JPEG on A100 preferable over RAW?

[Cecco]

David,
this is question related to a post you've written in dpreview. Your currently not online there, so I crosspost this here:

I probably buy an A100 to accompany my 5D so I currently reread older posts about the A100.

David Kilpatrick wrote:
> That the A100 has the highest noise level at high ISOs (400 and
> above) of all comparable camera, when working from raw files.
> Actually the JPEGs in camera are pretty good, and it is hard to
> match them by converting from raw, but they are also heavily
> processed.

So do you tend to use your A100 in JPEG mode for that reason?
I exclusively shoot RAW with my 5D and that saved me quite a lot of shots that otherwise would have suffered from unrecoverable blown highlights and occasionally wrong WB.

If in camera processing in the A100 is hard to match by converting from raw and with the additional help of DRO+ (which is only available in JPEG mode) I'm wondering, whether JPEG is preferable over RAW on the A100? A least giving probably comparable results with less PP. Maybe the JPEG compression is an issue for bigger prints.

Like to hear your opinion.

Cecco

[01af]

... JPEG is preferable over raw on the A100?

Answer: Depends.

Solution: Shoot Raw+JPEG.

-- Olaf

[rogprov]

These days I use raw exclusively and process using CS3 and Neat Image plug-in. I'm sure the output that route far exceeds anything the camera can do outputting to jpeg.

[Cecco]

... JPEG is preferable over raw on the A100?

Answer: Depends.

Solution: Shoot Raw+JPEG.

-- Olaf

Not quite.

IMHO, DRO doesn't work in Raw+JPEG mode, so I don't believe the in-camera created JPEG in this mode can come close to a RAW correctly processed - at least not concerning recovering highlights and lifting shadows.

Cecco

[Cecco]

These days I use raw exclusively and process using CS3 and Neat Image plug-in. I'm sure the output that route far exceeds anything the camera can do outputting to jpeg.

That's what I found as well with my 5D. Reading David's statement, that "JPEGs in camera are pretty good, and it is hard to match them by converting from raw", made me wonder, whether Sony's JPEG engine (probably supported by DRO) is far superior over Minoltas JPEG processing. Although the Raw workflow in Aperture, which I use as Raw converter, is very streamlined, using a nicely processed Jpeg out of camera is even easier, given the case the result would be comparable in lets say 90% of the time.

Cecco