That is not what it said at all. What it actually said was:

"New High Efficiency RAW file format maintains image quality akin to uncompressed raw files but with file sizes approximately 30% smaller for faster reading/writing to the memory card."

It also said that the camera was able to buffer up to 1,000 full raw images so there is no need to "compromise" images for processing as you claim. The 30% smaller file sizes are simply an option for those who may be using smaller capacity data cards....as are other even smaller image files. Just an option, not a requirement.

The camera, with the revolutionary new dual XSpeed 7 image processors is fully capable of delivering the larger 55mp full raw files without a hiccup.

Compare and contrast that to your vaunted SD1 Merrill (can't believe I'm bringing this up) which according to the comprehensive review by DPReview can't hold a candle to that type of performance:

"The SD1's single biggest operational flaw is the length of time it takes to write files to the card. The SD1's Raw files are huge (typically 45-60 MB), and even with respectably fast media, the camera will take 15 seconds or more to write a single file. Most unfortunate, though, is the fact that certain button functions become either erratic or completely inaccessible while it's doing so."

But of course the SD1 Merrill is a dinosaur so direct comparisons are a bit silly.

____________________________
So---you want to extend this thread into a squabble about sensors, do you?-----I did not bring up the revolutionary sensor of the Sigma $10K SD1---but since you seem to have fixation on expecting the topic to turn in that direction---(I cannot see who is writing above---is it "Flip1948?")---the far superior SD1 color camera with a FoveonX3 sensor,does not take 15 seconds to write. [IT TAKES EXACTLY 4 SECONDS TO RIGHT A 45-50MB file in the camera. And I have only a slow CF card.] Is that too long for you? And I have only a Certainly it was designed for single worthwhile photos---NOT MOVIES---with a sideline in stills. As for your B&H quote I said exactly what they said that the raw files were cut30% to acquire the movie-type flow of images in raw. Of course also---if you wanted a phone-type snap---it could output at 2mb or less in highly compressed jpeg. But nobody would pay $5 grand to take what their phones take for nothing? To bad the $5K marvel doesn't have a color sensor. It is a b&w sensor with algorithms and filters which turn a non-color Bayer into a synthetic color---not like the full color stacked FoveonX3 sensor. So quit the lies. Your started this change in topic-------ew

____________________________
So---you want to extend this thread into a squabble about sensors, do you?-----I did not bring up the revolutionary sensor of the Sigma $10K SD1---but since you seem to have fixation on expecting the topic to turn in that direction---(I cannot see who is writing above---is it "Flip1948?")---the far superior SD1 color camera with a FoveonX3 sensor,does not take 15 seconds to write. [IT TAKES EXACTLY 4 SECONDS TO RIGHT A 45-50MB file in the camera. And I have only a slow CF card.] Is that too long for you? Certainly it was designed for single worthwhile photos---NOT MOVIES---with a sideline in stills. As for your B&H quote I said exactly what they said that the raw files were cut 30% to acquire the movie-type flow of images in raw. Of course also---if you wanted a phone-type snap---it could output at 2mb or less in highly compressed jpeg. But nobody would pay $5 grand to take what their phones take for nothing? To bad the $5K marvel doesn't have a color sensor. It is a b&w sensor with algorithms and filters which turn a non-color Bayer into a synthetic color sensor---not like the full color stacked FoveonX3 sensor. So quit the lies. You started this change in topic---Flip1948.-------ew

Like I said...I can't believe I would bring up the Foveon as it would lead to more meaningless nonsense. Can you take another picture during those claimed 4 seconds?

You know what would be a better experiment. Take 3 shots, one at ISO 1600, one at ISO 3200 and one at ISO 6400 and post them to UHH using "store original" so we can see them in all of their glory.

When you do that I'll do the same with my lowly 24MP Nikon D610 and it's old inferior technology Bayer sensor and we'll see which camera produces the cleaner images.

I know I won't have to take those shots because you have been asked to provide samples before and haven't done it.