asked the question in the D600 treat, but maybe itīs worth one of itīs own.
Some Nikons offer different RAW settings. I am tempted to use lossy compressed RAW und 12 bit to reduce the filesize as Nikon claims it will not compromise imagequality in a visible amount.
What do you think, use?
Am I giving away visible color-depht and reduce my possibilities to push in post?
Jamesbjenkins wrote:
Nikon can say it doesn't affect the image, but it's simple math. If the file is compressed, there's less data to work with in post.
Although your statement is true can we actually see a difference in a final product? Each person needs to do their own testing to see if it matters to them.
14bit lossless compressed here, not sure about 12 and 14 bit, (processing dependant) but if its a better graduation of tones or 1/3 of a stop then its worth it.
Lossless compressed gets me twice as many images per card as uncompressed. Oddly, the camera still estimates the same number, but you end up with about twice as many. I've compared the files as well and it really is lossless, no difference in shadow recovery ability or highlights etc... I compared a tripod locked-down shot each way and it was indistiguishable.
People I trust have done tests, and say 12 bit lossy looks as good and is just as recoverable as 14 bit lossless. Personally I have a D700 so I use full quality, but if I had a D600/D800 I'd definitely be using compressed.
D800 files are SUPER slow to process, compared with D700 files, even on my i7 desktop with multiple SSDs. I've started using compressed, resampled DNG files, which speeds things up a bit. I actually had a nightmare than my D700s failed and I had to buy D800s.
