List of cameras that can record RAW internally

Doug Jensen

Doug Jensen

Veteran
Does anyone know where I could find a current list of cameras (mirrorless and cinema) that have the ability to record 4K RAW internally?
 
Everything from RED, everything from Blackmagic (besides studio cameras), Canon C200 - R5 - R5 C - R3 - C70 - 1DX Mark III - C300 Mark III - C500 Mark II - and Nikon Z9.

The rest were sued to remove CinemaDNG or ProRes RAW (including Z9 which will likely, eventually remove it).

If there's anything missing (don't think so), I or someone else will add it.
 
There are also discontinued cameras from Kinefinity which shoot KineRAW/CinemaDNG and Digital Bolex which shoot CinemaDNG.

And the Sigma fp/fp L can record 8-bit CinemaDNG internally (12-bit externally).
 
Arri Alexa LF, MiniLF, Alexa 65, Alexa 35. Amira's (with license) and older Alexa's can record RAW internally, as well, but they aren't (true) 4K/UHD. Although Open Gate ARRIRAW on the SXT W is close.
 
NorBro said:
Everything from RED, everything from Blackmagic (besides studio cameras), Canon C200 - R5 - R5 C - R3 - C70 - 1DX Mark III - C300 Mark III - C500 Mark II - and Nikon Z9.
The rest were sued to remove CinemaDNG or ProRes RAW (including Z9 which will likely, eventually remove it).
If there's anything missing (don't think so), I or someone else will add it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it very much.
 
ahalpert said:
why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Hard to explain. I'm working on something that involves still photographers making the transition to shooting video and it would be helpful for me to know which cameras can do internal RAW with no extra recorders and other accessories. In general, I don't think shooting RAW is worth the trouble for most people doing small productions, but if you've already got a camera that can do it internally it is hard to argue against.
 
If you include the ARRIs in your write-ups, it's worth mentioning the license costs almost $4K (or once did), and only the ALEXAs with the XR module offer ARRIRAW. Kinefinity had the same business model in their older cameras (pay for features like ARRI).

RED infamously flipped this business approach and instead charged for additional parts/hardware.
 
NorBro said:
If you include the ARRIs in your write-ups, it's worth mentioning the license costs almost $4K (or once did), and only the ALEXAs with the XR module offer ARRIRAW. Kinefinity had the same business model in their older cameras (pay for features like ARRI).

RED infamously flipped this business approach and instead charged for additional parts/hardware.
Click to expand...

The license for the Amira is over $3K, still, but records RAW in the stock hardware configuration. The mini LF and Alexa 35 record RAW 'out of the box', no extra license or module required(I know you were referring to the "legacy" models).
 
AMIRA has CFast cards so it better, ha...that's what others at that time were using as well. Blackmagic, Canon, Z CAM (which, by the way, add it to the list, totally forgot about Z CAM and ZRAW) and eventually Komodo.

The idea of the module was because the SxS cards likely couldn't handle it.
 
NorBro said:
If you include the ARRIs in your write-ups, it's worth mentioning the license costs almost $4K (or once did), and only the ALEXAs with the XR module offer ARRIRAW. Kinefinity had the same business model in their older cameras (pay for features like ARRI).

RED infamously flipped this business approach and instead charged for additional parts/hardware.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I'm mostly interested in mirrorless cameras that can do stills and RAW video internally. Plus any inexpensive cinema cameras that can do RAW internally.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, for sure...everything in this thread is pretty much it.

IMO, the thing with RAW is that it's more marketing now than ever before.

Decades ago, it always had one very specific, special purpose in photography and that was direct, non-destructive access to data, but now everyone creates something in-house that has a high bitrate while providing basic support in a few NLEs and they call it RAW.

I don't necessary think that's wrong (especially from a corporate perspective), but the concept of RAW recording isn't as valuable as it once was. I mean some point-and-shoots now offer external RAW recording...it's like what does that even mean anymore?

As much as I love REDCODE RAW, I would 100% agree that using a strong codec/format in which you're not even doing that much to it to begin with is enough for most people.
 
Yeah, I agree with all that. For stills I'd never think of shooting anything but RAW. But for video it seems like overkill without much benefit by the time everything is graded and exported.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Yeah, I agree with all that. For stills I'd never think of shooting anything but RAW. But for video it seems like overkill without much benefit by the time everything is graded and exported.
Click to expand...

I shoot all of my stills(DSLR & mirrorless) RAW(actually RAW & JPEG), too.

Everything being equal, I wouldn't turn down having the ability for a (video) camera to shoot RAW, but I've only been asked for it and done it twice in the ~seven years that I've owned a camera that could. Once for Sony for some promotional type material and again for some BTS/EPK green screen interviews for a Disney/Pixar movie. I asked one of my buddies that owns an Alexa mini and an Amira if he had the RAW licenses and he said he did. I asked if he had ever shot ARRIRAW or been asked for it and he said no, so I have just kept the $3K+ in my pocket that it would cost to unlock it on the Amira.

*I should slightly amend the RAW comment. When I've shot on RED's, I think it's always been REDCODE RAW, but I don't own a RED and that's pretty much what everyone shoots anyway. I doubt ProRes is used that much with those cameras, even though it's an option.*
 
ahalpert said:
I would think it's probably more beneficial if you regularly miss your white balance and exposure by a large margin
Click to expand...

Which is why so many of today's newer/younger shooters "have to have it" (or at least log), because they don't have the discipline/knowledge to nail the basics in-camera while shooting or came up using cameras that weren't/aren't easy to adjust while shooting(DSLR's/mirrorless).
 
Run&Gun said:
Which is why so many of today's newer/younger shooters "have to have it" (or at least log), because they don't have the discipline/knowledge to nail the basics in-camera while shooting or came up using cameras that weren't/aren't easy to adjust while shooting(DSLR's/mirrorless).
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Run&Gun said:
I shoot all of my stills(DSLR & mirrorless) RAW(actually RAW & JPEG), too.

Everything being equal, I wouldn't turn down having the ability for a (video) camera to shoot RAW, but I've only been asked for it and done it twice in the ~seven years that I've owned a camera that could. Once for Sony for some promotional type material and again for some BTS/EPK green screen interviews for a Disney/Pixar movie. I asked one of my buddies that owns an Alexa mini and an Amira if he had the RAW licenses and he said he did. I asked if he had ever shot ARRIRAW or been asked for it and he said no, so I have just kept the $3K+ in my pocket that it would cost to unlock it on the Amira.

*I should slightly amend the RAW comment. When I've shot on RED's, I think it's always been REDCODE RAW, but I don't own a RED and that's pretty much what everyone shoots anyway. I doubt ProRes is used that much with those cameras, even though it's an option.*
Click to expand...

I only shoot 16-bit Sony RAW or X-OCN with my F55 -- because I have to use those codecs when shooting 120 fps 4K -- which is all I use that camera for anymore. Sony RAW and X-OCN @ 120 fps chew up a lot of card capacity pretty fast, but they are lovely codecs to work with. I can definitely tell the difference when I'm grading RAW/X-OCN vs. XACV-I in Resolve. A ton of or more leeway with RAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top