I was reading the brochure at NikonUSA and the photog has the option of saving files as 12 bit or 14 bit. Why would a photog want to save files in 12 bit when 14 bit is available without a fps performance penalty?
Thanks
File Format 1) NEF (RAW): 12 or 14 bit, lossless compressed, compressed, or uncompressed,
2) TIFF (RGB), 3) JPEG: JPEG-Baseline compliant with fine (approx. 1:4),
normal (approx. 1:8), or basic (approx. 1:16) compression (Size priority);
Optimal quality compression available, 4) NEF (RAW) + JPEG: Single
photograph recorded in both NEF (RAW) and JPEG formats
There is a penalty for both frame rate and buffer fill as far as I know though... maybe doesn't say it explicitly in the brochure, but I'm sure it's the case. With all previous bodies that had the option for 14-bit saves, there was a pretty heavy penalty paid shooting in 14-bit.
I don't know that this helps but I am trying to answer your question, obviously there is a penalty, not extreme, as shown by the following information direct from Nikon:
The D3S will be able to capture roughly double the number of frames in an extended burst than a D3 - at least a D3 that has not been through the buffer memory expansion service. Nikon's burst depth specifications are as follows (FX Format, UDMA memory card):
Well it is late (or early I guess) here and I have not thought this through but obviously there is a difference in physical raw file sizes between a 12 and 14 bit. So without getting into crazy detail Nikon (always the engineering company) is providing you with options that could provide some positive things in PP handling smaller raw files if you don't feel the need for 14 bit files. Crazy thought on my part, maybe I am wrong.
i have a D3 with the buffer UG and it has been used at 14 bit since the day it came out of the box. generally raw or raw + jpg f
raw 36 images at 200 iso
raw+jpg f 32 images at 200 iso
I have been shooting D3 since the very beginning and was not aware of the S or any thing I missed, that until I accidentlly saw S here and now wondering why? why S? Well, heck i should buy it. It is NEW. And again D3 is still my baby and I am really confortable and content with it and I don't think I need any thing more. But again! A new refreshed , not a new one? well...
On a second thought I may want to wait for D3 with 30 MPs.. and 16 instead of 14...
nugeny wrote:
On a second thought I may want to wait for D3 with 30 MPs.. and 16 instead of 14...
jamach wrote:
I think that is called the Canon 1D Mk 4.
I think you're misinformed.
The 1D4 has more MP than the D3s, so the Canon will have greater resolution and the Nikon will have less noise. The 1D4 has 1080p video versus 720p in the D3s, so the Canon has more resolution (but lots of video-industry people actually prefer 720 for some reason, so not that big a deal). Other than that, they are essentially equal with all differences being minor. The 1D4 is a worthy competitor to the Nikon, but thinking of the 1D4 as "the camera D3 owners have been waiting for" is laughable.
Nikon diehards would never consider a 1d4, that's for sure. But Canon diehards did consider the Nikon D3's and made their move. One reason probably was one of problems - focusing issues. The Nikons have held a reputation as goto tools that one uses to get the shot. The Canons failed.
Nikon maintains a 12 bit option and reduced video performance while charging a premium. Equating lack of features with failed performance may not be equal.
But it is laughable that there are no options besides a Nikon in the pro world. Make that the well endowed and pro world.
One of the best marketing tools Nikon has is the Nikon Pro dealer - just hold one of the beasts and rapid fire once. That should be enough.
As soon as possible real soon I will be making the move to a pro body, not sure if Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leaf, Mamiya, etc, but will be digital, in the meantime should I die the ambulance tech will probably be extracating the D90 from my rigor mortis affected hand.
jamach wrote:
Nikon diehards would never consider a 1d4, that's for sure. But Canon diehards did consider the Nikon D3's and made their move.
Most Nikon users (including, but not limited to, diehards) would not consider the 1D4 since they have no compelling reason to do so. It does provide some small advantages over the D3s, but not many and not major ones. So anyone who is already heavily invested in Nikon would not see the 1D4 as a sufficient reason to switch according to my logic: it is cheaper and more logical to upgrade within the Nikon line than to switch systems just to get what the 1D4 provides.
But my previous post was meant only in that sense: 1D4 as an upgrade option for an otherwise-satisfied Nikon user, specifically a Nikon D3 user such as the one to whose post you responded. Someone with less money invested can switch more easily and for less earth-shattering gains if he/she so desires, for all the obvious reasons. People shooting D3- and 1D3-class bodies tend to already love their system and only switch for major differences or major gains.
jamach wrote:
But it is laughable that there are no options besides a Nikon in the pro world. Make that the well endowed and pro world.
If that is what you interpreted from my post, then I did not express myself clearly. Sorry about that. There are all sorts of options in the pro world, and I expect the 1D4 to work flawlessly and put the 1D3's AF fiasco into the history books. That's one hell of a camera, and so is the 21-MP 1Ds3 that's been in circulation for one or two years longer than the D3x, and so (I'm sure) will be the 1Ds4 that is surely coming down the pike. There are other brands as well, but for most pro work the two market-share leaders are Canon and Nikon so those are the ones I track most closely.
You couldn't pry me away from Nikon... if you gave me $40K in brand-new Canon gear, I'd promptly sell it for $35K and get Nikon stuff. But that's because I love the ergonomics, metering, color rendering, CLS, functionality, reliability, quality control, copy variation (or lack thereof) and other things that are in my personal opinion either inherently better or a much better fit to my style and preferences. I'm a Nikon user, and until/unless something very dramatic changes then I'm staying a Nikon user.
But that doesn't mean I expect everyone to see things the same way, or prefer the same things, or have the same opinions. You are welcome to choose whatever you wish, and I'll be happy that we have a competitive marketplace with multiple great options that keep all suppliers on their toes. A competitive tide lifts most products, if you will, and I'll be happy if whatever you buy works well for you... whether it's a Nikon or anything else is not relevant to me.
