Reduced RAW options.?

[jr20516v]

Hi All,
I was reading on a Canon 7D tutorial by Ken Rockwell that he thought the 7D was a waste having 18 megapixels and recommends reducing your RAW files in camera to either RAWm or RAW small.
He goes on to say that the picture quality is virtually the same as using the max RAW option.
As i am purchasing this camera shortly and if what he says is true then it has many advantages, more images on the card, less loading onto PC etc etc
What are peoples thoughts on this.? To me it sounds too good to be true.

[cosmicma]

the best image quality is going to come from the full raw file
the way i see it if your going to use the smaller sized raw file you might as well use jpeg
they are both a compromise

[donoreo]

I think Mr. Rockwell may be alone in his opinions in this matter. The file sizes are not that big anyway.

[John B.]

I agree with Don. With memory cards getting cheaper and holding more files, why skimp on file sizes? Besides, it's best not to have many hundreds of images on one card. You know what they say about putting all your eggs in one basket.

[wavemachine]

Sorry but other than storage space (which is inexpensive these days) I fail to understand why you would reduce the size of the image, of course if he is assuming every one prints on 6 x 4 then I maybe can see some logic.

The 18mp sensor on the 7D captures an amazing amount of detail so shooting at 18mp gives masses of cropping potential as well for example a shot of an insect or the moon on 300mm lens.

So for maximum flexability, image detail and image quality I would go for the highest resolution.

[jr20516v]

I thought this was the case but needed to see what others thought.
The way Mr Rockwell put it was " for a 50% drop in file size one can still get 90% of the quality"
It got me thinking especially when a RAW image in my 7D is 30meg as against much less in my 40D [ which has great quality images]

Thx for your thoughts everybody...appreciate !