Nikon D200 Raw compared to Nikon D700 Raw

[susan_winn]

<p>I have a Nikon D200 I use when I photograph weddings. I photographed a wedding last Saturday and I decided to rent to D700 as my primary camera for the wedding and use my D200 as my second camera. For all weddings, events, portraits etc. I photograph in Raw format. <br>

When I got home and uploaded the images to my computer I noticed the Raw images I shot with the D200 saved around 15 MB while the D700 images saved around 10MB. I thought this was odd and wondered if anyone knew why there would be such a gap?</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Check the compression settings.</p>

[susan_winn]

<p>I thought it would be compression since on my D200 I have the RAW compression set to Optimal Quality, however, with the D700 I was unable to find this setting. I checked the Owners Manuel and asked the company I rented the camera from and was unsuccessful! If anyone knows how to access this feature on the D700 that would be helpful since I will be renting it again soon.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>The EXIF info created by both my D200 and D3 specifies the compression settings. The D700 is virtually identical to the D3 so you should be able to tell what the settings were.</p>

[michael_g._hilliard]

<p>Read pages 64 thru 70 and also page 423 of the Nikon D700 users manual. This is downloadable at http://support.nikonusa.com. There was a thread on compression a while back </p>

<h1>D3 lossless compressed vs. uncompressed NEFs</h1>

<p>Hope this helps.<br>

Mike Hilliard</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>I would say it is compression. I get 12MB using lossless compression. Open Menu navigate to shooting second down then image quality four down, go right and pick.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>on my D200 I have the RAW compression set to Optimal Quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, there is no such setting on the D200. "Optimal Quality" is only available as a JPEG Compression option, not RAW compression.<br />On the D200, go to the Shooting Menu -> RAW Compression, you have two choices:</p>

<ol>

<li>NEF (RAW)</li>

<li>Comp. NEF (RAW), that is compressed RAW.</li>

</ol>

<p>On the D700, again go to the Shooting Menu -> NEF (RAW) Recording, you have to sets of choices:</p>

<ol>

<li>Type: 3 choices: Lossless Compressed, Compressed (lossy), and Uncompressed</li>

<li>NEF (RAW) bit depth: 12 bit or 14 bit</li>

</ol>

<p>If you choose the combination of 12-bit capture and lossy compressed RAW, you will end up with smaller image files.</p>

<p>I typically use 14-bit capture and lossless compressed on the D700. In the D200 generation, lossless compressed was not an option.</p>

[joe_cormier]

<p>Shun,<br>

Now I am really confused. On my D-300s, I normally shoot NEF 12 bit. Howver when shooting H.D.R. I switch to 14<br>

bit. Looking at my menu, I never considered shooting TIFF RGB. What are the advantages of shooting in this format?<br>

I print my own work and normally print above 8"x!0". As always, thanks in advance. Joe</p>

 

[bruce_rubenstein]

<blockquote>

<p>...TIFF RGB. What are the advantages of shooting in this format?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Somebody, somewhere wants a TIFF file and wants it straight out of the camera so they don't have to do a conversion. There are no technical advantages.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>TIFF right out of the camera might be useful for some unusual tethered shooting situations, for example, but it's a rarely used feature.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>A TIFF file is just like a JPG except there is no compression, so the file is very large compared to a JPG and there is no loss at all in detail. That is the only advantage. Like a JPG file, you loose all the advantages of shooting RAW.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sorry, I never mentioned shooting directly in the TIFF format in my only ealrier post in this thread. The term "TIFF" is not in that post at all. I wonder why this thread turns into that direction all of a sudden.</p>

<p>I almost never shoot TIFF; the resulting images files are usually much bigger and of course you don't get more information than what you can get from RAW. A few years ago, that was still a major issue due to the high cost of memory cards. Today, memory is so cheap that it is not really an issue any more.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to add to possible reasons: noise levels can significantly affect RAW file size - the noisier the image, the larger a RAW file has to be to contain all the high frequency noise detail. The improved low-light performance on the D700 might well be making its files substantially smaller in similar conditions. The D700 also has quite an aggressive low-pass filter - I don't know what the one on the D200 is like, but if it's weaker, this might also make for larger files on the older camera. That may be a red herring, but it's a thought.<br />

<br />

FWIW, the primary reason to shoot TIFF is if you want losslessly compressed image data but you don't have access to software which can read a proprietary RAW file. TIFF is standard, so it's more likely that arbitrary software can read it. Since the software I use can process RAW files directly, I don't think I've ever used TIFF in the camera. There may be a day when I need it.</p>

[susan_winn]

<p>wow thanks! this is all very helpful!</p>