[beholder3]

Obviously even recent mirrorless camera models from both Sony and Nikon do apply strong raw file cooking.

With no reliable and unbiased source existing in the camera world to test sensors one can only pick up the facts from diverse experts around the world.

Mirrorless can't do astro!
https://www.star-surfing.com/blog1/2021/4/7/mirrorless-cant-do-astro

Astrophotographer Mark Shelley put his Z6 under heavy test and found out that the colored rings are in fact created by the Nikon’s inside the camera raw data manipulation. The problem might be severe when you try to pull out IFN or low brightness widefield targets but if you only make nightscapes you might not even notice it.

but the Sony a7 series still suffers from the well-known Star Eater issue. In the A7 mark 1 cameras, the star eater kicked in when bulb mode is enabled. Later Sony “fixed” the Star Eater in mark ii and iii versions with a spatial filtering algorithm that turns tracked pinpoint stars to green color above 4sec in all modes. It is currently unknown if the Sony A1 has the same problem. An open petition is still going for Sony to fix the star eater issue in all versions but I doubt it. Workarounds: If you shoot the a7/a7r,a7s mark i stick to 30sec exposures or make a stack of 30sec exposures with bulb mode exposures. If you shoot a7/a7r/a7s mark ii enable continuous shutter drive mode. The bad news is that this workaround doesn’t fix the problem in bulb mode and drops the color depth to 12bit. If you shoot a7/a7s iii the post-processing of green stars is the only true option. Some people choose to defocus stars a bit so that the smaller ones won’t be recognized as noise by the algorithm but I find this abnormal.

I can imagine the fans' apologies "No, that is irrelevant, nobody uses long exposures!" Yeah, right. Just the same as nobody uses high dynamic range.

The raw cooking is also in the A7RIV:

reports a dramatic change in behavior once the exposure time reaches or exceeds 2.5 seconds.

Sony's latest a7r IV also appears to have Star Eater issues - DSLR, Mirrorless & General-Purpose Digital Camera DSO Imaging - Cloudy Nights

the Sony a7RIV eats stars just about like the a7RIII does…except that the new behavior starts at 3.2 seconds instead of 4 seconds.

https://thenewcamera.com/sony-a7r-iv-is-a-star-eater-camera/

And the Sony A7IV also still has low ISO raw cooking applied:
https://www.sonyuserforum.de/galerie/details.php?image_id=361852
Sony A7 IV long exposure samples - does this camera still eat stars? :) - FM Forums

What is sad is less the raw cooking itself, but the way that much of the biased internet reporting on these topics makes some incarnations of this appear "bad" while offensively looking the other way when spatial filtering at all ISO happens on beloved systems.

[biz-engineer]

Communities of camera users stick to canned logic , such as "raw data shouldn't be processed" or "all cameras must have two memory cards". Technically, it's not proven that pre-processed raw data is inferior to pure raw data, it depends. Pentax added a pre-processor chip ( accelerator chip) between the sensors and image processor so that the pre-processor chip handle some of the work load that would otherwise be done by the main image processor. Regarding single vs dual card slots, Nikon Z bodies had only one memory card slot , I've never heard of any SQD card failure on Z models. Canned logic is what it is, not smart.

[Michail_P]

RAW baking is a logical thing. If you think about it, any image is a result of particular perception that depends on specific means. The same light passing through different tech gives alternative shots. We’ll have to accept that. Star eating is a particular problem that requires special attention, so I’d rather cope with baking algorithms than not getting the shot. But it’s a very specific issue. Other than that, I don’t think that we can expect absolutely clean raw files anytime soon.

[pschlute]

I think often people lose sight of what our cameras are for...... to take pictures.

[BigMackCam]

Obviously even recent mirrorless camera models from both Sony and Nikon do apply strong raw file cooking.

...

What is sad is less the raw cooking itself, but the way that much of the biased internet reporting on these topics makes some incarnations of this appear "bad" while offensively looking the other way when spatial filtering at all ISO happens on beloved systems.

The truth of it is, there'll always be a very, very small minority of photographers for whom the cooking of raw files shows visible effects in their images, an even smaller number for whom it really matters, and a vast majority who actually benefit from it.

My Hasselblad HV (Sony A99) uses lossy compression for its raw ARW files, which is known for resulting in small artefacts at high contrast edges in some scenarios, as well as increased colour noise in very heavy shadow recovery... but in all the photos I've taken with it, only a handful show any artefacts when viewed at 1:1 reproduction. Even then, you really have to look for them, and they don't have any practical impact on the quality of the photos. However, the files are typically 6 - 8Mb smaller than the DNGs from my Pentax K-3, and that quickly adds up - both in terms of SD card space during a shoot, and longer-term disk storage. Would I prefer it if the raw files weren't compressed? I guess I would... I updated the firmware in my A7 MkII to allow uncompressed ARW; and yet, I've rarely been anything other than delighted with the files from my Hasselblad. I've now switched my A7II back to using lossy compressed ARW, as the image write speed is faster and in practical terms, I see no disadvantage in my own use-cases.

The overwhelming majority of folks who carp on about cooked raw files have no cause for concern, and every reason to enjoy the benefits.

[Kunzite]

I wonder how many people left, or didn't consider Pentax because of "RAW baking"? Choosing instead cameras that do it worse?

This is something to be watched, so camera manufacturers won't overdo it (see the Star Eater). I am somewhat concerned about camera manufacturers pushing each other, who applies more aggressive processing - and those who don't keep up being punished for that.
But, "pure RAW"... there's no such thing.

[BigMackCam]

I wonder how many people left, or didn't consider Pentax because of "RAW baking"? Choosing instead cameras that do it worse?

This is something to be watched, so camera manufacturers won't overdo it (see the Star Eater). I am somewhat concerned about camera manufacturers pushing each other, who applies more aggressive processing - and those who don't keep up being punished for that.
But, "pure RAW"... there's no such thing.

So far as I can tell (and this is just my personal opinion after downloading raw files and playing with them in raw conversion software), the KP pretty much nailed the balance between baked-in pre-processing from the image accelerator and "raw" data. It's almost impossible to find fault with it, and - IMHO - it's a tad better than the K-3II's implementation in terms of colour noise smoothing at high ISO settings. I haven't had access to comparison K-3III raw files, but the out-of-camera JPEG rendering looks superb, with no tell-tale colour blotches. Overall, I think Pentax' baked-in pre-processing is very good...

[c.a.m]

The overwhelming majority of folks who carp on about cooked raw files have no cause for concern, and every reason to enjoy the benefits.

Generally, I prefer my raw carp cooked, but it's not an enjoyable fish to my taste, regardless of whether it's cooked, baked, or grilled.

I'm not sure about the RAW cooking in my K-3 Mark III, but I've been impressed with the results I get from relatively high ISO files when processed through DxO Photolab. However, I can understand the preference of some folks for raw RAW files.

- Craig

[BigMackCam]

I can understand the preference of some folks for raw RAW files.

Me too, Craig - in fact, my own preference is for "raw raw"... but I think some element of pre-processing is becoming pretty standard these days. Sensor performance improvements seem to be diminishing with each new generation, and manufacturers are having to resort to clever pre-processing in order to offer compelling image quality improvements that the majority of potential buyers will appreciate. I'm not especially keen on the idea, and would prefer at least the option to disable that pre-processing or adjust the level of it - but I don't think we'll have much of a choice going forward. If it's of the kind I see in the KP's raw files, I'm 100% OK with it... and as I said in my earlier post, even my ageing Hasselblad HV with its lossy compressed raw files produces beautiful images; so, in practical terms, most of us have nothing to worry about - even if our preference is for "raw raw"...

[stevebrot]

Technically, it's not proven that pre-processed raw data is inferior to pure raw data, it depends

What the proof that the process is benign?

Data discarded is data discarded and even a discarded noise pixel is replaced at best by non-data, at least in the strictest sense.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I'm not especially keen on the idea, and would prefer at least the option to disable that pre-processing

Ditto ^ ^ ^


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Data discarded is data discarded and even a discarded noise pixel is replaced by best non-data, at least in the strictest sense.

It's a real quandry... The more pre-processing and cooking / baking (/ grilling?! ) of raw data, the closer we're getting to an uncompressed JPEG type of file, where the processing decisions are in the camera rather than the hands of the photographer. What we really need (because, clearly, I can speak for everyone ) is "pure raw" and "optimised raw" options, along with JPEG based on the optimised raw. While they're at it, I wouldn't say no to a 16-bit TIFF option too, again based on the optimised raw

[stevebrot]

I wouldn't say no to a 16-bit TIFF option too, again based on the optimised raw

Hmmm...On the counter behind me is a newly acquired *ist D that supports TIFF as a capture option. I don't know if it is 8, 14, or 16-bit.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Hmmm...On the counter behind me is a newly acquired *ist D that supports TIFF as a capture option. I don't know if it is 8, 14, or 16-bit.

Oooh... Nice I've been thinking of getting one of those myself. Proper TTL flash capability, right?

But I've got that beat...

My 2000-vintage Pentax EI-200 offers TIFF... though now I come to think of it, it doesn't offer raw... so the *ist D trumps it after all

Joking aside, with that EI-200 - which is an extreme example, I realise - the TIFF files offer better latitude for post-processing than the JPEGs. It's why I'd like a TIFF option in my fantasy DSLR... it's kind of a half-way-house between raw and JPEG. Might be interesting to play around with that on your lovely new-to-you *ist D...

[GUB]

Isn't the concept of "raw cooking bad " really reserved for situations where the camera algorithms are covering for cheap and shoddy lenses ?