41MB files from Z6?

[acnomad]

During the brief time my Z6 was in for warranty work, I had a loaner Z6 on consignment that generated file sizes of 41 to 42MB. I double checked the EXIF data to make sure it wasn't a Z7. Why would the NEF files be so large?

 

[Palouse]

Nefs or Tiffs?

Uncompressed Nefs would be my guess.

 

[Palouse]

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[acnomad]

Thanks for looking in the manual, Nick. I suppose I could have done that on my own. Yes, you're right - my body is set for lossless compression and the loaner must have been set for uncompressed. Now that you've reminded me that choices are available in this regard, I seem to recall reading elsewhere that there is no discernible difference between NEFs saved with lossless compression and uncompressed in terms of editability. Is that right?

 

[daveg]

Storage is cheap.

Your PC will probably not notice the small difference in file size.

Why compromise. I have never set anything other than highest quality on any of my Nikons.

DG

 

[Mike Buckley]

This thread reminds me that I actually have no idea what kind of NEF I've got my camera configured to create or what the options are. I bought the camera nine years ago. I don't remember the cost of storage ever being an issue but I do remember in those days that the amount of time required to open a large file was an issue, especially when opening many files in a single day such as after returning from a vacation.

 

[Clix Pix]

When I got my new camera a couple of weeks ago I was faced with the decision about compressed vs uncompressed, and I finally decided to go with uncompressed in order to get the absolute most out of the lenses and the camera, and so far I have not had any issues with the computer choking on the large files. Then again, I have not yet gone out on an all-day excursion where I've done a lot of shooting that would fill up one or more SD cards......that might make a difference! Storage is definitely inexpensive and once I have culled, edited and processed images they eventually go to an external drive rather than remain on the computer's 1 TB SSD.

 

[Palouse]

I got with lossless compression. My MacBook thanks me.

 

[acnomad]

Thanks all for commenting - it has helped me recall the rationale that drove my decision to set the Z6 for lossless compression.

Your PC will probably not notice the small difference in file size.

That's true once the files are copied from card to PC, but for a large number of files, the transfer time has been a factor. In fact, one of the reasons I sold the Z7 was because I didn't want (or need) large files!

I do remember in those days that the amount of time required to open a large file was an issue, especially when opening many files in a single day

To a lesser degree, this remains a factor today.

an all-day excursion where I've done a lot of shooting that would fill up one or more SD cards

Yes! Every now and then, I fill a card while action is occurring and miss a shot. Then, it takes me a moment to realize that the camera hasn't malfunctioned and that I need to swap cards.

I got with lossless compression. My MacBook thanks me.

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me also.

 

[j t]

Lossless compression makes the exact same image, pixel by pixel, that uncompressed does. There's no advantage to using uncompressed. I suppose it's included for any editing software that isn't updated to handle the compression method.
(Lossy compression, like jpg uses, tries to simplify the image data where it's unlikely to be noticed.)

Lossless compression methods are a well-studied part of computer science. A file can be compressed, then uncompressed, and the bits are all exactly the same. So it's used for backing up databases and other critical data.