- Dec 1, 2013
- New Hampshire
- Real Name
If you read this article:...ahem...who on earth uses JPGs for hi-rez stufff?
You'll see that the 80MP raw image is not any better than the jpg. Plus, there must be a reason Olympus decided to make the jpgs 50MP instead of 80. What I mean is, are you sure you are able to do whatever the camera does in-camera when it converts the 80MP to 50? Perhaps the Olympus software can do it, but otherwise you are probably not getting any better results from the raw than the jpg is already giving you, and I actually think you might be getting worwse results from the raw. If you produce an 80MP jpg from the raw (as you no doubt would) what have you gained that Olympus couldn't deliver when the camera does the same operation. Again, why did Oly downsize to 50?
I am NOT arguing that generally speaking for regular images, jpg is as good as raw. Raw files are obviously better and worth working with for the best results. But these high-res images are entirely different animals. I mention again that there must be a reason why Olympus gives you a 50mp image from an 80MP raw. According to the article I mention above, it is because there is nothing to be gained from the 80MP raw.
EDIT: I am talking here about tripod-hi-res, not HHHR. It is very easy to get the two confused. Perhaps with HHHR, the raw file is better than the jpg, but it does again seem odd that Oly would downsize to 50 even with HHHR.