said anything that implies that RAW does not give more flexibility. Not a word. But I guess talking JPG strikes a nerve with the photo "experts." Yes, you can do MORE adjustments on a RAW file, yes the RAW files are more flexible. But that does not mean you can't adjust exposure on a non-RAW file. You can reduce noise almost completely with Topaz denoise - on non-RAW files (my version of Topaze denoise works far betterr on non-RAW files) white balance, yes can adjust on non-RAW files. People are saying that these 400 MP files are essentially unusable BECAUSE they are JPGs. My opinion is that is silly because you can edit non-RAW files considerably. Not as much as RAW. But certainly you can edit JPGs well enough to create sellable, publishable photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0