So... the Mini2 has RAW capabilities, and many pilots claim this is far superior to just JPG. Can someone with a Mini2 take a few well exposed JPG and RAW comparison shots to convince me that RAW is really the huge improvement so many claim?
I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise
I have a DSLR and have used RAW on that, taking the time and effort to manipulate photos carefully to squeeze out the best detail and colour in stills. My conclusion on the topic was that for casual to keen amateur photography it is quicker, easier and less storage-hungry to shoot several JPGs at different exposures than to shoot RAW and edit in post. The difference between a well exposed JPG and slightly off-exposed RAW was negligible when produced by a prosumer level digital camera. I don't deny that RAW files provide more data to work with and provides greater flexibility for editing later, but I'm not yet convinced that it is as superior as many believe it to be. Convince me otherwise

Last edited: