Jump to content

Is the RAW mode in D80 inferior?


zan_barrage

Recommended Posts

I had just about made up my mind to buy the D80 when I read somewhere that the

RAW output (equivilan to RAW as Nikon does not do RAW) on the D80 is inferior.

Is there any truth to this info? Please help as this will be a deal breaker for

me. I would rather go with a lower level A100 or XTI and get RAW than get half

RAW with this excellent camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Nikon DSLR model produced so far supports the RAW format, which is called Nikon Electronic Format (NEF).

 

On the higher-end models such as D2, D3, D200 and D300, the user can choose between straight RAW and compressed RAW. I have the D2X and D200, where RAW compression reduces file sizes by roughly 50%. I have made careful comparisons between RAW and compressed RAW files under various shooting conditions. So far I am unable to tell any difference between the two in terms of image quality.

 

On the D80, the NEF files are always compressed. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

For more information, see this:

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/nef-compression/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference I've noticed between compressed and uncompressed NEFs from my D2H are that the compressed NEFs take longer to process. This is significant enough with my ancient 800 MHz Pentium III with 512 MB RAM that I don't used compressed NEFs. It won't be a factor with a faster computer. Even on a modest P4 system the compressed NEFs process much faster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Shun says, don't worry about Nikon's compressed NEF. I also only shoot compressed NEF. It is lossy, but not visibly so. Nikon uses some sort of trick to do more compression in highlights where it's not as noticeable than with shadows where compression could cause significant difference.

 

Battery life with compressed NEF is also improved as fewer bytes need to be written to the memory card. (The power used writing to the memory card is much larger than the power calculating the NEF compression.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This factor is insignificant. Nikon cameras are just as capable when it comes to "raw" images

as others in their range.

 

It should not, imho, be your "deal breaker". Your decision should be based on which camera

feels best in your hands and has features laid out the way you think you will want them and

which system has lenses you want, because the image quality is about the same and the

optics available are about the same in quality now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your excellent answers. I do feel a bit better about the compressed NEF, but what I am wondering is are all the experiments really testing the compressed NEF V/S the NEF, or are they testing the software capability of discerning the difference. I don't mean to be picky, but there is an important difference in interpreting the results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aa I recall, according to Thom Hogan's book on the D80, the only potentially "lossy" part of the D80 NEF compression is in the highlights. He says Nikon uses a compression curve that approximates the human eye's ability to see variations in brightness at the high end of the scale, so it should be visually undetectable. In the dark and midtones, it uses lossless compression. It also does this compression at 12 bits, so even subtle differences that may be detectable by software (as opposed to by looking at the image) in the highlights would likely be wiped out when the image is reduced to 8 bits for printing.

 

So, again, unless you are shooting images where retaining all invisible-to-the-eye data in the highlights is critical, and you will be using this data at 12 bits, it seems unlikely you will ever detect a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The magazines and stock agency I submit to tell me they see no quality difference between the D80 & D200 files. I know I have never lost a sale because of what camera I use. Here's a link to a discussion that goes into it. There are some Nikon technicians involved the answers. It will be more important to decide what NEF converter you will use--something no one has mentioned, surprisingly. That's where you will see differences.

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID236/1687.html#6

 

 

Kent in SD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another reference. Thom Hogan makes mention of compressed NEF format <a href="http://bythom.com/qadraw.htm">here</a>, wherein he states:

<blockquote><q>this works without penalty <b>unless</b> you make large changes to highlight data. Where I see small, resolvable differences is in something like a wedding dress detail after large amounts of post processing and sharpening are applied. </q></blockquote>

 

So, you'd have to have a photo with lots of bright subject matter, then do lots of alteration/sharpening to see minimal differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...