Is 5 megapixels enough??

peestandingup

I am thinking about stepping it up a notch & buying my first digital slr or slr-like camera. I already have a 5 megapixel Canon SD450 point & shoot that I love, so I prefer to stick with Canon. Now, I dont wanna jump right in head first into the world of dslr, so im thinking about one of Canon's slr-like cameras, most notably the Powershot S2 IS. They just released the S3, but I kinda wanna take advantage of the S2's price drop.

Now, im not looking for anything major here. I just want to be able to take some great looking pictures that I may charge a small price for at some point or perhaps show off at some low key art exhibits. Some macro & wide angle shots most of all. The camera already has a 12x optical zoom lens on it, so that may do. And I know that this camera can do those others with some conversion lenses. But, the 5 megapixels seems a little puny and makes me think I might should go with the S3 since its a 6 megapixel if im gonna wanna charge people for my stuff.

What do you all think? Would the S3 be overkill for me?? Thanks...Kerry

gus

If i was you & ready to learn more then i would personally forget any brand that does not shoot in RAW as well as Jpeg. You dont need expensive photoshop programmes to take advantage of RAW as this one is free (essentials) & works just fine.

Shooting in RAW is by far a better way to learn & once you do it you will see why so many of us use it. The control is very empowering to the photographer with contrast/exposure/temperature etc.

Remember ..that all the great shots you see on forums that people with DSLR's take have seen a good deal of processing from RAW to end up at a great JPEG. Its easy to learn the basics.

The S2 can't shoot RAW from my google searches & i dont know about the S3. A friend asked me a similar question the other day & after i had a look about i ended up suggesting one from the newer Panasonic Lumix DMC series. They have a great range tele wise...shoot RAW & appear on paper to have a fast lens for a non-DSLR.

Thats just my 2 bob. Good Luck !!

System

kerry-

would not be caught without a camera that can't take raw--

you can do so much more in pp-and you can either shoot jpeg at the same time, depending upon the camera, or you can quickly convert raw to jpeg--but you never get jpeg to raw--

one problem, if you get a smaller point and shoot and you try raw, it can be very slow-

hopefully others will chime in and give you an idea of the direction you need and want to go-

best
george

peestandingup

Hmm, I never really thought about the RAW aspect of it. I know that some photographers use it but some arent sold on it just yet either. Is it really that much of a difference?

I already use iPhoto for my jpegs & it works out pretty good for me. I know you can edit RAW images in it as well, so do all think that will be good enough? I hate to get too crazy with things & have to buy Photoshop, expensive cameras/lenses, etc.

The other reason I never considered the true dslr Canons is because for some reason they use Compact Flash, whereas all the other Canons use SD. I already have a speedy 2GB SD card & dont wanna have to buy anything else. Im cheap.

gus

Seriously mate....you dont want to drop ..what ? $50 on a 1 gig CF On a 4 or 5 meg Jpeg camera that will hold say 1000 shots. A lot less in RAW. An 8 meg 20D puts about 110 shots in RAW onto a 1 gig CF.

RAW & jpeg are entirely diff in that a RAW shot can be manipulated till the cows come home. Believe me ..it really matters. Just being able to add some temperature to a shot has really made some shots for me.

This is something you really do need to consider. There is a good reason why everyone i know & talk to on the net that shoot DSLR uses RAW.

marlof

It's always nice to see brand loyalty, but an SLR is a totally different animal than a P&S. The fact that you like a P&S from brand A doesn't mean you should stick to that brand when you go for a DSLR. Much more is coming into that. If you're not afraid to shop around: the Nikon D50 is cheap, uses SD, and is a very nice entry level DSLR. The Nikon range also allows you to gradually upgrade if you want to. If you want to stick to Canon, you'll probably find that in the long run, the extra expense of a 2 GB CF card won't make that much difference.

As for RAW processing: yes, you have more latency with RAW. You can adjust the exposure and the white balance when creating your final image. That said, if you nail the exposure, and do not mess up with the white balance, some camera produce stunning JPEGs that are not worse than a file that originates from a RAW file. But nailing the exposure is easier to write than to do in real life. Going for a RAW capable camera now would at least allow you to learn how to deal with that kind of processing, if you'd go for a DSLR later in life.

But forget RAW in iPhoto. I love my iBook, but iPhoto sucks, and it sucks the most when it comes to dealing with RAW. Invest in PSE4, and get ACR3 for free. You'll hate the thought of the expense, but you'll love me later.

peestandingup

Yeah, funny you should say that about the Nikon D50. I have been considering that one too. Looks to be a nice entry level dsrl & not too expensive either.

Im also torn on the RAW vs JPEG debate. I have been reading up on it & am just unsure I would even use it that much. I just want to take good pictures the first time & not have to do allot of processing later. It also takes allot of computer HD/flash memory space too, but maybe it would be good to have on there for the future JIC.

So, if I did stick with jpeg, do you guys recommend I go higher than 5 megapixels? I think I read that it would give a good looking print at 16 x 20, but after that, it would start to crap out. But, still, thats pretty darn big. But, some say as big as 20 x 30.

marlof

Don't get fooled by the megapixel hype. Yes, they're important (esp. for detail in for instance landscapes etc.), but not everything can be measured in megapixels. Some megapixels are different from others. It's like the 4 megapixel Nikon D2H, which blows many 5,6,7,8 megapixel P&S cameras out of the water when you print large. It may not have so many pixels, but they're very beautiful per pixel. I have a 5 megapixel DSLR, but I'm far from an expert on printing large. I hardly ever print larger than A4 (210 x 297 mm; 8.3 x 11.7 inches) and even if I do, I don't need prints larger than A3+ (329 x 483 mm; 13 x 19 inches). Both can be done with the 5 megapixel images from my camera.

Scott_Quier

I just gotta weigh in on this one...

• with marlof - don't get caught up in the megapixel hype. Not all pixels are created equal. One of the critical aspects to take into account is the density of the pixels on the sensor. High count and small sensor = lots of noise. This is one reason why most dslr images knock the socks off most P&S shots at the same ISO, etc. I started out with the Canon dRebel (6.3MP) and would be using it still if it had a couple of features that I absolutely use each time I take my camera out of the bag (mirror lock-up, MLU, being the big one for me).
• Features - Rather than concentrate on the number of pixels (though that should be a consideration), I look at the features of the camera and how well they match my requirements. An example for you might be MLU. It's not as critical for wide-angle shots, but I understand that macro work can really, really suffer from camera movement. MLU, in addition to other good technique, will help avoid camera movement.
• Shooting RAW - It's like drugs! Once you start, you will seldom, if ever, go back to just jpeg.
  • It is so empowering. First, you have more data to muck around with - this directly equates to finer "color resolution" (for lack of a better word). What I mean by this is that with higher data density, one has a better chance of getting into the print the image those colors that were actually in the scene. For most cameras, its the difference between a mathematically possible 16,777,216 (jpg) and a really rediculous 68,719,476,736 (RAW) colors. Yeah, no printer will be able to produce even a significant percentage of those 68 billion colors, but, with raw, you do increase the chances that you will get the colors you want.
  • The ability to correct the temperature of the image can, like Humungus said, can make the difference between an image you print and one that ends up in the bit-bucket (the trash).
  • You can read a really good thread on the RAW vs JPG decision here.

I really hope this helps rather than providing more fuel for confusion.

Thusie

From a DSLR noob:-))

I got my Dreb back first of October, really could not see the big whoop about raw, but for some reason I trust the folks here on Dgrin. I kept reading shoot raw, shoot raw so ok I'll give it a go, very glad I did! Not to say that shooting jpg doesn't have its place, by the same tokin I can say I very seldom hit the exposure, hate to admit that but true:):, and raw saves the day. Plus, for me I like mucking about/around (love the term 'muck' Scott) in raw, nice learning experience as well as being able to tweak a so/so exposure wise shot and make it pretty special.
So for what it's worth, no matter what camera you decide on, would really suggest it has raw capability.

SteveLongPhoto

Buydig.com has refurbished D50's for only $399. Add 50 mm 1.8 lens and a 1 gig SD card and you'd be good to go for a little more than $600.

Nothing will teach you more about photography and produce saleable images than a DSLR and a fast lens.

I've sold lots of pictures with my 3 megapixel, jpeg only, Fuji S1 Pro. The images look much more professional than the ones from my 6 megapixel Fuji S7000. The glass and the sensor size make all the difference in producing professional results.

bwg

peestandingup wrote:

Im also torn on the RAW vs JPEG debate. I have been reading up on it & am just unsure I would even use it that much. I just want to take good pictures the first time & not have to do allot of processing later. It also takes allot of computer HD/flash memory space too, but maybe it would be good to have on there for the future JIC.

Kerry, some examples of the power of RAW...all these were manipulated in RAW only, the only photoshopping was sharpening (which you can do in raw as well). Still feel the same way?

Mike Lane

bigwebguy wrote:

Kerry, some examples of the power of RAW...all these were manipulated in RAW only, the only photoshopping was sharpening (which you can do in raw as well). Still feel the same way?

Are there pics attached to this? If so they aren't showing up.

bwg

Mike Lane wrote:

Are there pics attached to this? If so they aren't showing up.

looks like sm is down. the pics are there, promise.

ziggy53

peestandingup,

What you need to discover, and then you need to understand and develop, is the concept of "control".

What everyone here is trying to tell you is that throwing money at the problem of lesser photography will not solve the problem. More pixels will not solve the problem. Only learning how to use light, and then choosing the correct glass and then finally the science and art of image acquisition and processing can solve the problem.

Light is important, because that "allows" an image to be made. Not enough light (or too much light), or light that is not the right "quality", will result in a lesser image.

The lens is important because the image has to be (usually) sharp and with high acuity coming out of the lens. You cannot "create" sharpness and high visual acuity in software. (You can go the other way, blur and soften, in software.) There is also only so much software can do about color aberration and fringing and other optical aberrations. The correct focal length for the intended effect can be crucial.

Finally, the image is formed by the imaging chip (or film). Not all imagers are created equal. Megapixel count is the least important determinant, beyond the minimum required for the intended distribution format. Noise level is terribly important, as is total dynamic range.

The concept of RAW is that you actually retain the entire dynamic range that the imaging chip captured (commonly 12 bits per color channel), before any processing. The reason that is sooo important, is that you may want to enhance or promote/demote just a portion of that total range before you reduce the range to that amount which can be represented by JPG (8 bits per color channel) or a print (varies, but less than RAW mostly). The pallet of color and tonality is so much greater in RAW versus the presentation formats, that you can adjust to a much greater degree possible than any other format, before visual degredation occurs. (You still have the "option" of accepting default processing, if, and when, that works.)

If you look at the examples from bigwebguy, he has preserved most of the highlights and upper middle tones, while subduing the lower middle tones and shadow areas, to isolate and promote what "he" felt was important, and demote what was not important. Yet, the total tonal values are still complete and rich in the output format.

Once you master the Levels and Curves adjustments in photo editing software, and the shadow/highlight adjustments (and a bunch of other stuff) in advanced editing software, you will gain a healthy respect for their capabilities, especially how they relate to RAW files.

P.S. What JPGs produce, out of the camera, is someone else's interpretation of Levels and Curves, hard coded into the image computer built-in to the camera, which is designed to be appropriate to the "average consumer's" expectations. If you ever want to be more than the "average consumer", learn the advanced techniques here at DGrin and scattered thruout the WEB.

Whew! : (Yes, I am still learning and I muff a lot of shots.)

ziggy53

Art Scott

In simpilar terms what everyone is trying to say is this:

Equate raw to a digital negative......if you ever shot a roll of film and took it to your neighborhood drugstore (including wally world or walligreen) and had it developed (1 hour) and someone you know took theirs to the local pro processor, now I am stretching it a bit...but you both took pics of the same things on an outing together.....your 1 hr processed pics were all right...but for some reason his 2 to 4 day pro processed prints were stunning....that is kinda the difference bewtween jpeg and raw.....

another simple comparison: Jpeg to Raw is like the difference between typing in this little box with out spelling and grammar check and typing in MS Word or Corel Wordperfect where you can check for misstakes.


I have a pro-sumer point and shoot (Konica minolta A2 - 8MP) and a DSLR (Konica Minolta 7D - 6MP) and the difference is quite noticable as to which pics are shot with A2 as opposed to 7D....even at 6MP the 7D looks much better (sharper) and I have sold shots from the A2 to interior designers....The A2 with the help of Genuine Fractals made beautiful 30 X 40 inch prints....the A2 also shoots in Raw as does the 7D...both have image stabilitaion (anti-shake), however 200mm on the A2 just isn't long enough for the nature and wild life I want to capture nor was its processing of even jpgs fast enuff to shoot a friends wedding.

The A2 is a fantastic landscape camera with its electronic viewfinder...you change shutter speed or aperture and you instantly see it in the view finder, with it I no longer bracketed shots on landscapes, that is the only fault with dslr's...yes they have a depth of field preview button....but that A2's EVF made it soooo much easier.

I at times shoot a combi of Jpeg and Raw just to see how the cameras computer and software interpet what I saw color wise and I have yet to be satisfied with the cameras interpetation. Then again I had my own darkroom for many years and would print 1 from a wedding as a guide print for may pro processor to match.


Good luck in your search.

saurora

I made a jump in December to a Canon Powershot S80 which has 7.2 megapixels. I love Canons, too. Takes nice pictures, but the telephotos are useless and you are never close enough. The control over your own shots is very difficult at best. So I spent $500 bucks that I could have put towards a full-on DSLR. Buy it used or a refurb, if you have to, but don't buy another consumer camera. It isn't just about megapixels.

peestandingup

Allot of great advise. Thanks so much!

It sounds like RAW is the way to go, even though there is a pretty steep learning curve & I will have to shell out more for good software. But, yeah, I would like to move outta consumer based cameras soon, so maybe the D50 is the way to go for now. I know it doesnt seem like getting a new CF card is a big deal, but im really trying to get off as cheap as possible & would prefer to use the same SD card I already have. BTW, why does Canon do that? I mean, use only CF in their true dslr's, but their dslr-like & point & shoots all use SD??

I understand that RAW really isnt a "format" and is more proprietary to each camera maker, wish it was more of a standard like jpeg.

bwg

peestandingup wrote:

Allot of great advise. Thanks so much!

It sounds like RAW is the way to go, even though there is a pretty steep learning curve & I will have to shell out more for good software. But, yeah, I would like to move outta consumer based cameras soon, so maybe the D50 is the way to go for now. I know it doesnt seem like getting a new CF card is a big deal, but im really trying to get off as cheap as possible & would prefer to use the same SD card I already have. BTW, why does Canon do that? I mean, use only CF in their true dslr's, but their dslr-like & point & shoots all use SD??

I understand that RAW really isnt a "format" and is more proprietary to each camera maker, wish it was more of a standard like jpeg.

you wont regret it...and CF cards are getting cheap nowadays anyways.

fyi, my canon a80 p&s is compact flash. they just started changing in the last year or so.

gus

peestandingup wrote:

It sounds like RAW is the way to go, even though there is a pretty steep learning curve

No there isnt...i worked out how to do it in 30 mins & every mod on this board will attest that i am as thick as pig shit when it comes to learning something new with a compter. If i can do it in 30 mins then so can you.Fine tuning however is a lifetime job but the basics are easy.

peestandingup wrote:

& I will have to shell out more for good software.

bzzzzttt!! wrong again...i posted a link for you earlier that is a FREE RAW converter that is well & trully capable of doing the job...i used it for 6 months & found it quite ok.

peestandingup wrote:

so maybe the D50 is the way to go for now. I know it doesnt seem like getting a new CF card is a big deal, but im really trying to get off as cheap as possible

The words cheap & DSLR do not go together well....it is an endless pit...on days its worse than owning boat & having a ternimal illness at the same time....you are broke & in pain.

peestandingup wrote:

& would prefer to use the same SD card I already have. BTW, why does Canon do that? I mean, use only CF in their true dslr's, but their dslr-like & point & shoots all use SD??

more room in a DSLR body

peestandingup wrote:

I understand that RAW really isnt a "format" and is more proprietary to each camera maker, wish it was more of a standard like jpeg.

No need as the readers see the file & open them. You just have to get your head away from the Jpeg way of thinking ...from memory (and its not so good) the RAW file is 56000 layers thick of information just waiting to be manipulated.

gus

saurora wrote:

I made a jump in December to a Canon Powershot S80 which has 7.2 megapixels. I love Canons, too. Takes nice pictures, but the telephotos are useless and you are never close enough. The control over your own shots is very difficult at best. So I spent $500 bucks that I could have put towards a full-on DSLR. Buy it used or a refurb, if you have to, but don't buy another consumer camera. It isn't just about megapixels.

Very true words ! A lot of people spend their money twice & complain of costs when all we need to do is spend it properly the 1st time.

marlof

Humungus wrote:

bzzzzttt!! wrong again...i posted a link for you earlier that is a FREE RAW converter that is well & trully capable of doing the job...i used it for 6 months & found it quite ok.

Gus, look at the shirt on his avatar.... he wears a black turtleneck. Rawshooter doesn't run on a macburger. But if he gets PSE4 (which is a pretty decent image editor, far better than iPhoto) Adobe Raw Converter 3 is thrown into the mix. Or he could use the Nikon supplied software that comes with the D50, which should do the basic conversion as well. Or upgrade to Nikon Capture. Or get Capture One LE, from phasone.com. There's tons of options. Even on a Mac.

gus

marlof wrote:

Gus, look at the shirt on his avatar.... he wears a black turtleneck. Rawshooter doesn't run on a macburger. But if he gets PSE4 (which is a pretty decent image editor, far better than iPhoto) Adobe Raw Converter 3 is thrown into the mix. Or he could use the Nikon supplied software that comes with the D50, which should do the basic conversion as well. Or upgrade to Nikon Capture. Or get Capture One LE, from phasone.com. There's tons of options. Even on a Mac.

:uhoh black turtle neck's...(cough) not my scene im sorry.

peestandingup

marlof wrote:

Gus, look at the shirt on his avatar.... he wears a black turtleneck. Rawshooter doesn't run on a macburger. But if he gets PSE4 (which is a pretty decent image editor, far better than iPhoto) Adobe Raw Converter 3 is thrown into the mix. Or he could use the Nikon supplied software that comes with the D50, which should do the basic conversion as well. Or upgrade to Nikon Capture. Or get Capture One LE, from phasone.com. There's tons of options. Even on a Mac.

Are any of those programs native for the Intel Macs?? I know PSE4 isnt yet. I plan on upgrading soon, or maybe I should hold off on that Mac upgrade, eh?

Yes, I have sported the black turtlenecks for over 6 years now & am damn proud of it.

EDIT: Looks like the only one thats universal right now is the Capture One LE program. How much does this cost? I cant find a price.

Bystander

Look at what this guy does with his pixels!
Hi Pisser,

I don't want to take sides re the Raw War -- I just started shooting Raw and using PSCS2 and on some days I'm happy. On other days I miss my (sold) Canon G1 and JPEGs. See I've gotten great results from the 3.2 mp G1 -- printed some images as big as 16X20 (had it done my printer stops at 13" wide) with what I call excellent results (others might disagree -- actual results will vary).

But -- I am glad I've taken the plunge -- altho last year's purchase of a Canon 20D and 5 lenses was expensive and the backpack I've been carrying around is a bit heavier than the G1. So I still wonder.

See my early days in photography involved a Leica M3 with a 35mm lens (with spectacles) that was it and t was fun and freedom!

So I've been thinking...maybe I should get a digital Leica M3! -- Cept there ain't one -- not yet anyway.....

All that was background -- if you're still with me...the other day I came across the web site of one Don Ellis, he is a pro who shoots with a G1 and a G2 -- its here--
http://www.donellisphoto.com/

All I can say is -- go there and be impressed.

I think after you get to about 4 mp size matters not much -- as she said -- its how you use what you've got that matters.

Any comments?

P.S. I just bought a used G2 on eBay today -- plan to use it on a trip to NY -- going to pretend its my Leica...

Justiceiro

The quality of Jpegs depends on a number of things- particularly sensor quality and size as well as megapixels; and also quality of light. My first digital was the late, unlamented Fuji s5000. 3.2 megapixels; even it could get great pictures, capable of being blown up to 8x10, whent he light was right. When it wasn't, not so great.


If you are going to be spending $500 anyway, and you care about the quality of your photos, do the 2 following things.


1- get the Nikon. Is this is a canon guy talking. If all you can afford to get is a $5-600 DSLR, get it. Get it refurbished. Refurbished is as good as new (its warrantied) and better than used.

2- shoot Raw. SHOOT RAW. Look at the pic below:



This is probably the best pic I have ever taken. I am putting it up for sale in april for $180. Is this the what you get from shooting RAW? No. I shot this in jpeg because I had gotten my 20d a week earlier and was still operating in dumbass mode. It's still a good picture. But imagine what I could do with it, if only I had shot RAW.

You can't take the same picture twice. I know, because I have gone back to this very spot and taken the same composition again and again- I have never equalled the range of colors in the sky. If it was RAW, I could bring it out even more drmatically. Then I could probably sell the thing for $4-500.

It took me a lot of good shots liek these permanently disqualified from "greatness" before I switched to RAW as my primary method.

I still shoot jpeg when I need a a fast continuous drive, but that's about it.

BTW, don't fool around with those conversion lenses. They suck, and they make your image quality look like hell.

Bystander

Justiceiro wrote:

The quality of Jpegs depends on a number of things- particularly sensor quality and size as well as megapixels; and also quality of light. My first digital was the late, unlamented Fuji s5000. 3.2 megapixels; even it could get great pictures, capable of being blown up to 8x10, whent he light was right. When it wasn't, not so great.


If you are going to be spending $500 anyway, and you care about the quality of your photos, do the 2 following things.


1- get the Nikon. Is this is a canon guy talking. If all you can afford to get is a $5-600 DSLR, get it. Get it refurbished. Refurbished is as good as new (its warrantied) and better than used.

2- shoot Raw. SHOOT RAW. Look at the pic below:



This is probably the best pic I have ever taken. I am putting it up for sale in april for $180. Is this the what you get from shooting RAW? No. I shot this in jpeg because I had gotten my 20d a week earlier and was still operating in dumbass mode. It's still a good picture. But imagine what I could do with it, if only I had shot RAW.

You can't take the same picture twice. I know, because I have gone back to this very spot and taken the same composition again and again- I have never equalled the range of colors in the sky. If it was RAW, I could bring it out even more drmatically. Then I could probably sell the thing for $4-500.

It took me a lot of good shots liek these permanently disqualified from "greatness" before I switched to RAW as my primary method.

I still shoot jpeg when I need a a fast continuous drive, but that's about it.

BTW, don't fool around with those conversion lenses. They suck, and they make your image quality look like hell.

You make an excellent case for shooting jpegs! Jpeg and be there? Your Brooklyn Bridge shot is great -- it might have been better shot in raw and processed -- correctly -- in an editor, but I'd be very happy with what you got if I were so lucky.

marlof

peestandingup wrote:

Looks like the only one thats universal right now is the Capture One LE program. How much does this cost? I cant find a price.

I'm not into the Intel Mac stuff (heh, even a G4 is advanced technology to my iBook), but I can point you to the price of C1LE. It's $99 (go to www.phaseone.com, go to e-shop, and make sure you select USD as your currency).

peestandingup

bigwebguy wrote:

Kerry, some examples of the power of RAW...all these were manipulated in RAW only, the only photoshopping was sharpening (which you can do in raw as well). Still feel the same way?

Those are nice! Do you (or anyone) have an example like that where one pic was shot in JPEG and the exact same image was shot in RAW, after all the post processing?? Just curious how much of a difference the camera does its "in camera" processing VS the user does their software processing in RAW. I know it can vary, but would still like to see.

Also, does anyone have a quick how-to for processing RAW with software. Not really a software based how-to, but just overall. Sorry, but im quite dumb to all this RAW business. Thanks.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found this link from a previous post on this thread. Thanks!

ziggy53

peestandingup wrote:

Those are nice! Do you (or anyone) have an example like that where one pic was shot in JPEG and the exact same image was shot in RAW, after all the post processing?? Just curious how much of a difference the camera does its "in camera" processing VS the user does their software processing in RAW. I know it can vary, but would still like to see.

Also, does anyone have a quick how-to for processing RAW with software. Not really a software based how-to, but just overall. Sorry, but im quite dumb to all this RAW business. Thanks.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found this link from a previous post on this thread. Thanks!

Here is a "processed from RAW" versus default shot from this morning:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30708

ziggy53

peestandingup

ziggy53 wrote:

Here is a "processed from RAW" versus default shot from this morning:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30708

ziggy53

WOW! That is a pretty big difference. Thanks for posting those.

That is always one thing that really bugged me about some of my shots. Even if I do everything right, the shot still doesnt look like "what I saw" with my own eyes. Sounds like RAW will get you closer to that.