RAW/NEF size D80 Vs D200

[arun_seetharam]

<p>A few months back I bought a D80 as a back up for the other cameras I had.<br>

I shoot only RAW. I observed recently that the size of the RAW file generated by D80 and D200 are vastly different. D80 is about 8 to 10M and D200 creates 16 - 18M per picture!! Why is there such a big difference? Will this impact the quality of the picture at a low level?Is there any setting that might have gotten messed up?<br>

Can somebody enlighten me on this, please? </p>

<p>Thank You.<br>

Arun</p>

[bwcombs]

<p>I believe the primary difference is the D80 is 12Bit, and the D200 is 16Bit in NEF.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Both the D80 and D200 have 12-bit NEF. They use two slightly different versions of the same 10MP sensor, as the one on the D200 has a faster read out to achive 5 frames/second.<br>

<br />NEF on the D80 are always (lossy) compressed; you have no choice. On the D200, it is user selectable to be un-compressed or (lossy) compressed. If you also compress NEFs on the D200, you should see similar file sizes as on the D80.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Likely a difference in setting for the RAW file storage - uncompressed vs. compressed. I use compressed RAW on my D200 and the file size is on the order of what you see for the D80.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D200 is 16Bit in NEF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it isn't. Not sure though what Nikon means by 12/14 bit for the uncompressed NEF file. Don't know whether the option "uncompressed" NEF is even provided in the D80...</p>

<p>I need to type faster, Shun already clarified things and confirmed what I said.</p>

[bwcombs]

<p>It is 16Bit on the planet ignorant, where I live. My bad.<br>

I was thinking of my processing workflow (PS), where I am always converting my NEF from 16Bit to 8Bit for transmission.</p>

[hyunyu]

<p>Sorry to jump in, I certainly don't mean to hijack the thread; I'm waiting to take delivery of my D200 this week (my first Nikon DSLR).</p>

<p>A quick question: Why would you want a lossy compressed NEF file? Isn't the point of RAW to have unaltered, as-raw-as-it-gets-from-the-sensor image? </p>

[dan park]

<p>From what I've heard the very small advantage you get in highlight and shadow preservation are not worth the extra space needed to store the uncompressed nef.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Just to add, the difference in sensors is that the D200 has a 4-channel analog-to-digital converter that transfers data faster, as Shun alluded to.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The whole point about compression is to save memory card space as well as disk space. Keep in mind that the D200 was introduced back in 2005. Back then, I paid as much as $150 for a 2G CF card. You'll laugh at that price now, but as recently as a few years ago, that was a concern.</p>

<p>Nikon's lossy compression is very good and in most cases, it is impossible for the human eye to see any effect from the compression, but it cuts down the file size by roughly 50%. That is why the OP sees 9M vs. 18M file size differences.</p>

[hyunyu]

<p>Thanks very much. Appreciate the education. :-)</p>