I just got my absolutely mint/gorgeous/beautiful..did I say mint D2x and I just wanted to know if anyone compresses their RAW files when shooting (Comp. NEF)? Thanks.

i always shoot compressed raw, smaller faster and i have not seen a difference in the files in my experience

I am always skeptical when manuals say things like, "with almost no effect on image quality." so thanks for replying and giving me your input!

I agree with John. I've compared so many images, trying to find a difference, and it just isn't there. Yeah, I've read all the scientific pontifications and theories

Thanks Jack. By the way, I am thinking about using one of my new UDMA 8GB cards in the D2x...any chance it will make a difference? I have plenty of regular Sandisk Ultra III's but I got a great deal on some UDMA cards and was curious. I cannot wait to take the D2x out tomorrow and shoot some birds using the HSC!

treebeard wrote:
I just got my absolutely mint/gorgeous/beautiful..did I say mint D2x and I just wanted to know if anyone compresses their RAW files when shooting (Comp. NEF)? Thanks.

Congrats. Great, great camera. I don't own one anymore, but I enjoyed it tremendously when I did. RAW compression will have no measurable effect. Use it without concern.

- Steve

It's nice to see some knowledgeable people who either have a D2x or have used one extensively. Hey...where's Trenchmonkey!

treebeard wrote:
Thanks Jack. By the way, I am thinking about using one of my new UDMA 8GB cards in the D2x...any chance it will make a difference? I have plenty of regular Sandisk Ultra III's but I got a great deal on some UDMA cards and was curious. I cannot wait to take the D2x out tomorrow and shoot some birds using the HSC!

I haven't used any UDMA enable cards in my D2x's, so I don't know about that. I use the Sandisk Ultra cards too. Speaking of HSC mode, I love it. I have shot tons of bird photos with it. The ~7MP raw file size is nice, and sometimes the 8FPS comes in handy too

Let us know about the cards ...

What's RAW
D2X HSC mode 200-400 w/1.4x wide open handheld 1100mm Straight OOC

I've been using the Sandisk Ducati 8GB's (they were on sale, and I needed bigger cards) in my X with no issues...

Not fair Trenchmonkey! It's 12 degrees here in NH...stop messing with my head!

The compressed NEFS use lossless compression, i.e. a zip equivalent . It improves card writing speed a tiny bit as there's less to write, but probably has a marginal battery impact as the camera has to do more processing. They are probably slightly slower to open on the PC too, but you won't notice any difference on any PC sold in the last 5 years. I've always shot compressed NEFS

the D2X uses lossy compression. lossless compression first became available on the D300/D3. it compresses the highlights which means in large areas of light even tones, you are more likely to see banding.

Herb...

firewireguy wrote:
The compressed NEFS use lossless compression, i.e. a zip equivalent.

the D300 and D3 were the first Nikons to support UDMA. they will run in PIO mode on the D2X, the same as the Extreme III cards.

Herb...

treebeard wrote:
I am thinking about using one of my new UDMA 8GB cards in the D2x...any chance it will make a difference?

HerbChong wrote:
the D2X uses lossy compression. lossless compression first became available on the D300/D3. it compresses the highlights which means in large areas of light even tones, you are more likely to see banding.

Herb...

firewireguy wrote:
The compressed NEFS use lossless compression, i.e. a zip equivalent.


The D2H has lossless raw compression

read the fine print. it is visually lossless which is not lossless.

Herb...

HerbChong wrote:
read the fine print. it is visually lossless which is not lossless.

Herb...

I know Herb. I own the camera. And if your end result is a picture, and the image is "visually lossless", well you get the idea.

sorry, that's not lossless. lossless has a very precise mathematical meaning. Nikon admits it too. with the right subject material, you can see the difference. it also says so in the fine print. JPEG is visually lossless by Nikon's definition too.

Herb...

I wanna see just one picture Herb to prove your point. having used the D2x for a few years before the D3 and having sold lots of prints from it that have held up for major publications , galleries and critical individuals. A picture is worth..........

We all know Herb doesn't take pictures. He enjoys quantum mechanics in his spare time.

i don't have to post anything nor show any examples. visually lossless isn't the same as lossless by the mathematics alone. reading the source to dcraw, the open source RAW converter, and looking at how it handles lossy compressed NEF and it is very clear that it is throwing away highlight information. just like any other simple lossy compression algorithm, there are times when it overdoes things. just because you don't see the loss, that doesn't mean those highlights aren't being thrown away.

Herb...

jmcfadden wrote:
I wanna see just one picture Herb to prove your point. having used the D2x for a few years before the D3 and having sold lots of prints from it that have held up for major publications , galleries and critical individuals. A picture is worth..........

HerbChong wrote:
i don't have to post anything nor show any examples. visually lossless isn't the same as lossless by the mathematics alone. reading the source to dcraw, the open source RAW converter, and looking at how it handles lossy compressed NEF and it is very clear that it is throwing away highlight information. just like any other simple lossy compression algorithm, there are times when it overdoes things. just because you don't see the loss, that doesn't mean those highlights aren't being thrown away.

Herb...

jmcfadden wrote:
I wanna see just one picture Herb to prove your point. having used the D2x for a few years before the D3 and having sold lots of prints from it that have held up for major publications , galleries and critical individuals. A picture is worth..........



and so you ask us to believe the math and your perceptions of it? Like I said i tried to find things and on rare and i mean the rarest of times in testing i thought perhaps there was a hint of difference, but truthfully in any real world shooting and Lots of HDR work where one could expect to run into seeing these so called benefits i never truly could tell if it was there or not. Sort of the same with the 14 vs 12 bit arguments. I am not saying that on theoretical terms there is no difference , just in any practical and real world shooting outside the test bench

J