news Nikon Digital Cameras

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by SG210, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. SG210

    SG210 Guest

    SG210, Jan 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. SG210

    Darrell Guest

    He is claiming a Nikon D80 (retouched D2H), a D90 and a D200. The D200 I
    can't see what it was the D200 was. I am only expecting a D200, the D70
    replacement is probably next year. Nikon hasn't changed their models as
    often as Canon.
    Darrell, Jan 24, 2005
  4. SG210

    Sheldon Guest

    If anything it looks like the D80 will offer a TIFF image. Can't they
    accomplish that with a firmware upgrade in the D70?
    Sheldon, Jan 25, 2005
  5. SG210

    Darrell Guest

    Why bother with a TIFF image RAW is better!
    Darrell, Jan 25, 2005
  6. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest


    RAW is just unprocessed camera format image information. As an image file it is
    not very useful before conversion. The conversion from RAW to TIFF requires the
    right software of course, but the resulting TIFF file contains all of the
    information and is interchangeable. If you sent me a RAW file from your camera,
    I wouldn't be able to use it in any case.
    Alan Browne, Jan 25, 2005
  7. SG210

    Darrell Guest

    Raw is 12 bit on my cam, TIFF and JPEG is 8 bit. RAW is better

    Darrell, Jan 25, 2005
  8. SG210

    Ron Lacey Guest

    A RAW file allows you to make non destructive alterations in the
    conversion process that can't be done with a tiff where since such
    attributes have already been applied in the conversion they'ld have to
    be undone. A RAW file is more compact than a tiff and doesn't require
    in camera processing. Since you can't edit and save back a RAW file
    it can be used as proof of copyright. I'm not sure why anyone would
    send you a RAW file from their camera but if they did you could
    process it with a number of third part applications including PSCS,
    Elements 3 and PSP9 and as well as several available dedicated RAW


    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario
    Ron Lacey, Jan 25, 2005
  9. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    1) If your RAW converter doesn't generate TIIF at 16 bits if required, there is
    something wrong with the RAW converter.

    2) RAW is not a universal format, it is unique to each manuf.

    3) After various things like brighness, contrast, color balance, etc. are
    adjusted, working at 16 bits/color is no longer of much value for display or
    printing. Archiving, it is worth it as you may do further mods in the future.

    Alan Browne, Jan 25, 2005
  10. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    The RAW file's only benefit it its 'originality' and at that, the benefit is far

    RAW is not an interchange format as TIFF is. No service bureau or magazine
    wants RAW, they want TIFF. So you have to make the conversion and have a master
    of that image in TIFF, processed lightly or heavilly as you see fit.

    Once converted to TIFF, there is no reason to bother with RAW, other than to
    archive it as the 'most' original file and for copyright reasons as you
    mentioned. At that, it would be most sensible to archive in TIFF for the
    future. TIFF has a much wider user and applications base than all the
    individual RAW formats combined.

    I will not be surprised if "RAW" disappears completely in favour of a universal
    standard for still photography sometime in the next couple years. Adobe's DNG
    initiative is one such standard up for adoption.

    Compact? At $0.40 for a blank DVD I don't think anyone should care for how
    compact RAW is v. TIFF.
    Alan Browne, Jan 25, 2005
  11. SG210

    Ron Lacey Guest

    In your opinion I guess. Again the ability to nondestructively adjust
    white balance is a major advantage, it allows a photographer to rely
    on auto white balance confident it can be overriden later.
    Obviously you convert it before sending it duh.
    Yes of course, I always archive my RAW and full sized conversions duh
    Adobe/s DNG is a RAW format and requires conversion just like CRW and
    NEF. It doesn't appear to be gathering much support from camera
    makers nonetheless.
    I wasn't referring to archiving but rather in camera media. CF cards
    are still a little more that 40 cents a shot. As well none of the
    Canon SLRs will save to tiff, RAW is the only uncompressed option for
    Canon users.

    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario
    Ron Lacey, Jan 25, 2005
  12. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    Since, as you say below, you archive the RAW, you can always come back to it.
    The point being that it would be _one_ standard for all. Adoption of such a
    standard (whether Adobes or another) takes a couple years to get adopted.
    Duh yourself. The flash memory can be reused after you transfer to PC. Per
    your numbers, price per shot is 1 cent after 40 times around. ... etc.
    Alan Browne, Jan 25, 2005
  13. SG210

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    [ ... ]
    However, the cost of sufficient CF card storage for an extended
    shooting run away from the computer can be significant. I was at a
    cousin's wedding earlier this year. Between the trip up (during fall
    foliage), the actual wedding, a celebration the next day, and the trip
    back (more foliage, rock outcrops, and geometric forms of various
    bridges, I shot enough to *fill* a 1 GB CF card at medium/fine setting
    (while the camera preducted 522 shots, it actually held 706 shots before
    I had to switch to the spare CF card. My total shot count was closer
    to 1000.

    IIRC, the camera predicts 87 shots when shooting in RAW, and (of
    course) fewer with RAW+BASIC which would at least allow me to examine my
    results with the camera's display. I can't do that with pure RAW,
    thanks to the design of the camera firmware. (Perhaps that would be
    something to add in a future revision of the firmware, or in a "hacked"
    version which has been recently discussed.

    I suspect that the camera's prediction in the case of RAW is
    more accurate, with less variability in a lossless compression as
    compared with the lossy compression of JPEG.

    This would mean 11.49 CF cards, at around $250.00 each (for the
    1 GB size and the speed which I use). That is $3000.00 -- three times
    the cost of the D70 body when I got it.

    And I don't carry along a computer on a trip like this. A
    laptop capable of burning DVD-ROMs is yet another expensive thing to
    watch over during the trip.

    Yes -- I would have liked to have the RAW format to work with
    for a few of the shots, but was not willing to pay the price to allow
    that while shooting at my normal rate when presented with such

    So -- the size of RAW *is* an important factor under certain
    conditions to some users. I will use it when I am close enough to home
    so I can download the images to a computer which I trust, but not when
    on a long trip. (Unless someone is willing to supply me with the extra
    ten CF cards, or the money to acquire them. :)

    DoN. Nichols, Jan 26, 2005
  14. SG210

    Joe Makowiec Guest

    It also predicts 87 for raw + basic (Lexar 1GB 4x card). I recently ran
    off 100 pictures in that mode, and had about 1/3 of the card left.
    Joe Makowiec, Jan 26, 2005
  15. RAW is linear. JPEG is logarithmic. Eyes are logarithmic, btw.

    RAW may be better if you want to twiddle with your images
    extensively, JPEG may be better if you make hundreds of images/week
    and have a non-related job.

    Both serve different needs, to proclaim one as universally better
    is akin to claiming coins being better than bank notes for being


    PS: Your email address is completely broken.
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 26, 2005
  16. cardreader+hard drive (or burner) combos exist.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 26, 2005
  17. SG210

    Ron Lacey Guest

    Get with the program, that's not the point. If I'm on hike with my
    backpack, bodies, lenses, tripod and misc gear I don't want to be
    loaded down with my laptop too so I prefer to get the most out of the
    available CF cards.
    Ron Lacey, Jan 26, 2005
  18. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    So you should be shooting film on these trips?
    Or shooting fewer, but more useable, photos?
    Do some chimping and delete the less useable images?
    Get a used laptop ($500-$1000) to store images at lunchtime and the end of the day?
    Alan Browne, Jan 26, 2005
  19. SG210

    Alan Browne Guest

    In my program I actually spend some time taking images. Even at RAW, I doubt I
    could fill a 1GB card in a day ... or 2. I suppose at a party or a wedding (as
    a guest) I could do more than that snapshooting, but then the images wouldn't
    need more than "fine" level storage.

    As to carrying stuff on a hike, one body is more than enough and CF cards take
    little weight and volume. Less than film.

    Alan Browne, Jan 26, 2005
  20. SG210

    John Francis Guest

    As a very rough approximation, 1GB on a 6-8MP DSLR should give
    around the same number of RAW images as a couple of rolls of film.

    Back in the days of film it was by no means uncommon to shoot a
    roll of film in a day. I'd say that 0.5GB - 1GB of raw images
    in a single day is all too easy to accomplish. Heck, I've shot
    well over 1GB of JPG images in a single weekend.
    John Francis, Jan 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.