D200, uncompressed raw, hi isos

Personally I see no difference

 

Don't know about high ISO, but I use uncompressed RAW.

It preserves the highlights much better, especially if you have to recover them :Crunk: like I usually have to do.....

 

IMHO, no difference. And the space savings is huge.

Nancy

 

The only place I have seen a difference is in keeping some highlights, and that is pretty subtle. The biggest reason I see for shooting uncompressed is that you don't lose any information. Given the state of software, and how it evolves, next years versions will do a better job of digging information out of the data than today's, or yesterday's. The more data you have, the better chance you have of getting better results.

That being said, I shoot compressed far more often than uncompressed myself.

 

I see no difference between uncompressed and compressed. I use compressed raw.

 

I really wish Nikon would use lossless compression, there just isn't a valid reason not to IMHO. Losslessly-compressed NEF's would only be about 10% bigger than the current compressed files, which would still be a significant space savings over uncompressed NEF. This will be even more important going forward if they release a 20mp FF camera.

 

Watch your histogram and blinkies and expose correctly...
Thats what we strive for

 

Hi,

I don't see a reason to shoot compressed raw at all - when I shoot raw, I want all the information in it I can get. If I don't mind lossy compression, than I switch to JPEG, and get not only smaller image sizes but also easier workflow and considerably larger in-camera buffer througput.

With capacity/price ration incresed by a factor of 2 for hard disks, and roughtly a factor of 4 for CF cards, both over the last 12 months, IMHO the file size argument for shooting compressed file formats is becoming pretty much irrelevant, at least for something like the 10MP of a D200.