I hate to say it..but

[bakubo]

Looking back at a bunch of my raw files of all ISO settings the 12-bit 8.2mp Canon 30D created raw files that varied from about 6.5mb to 10.5mb. Canon embeds a jpeg in the raw file. Without compression I would expect about 12.3mb of raw data plus the size of the embedded jpeg. So, 6.5mb to 10.5mb is pretty good.

The 14-bit 15.1mp Canon 500D produces raw files that vary from about 21.1mb to 30.5mb according to this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx

Without compression I would expect about 26.25mb of raw data plus the size of the embedded jpeg. Just going to 14-bits doesn't seem to account for the severe loss of compression ability. With the 30D the compressed raw files even with the embedded jpeg are always a lot smaller than the uncompressed raw data alone would be. With the 500D the compressed raw file is only a bit smaller sometimes and sometimes much larger. As David said, maybe it is just that there is a very large amount of noise. Probably those 2 extra bits are mostly garbage and don't help at all, maybe even hurt. Certainly hurt with regards to file size. Doesn't the 24mp A900 produce cRAW files of about the same size as this 15.1mp DSLR?

[bakubo]

Thanks for all the info, Don. The 500D review I read (link above) also said the IQ is quite good and high ISO is better than the 50D -- that review used raw to compare. As for raw file size, I was mostly comparing it to the 30D. It seems the 30D, relatively, does a better job compressing the raw file. I was just surprised at the sizes in that review (up to 30+mb).

[bfitzgerald]

I found a link to this video..

Go forward to about 4 mins into it, he explains why Sony are not doing video "yet"
http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 5027503001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;