rexbobcat said:
Yes, for the best quality RAW is the way to go. It requires processing of the image after you take it though.
Really? Cause it was on raw and it seemed very noisy
I see that Rex already replied, but I'll weigh in a bit more...this also may only make sense if you're of a certain age....if you're too young this analogy might be lost anyway...
Think of RAW as having the undeveloped film still in the camera. You have complete control over the eventual prints, because you literally have the raw data from the sensor. There is no contrast adjustment, no noise reduction, no sharpening. You have a lot more control over white balance when shooting RAW as well.
Once it's been converted to jpg in the camera, there's very little you can alter without introducing a fair amoung of noise from whatever program you're using.
With all that said, storage of RAW files can become a bit unmanageable when you're taking 10's to 100's at a time and they're 25-30 MB's a piece. I personally don't shoot RAW, there have been times where it could definitely have made a shot better, but I've been mostly quite happy with my shots SOOC(straight out of camera).
I'm shooting with a T3i, fwiw, so same sensor, but with some different buttons
