The main benefit of sRAW/mRAW is smaller files: you get more frames per card, use less storage, and may simplify workflows where final output is relatively small, such as web use or timelapse/video delivery.

The main downside is flexibility. Once you choose a reduced-size RAW in-camera, you’ve permanently given up resolution, which reduces how much you can crop and limits future large prints or reprocessing. It also means the camera decides how pixels are discarded; if you shoot full RAW, you can downsize later using whatever method best suits the image.

A practical point is that your needs may change over time. Photos that seem unimportant now may later be worth revisiting, printing larger, or editing differently, and full RAW preserves the most options.

As for image quality, the provided answers do not suggest any special noise-reduction advantage from sRAW/mRAW beyond the general fact that smaller output can be easier to use for small final display sizes.

So in most cases, reduced-size RAW is mainly a storage/workflow trade-off, not a quality upgrade. If you know your output will stay small, it can make sense; if you want maximum editing and cropping latitude, full RAW is the safer choice.