How do you change the RAW file size in Nikon D600?

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Hi all.<br>

I did try looking in the manual, but did not find the answer, and all my friends shoot Canon, so I can't find the answer to :<br>

How can I change the size of my Raw files? I have a 64 gig card, and for a wedding I need two cards that will hold enough raw files for the entire thing. Right now, it shows I can only shoot 563! There has to be a way to reduce the size so I can get more out of the card! Helpppp </p>

[User_276104]

<p>Find the Compressed/Lossless Compressed option in the shooting menu - Compressed will allow maximum number of files.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>You can specify how much space the raw file contains compared with whether it records full dynamic range and whether the content is lossless - see p.94 of the D600 manual, but look under the shooting menu and look for "NEF (RAW) Recording" type (which gives you compressed, lossless compressed, and uncompressed) and ""NEF (RAW) Bit Depth" (which gives you 12-bit and 14-bit). If you're expecting to be at high ISO anyway, 12-bit is probably harmless because the low bits will mostly be noise, but at minimum ISO I tend to like having the extra two bits of information. I almost always shoot lossless compressed (the main advantage to uncompressed is that it's more resilient to file corruption), but it depends how much image editing you're doing - if you're not changing the exposure too much then lossy compression may well be worthwhile for you.<br />

<br />

In terms of the <i>resolution</i> of a raw file (and reducing the resolution does make it smaller), the only way is to change the size of the image that's captured - "Image area/Choose Image Area" in the shooting menu. Obviously this crops the frame, and what you capture may have more noise at the same ISO relative to the image size because, relative to the frame, you're blowing up the noisy pixels more.<br />

<br />

The D810 and D4s introduced a "small raw" that's intended to provide a reduced pixel count raw file, similar to the "sRAW" that Canon have had for some time. Don't feel you're missing out - the resulting files are still processed and almost as large as a full-resolution lossy 12-bit compressed raw file. I recently noticed that the D500 and D5 seem to have added different small and medium raw options, which I'dmissed from the promotional material until recently, and that the new version seems to do a better job of actually making the files smaller. I started <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00e8Ry">a thread</a> asking if anyone knew details, but the silence so far suggests that it's not had much of a work-out yet. It doesn't seem to be doing the same thing as the Phase One Sensor+ pixel binning, anyway.<br />

<br />

So: short of shrinking the capture area and changing the way the bits of the raw file is stored, you can't make it smaller on the D600. Raw captures the individual sensor sites, so if you resize it, that's not what you're doing. (Sensor+ groups multiple site values together weirdly; the D810 small raw processes the result so it's not doing invidividual sensor sites any more, and I believe the same is true of Canon, except that there solution is slightly more mature, but Nikon had nothing at the time of the D600.) The good news is that cards are increasingly cheap these days, so you could just get more...<br />

<br />

One other thing: if you're using lossy compressed raw, the amount of noise in the image affects the file size (because it's trying to record it all, and smooth areas compress better). So you might take lens space if you can stick to lower ISOs - not that this advice is likely all that helpful!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't think the D600 has the uncompressed RAW option. Therefore, if you shoot RAW, your options include lossy compressed (which Nikon just refer to as compressed) and lossless compressed. There is also the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit RAW.</p>

<p>However, I think you are still better off using 14-bit, lossless compressed RAW to maximize your RAW quality, thus giving you the largest RAW files. Given how cheap memory cards and disk drives are in these days, you are better off sticking two 128G SD cards into the D600 and capture in the backup mode. You'll have two copies of your RAW files in the highest quality available from the D600, one on each SD card. That should last an entire wedding and also guard against any memory card failures.</p>

<p>Please keep in mind that the estimate for card capacity is very conservative. You should get plenty of image files from the D600 even with 64G cards.</p>

<p>Each high-quality Sandisk 128G SD card is about $60 in these days. Maybe a few $ more if you get the 95MB/sec type.<br>

See this recent thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00e8GK</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I don't think the D600 has the uncompressed RAW option.</blockquote>

 

<p>Oops. Sorry, I looked right at that section of the manual and just assumed it was an option because it was on the D700/D800/D810 that I know. Odd omission, although not harmful in this case. Sorry about the misinformation. But yes, for a wedding (at least as official shooter) I'd shoot two cards in backup mode. If you think you have plenty of space it doesn't hurt to have JPEG recorded as well as raw so that you've got something to show immediately (says a man who's taken over a year to process a friend's wedding photos - though at least they're happy with what they've had so far) but you may have better habits than me.<br />

<br />

Two concerns about huge cards: 1) if the card itself gets corrupted you've potentially lost more data, and 2) historically (and I can't speak for the D600) Nikons have responded, though not necessarily shot, a bit slower when given a higher-capacity card. But you have to counter that against the possibility of losing or breaking SD cards, and of filling up a card at the wrong moment. Either way, with the proviso that it's not my money we're talking about, I'd agree that biting the bullet and buying more memory cards is probably a good idea. They do eventually wear out, too (not that I've replaced mine), so getting some shiny new ones before an important shoot might be advisable - just test them first!<br />

<br />

I do think you ought to be able to get away with dropping to 12-bit and possibly lossy compressed raw if you're doing a lot of low-light shooting just because the dynamic range won't be there to recover the extra bits anyway. I've been known to do this (or even resort to JPEGs, under duress) when capturing huge numbers of images in a burst during dancing at a wedding - I've found it's more important to get the timing than the image quality, and if the camera's trying to empty its buffer at the critical moment then you may be disadvantaged. But that's me. For general shooting, have the extra bits, just in case. I've had groomsmen in white and gold stand in direct sunlight and bridesmaids in deep purple hide in the shade (so they didn't wilt), and want a group photo; dynamic range is sometimes your friend.<br />

<br />

That said, if Nikon did/do (on the D5/D500) have a "small raw" mode that actually binned pixels and just threw resolution away, I'd absolutely use it at high ISOs when I knew I'd be struggling for detail anyway...</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As Shun said. Memory cards are too cheap to consider any option where right from the start you risk throwing away data. Stick to losless compressed RAW, to save as much data from the start as you can. Remember, you can capture this data only once, while you have a lifetime to loose it again. Making a compromise on this for photos as important as wedding photos to me makes no sense.<br /> Just get two extra cards.</p>

<p>And "just 563"- the estimate that Nikon cameras give that can fit a card is typically quite low, so good chances you get get a lot more on that card. (<em>Just 563 - if you would have told a photographer that 20 years ago, that you can shoot over 500 shots without changing media, imagine the reaction....</em>)</p>

[Palouse]

<blockquote>

<p> (<em>Just 563 - if you would have told a photographer that 20 years ago, that you can shoot over 500 shots without changing media, imagine the reaction....</em>)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WW, we're showing our age, er, um, I mean maturity. I remember, as many of you will too, trying to get 37 shots on a roll! Though, I can also remember the thrill of going from 120 film, with a measly 12 shots, to 35 mm with its 24 and 36 shots. Age does indeed have an evolutionary advantage! <br>

</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Interesting. I went the other way - SmartMedia and

MicroDrives (not the Sinclair type) holding a few hundred

images (at 1.3 and then 6MP), then 135 format (Eos 500

and 620, and a Bessa R, then an F5 to go with my D700),

then a 645 (and on occasion a Rolleiflex) using 120 roll. I

hope to pick up a 5x4 at some point - that'll really ensure

I'm paranoid about composition. Okay, I now shoot

mostly D8x0 bodies (and digital was always most

common) - but my Mac is currently complaining its disk

is full, and I usually see a claimed 400 images on my

cards. I don't usually fill them, though I do at weddings.

 

Though now I think about it, I probably no longer count

as a spring chicken myself. Ah well, give us 8k video,

that'll stop us thinking we have enough storage space.

There's always holography if we start to get smug...

[theresa_skutt]

<p>I appreciate your responses, so much. Thank you.<br>

I did figure out the card just died. The 563 was the camera only recognizing the 32 gig I had in there in the backup slot. The number did not change when the card was in or out! Good thing I realized it! I got two cards, to shoot the event in Raw to both, with the 32 for emergency overflow.<br /> I will read the above in detail and learn a lot I bet! Thanks, all.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you shoot the highest quality 14-bit lossless compressed RAW, each image file from the 24MP D600 should be around 25 to 32M bytes. A 64G card should be able to hold over 2000 images. I am not sure how much you shoot per wedding, but 2000 images is a lot.</p>

<p>Again, I think it is critical to use two, preferably identical SD cards in the two slots and use the backup mode to write each image onto both cards so that you automatically have two copies of everything. I wouldn't use the overflow mode. If you have any concerns that 2000 image is not enough, go with 128G cards so that there is no chance for any overflow.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>Again, I think it is critical to use two, preferably identical SD cards in the two slots and use the backup mode to write each image onto both cards so that you automatically have two copies of everything. I wouldn't use the overflow mode.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun,<br>

You bring up a point that I have been wondering about. I hope this not deviate from the OP question to much, but you bring up a good point. I use the back up mode myself, but have often wondered if by doing that; Does the camera slow up since it is writing to two cards? What if the back up card writes at a slower speed? What if the card is all together different (D500)Shun as I have often said, truly you are a blessing to me and this forum. Best moderator of any forum ever. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When the camera writes images to two memory cards in the backup mode, the slower one of the two cards will determine how fast the write process is. That was why I mentioned preferably identical SD cards in the case of the D600.</p>

<p>The OP seems to be a wedding, portrait photographer. You typically don't shoot machine-gun style in weddings. Therefore, memory card write speed is not that critical, although you don't want to use some really old, slow cards.</p>

<p>I shoot 14-bit, lossless compressed RAW on the D500. My XQD is the faster card. I tend to use a SanDisk UHS-II card in the second slot to keep up with the XQD. The UHS-II SD is a bit slower. A regular UHS-I SD could be a lot slower than the XQD and it could be a drag if you shoot sports or wildlife action with the D500.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>In case Theresa misinterprets Shun's comment, a UHS-II

card only helps (significantly) on a camera with an

appropriate connector - which currently is, I believe, just

the D500 (of Nikons). On a D600, something like the

95MB/s SanDisk Extreme Pro range has been at the top

of the speed charts for a long time - I recently found

<a href="http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/nikon-d600/fastest-sd-card-tests/">this comparison site</a> by the way, which may be

interesting. Anything labelled U3 (designed for

maintaining high speed transfer for video) should be

good. Anything not labelled at least U1 might be a bit

slow.<br />

<br />

For example, I have an Eye-Fi mobi pro card (from last

year). I've never got around to using its Wi-Fi abilities,

but despite being "class 10" it's the only card that has

caused my D810's buffer to fill before it could empty

(and it took about a minute to clear). Which came up

during a dance at a wedding, oddly enough. And the

D600 does have a smaller buffer than the D810. (Also,

normally I just write JPEG to SD for convenience and raw

to CF - but not if I were the primary shooter at a wedding

and losing an image were catastrophic.) Anyway, don't

skimp too much, but UHS-II isn't necessary for a D600.<br />

<br />

I'm assuming Theresa is *officially* shooting the

wedding, in which case raw backup is the way. If you're

there as an enthusiastic guest, as I've been several

times, there's not much harm in switching to jpeg for the

dancing if you want more image space and less risk of a

full buffer. Most pros I've met stop after (or before) the

happy couple do a First Dance, and Shun's admonition

that "machine gun" shooting doesn't happen certainly

applies to them. I've always stuck around for the party

(all but once, just as a guest) - and that's when a buffer

helps. YMMV!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Oh, and yes - I hope we all appreciate Shun. :-) (I was

unaware of the vitriol some of the other moderators

apparently engender until the PN2.0 discussions -

though I've not experienced it. I'm just grateful!)

 

I've never actually done the experiment to see whether

the camera is slower with two identical cards writing

backup compared with just one (and it's a shame there's

no way to alternate, RAID style). I suspect any answer

would vary by camera, if not card. But if I were the

primary shooter at a wedding, it would be moot - there's

no way it's worth not having everything backed up. Plus

spare camera (even if hired, as I did) of course...

[JDMvW]

<p>My principle (derived from my experience with scanning, but applies to camera-captured images too)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shoot large, shoot once.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can always compress things later, but chances are that the image itself is going to be a one-shot deal, so cram as much information into the file as you CAN.</p>

<p>Memory, card space, hard drives are all incredible bargains now. Use as much as you need. It's cheap.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<blockquote>

<p>When the camera writes images to two memory cards in the backup mode, the slower one of the two cards will determine how fast the write process is. That was why I mentioned preferably identical SD cards in the case of the D600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, you just solved the my problem with my D7200. I have the 95MB/s SanDisk Extreme Pro as the primary and a cheapo something in the secondary. I figured that primary meant first to do everything. So I just tested the camera with the single fast card and it is very noticeable. I just pulled the 95MB/s SanDisk Extreme Pro out of the secondary slot out of my D500 and WOW!!! So I will be shopping for the fastest UHS-II SD I can find right now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP seems to be a wedding, portrait photographer. You typically don't shoot machine-gun style in weddings. Therefore, memory card write speed is not that critical, although you don't want to use some really old, slow cards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not machine gun either. In fact, one or two is about it for me. But having said that, I do want everything right. I truly did not thing that second card much mattered. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot 14-bit, lossless compressed RAW on the D500. My XQD is the faster card. I tend to use a SanDisk UHS-II card in the second slot to keep up with the XQD. The UHS-II SD is a bit slower. A regular UHS-I SD could be a lot slower than the XQD and it could be a drag if you shoot sports or wildlife action with the D500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In realty, I am not sure I personally will be able to tell a difference, but it will bug me that I don't have my Acura NSX running on all cylinders.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>I hate when folks don't come back with the "after", so here it is.<br>

This started out as an OMG moment, as a card that just got formatted died. I realized by the number of images on the top of the camera that something was way off, and the reality was that the card wasn't being read at all! Thus, the purchase, as advised, was two identical pro san disc cards (64 gig). The slot was backup, and I had no issues (yes to the official shooter question) writing to two Raw cards. It's truly amazing what today's technology can do!<br>

The number at the top at the beginning said I had 1,200 images available, which seemed low. I am still processing / downloading, but I think I shot about 1,000, and my number was still 465 when I stopped. So, something's up with the calculation which can lead to panic. <br>

All's well though! Thanks!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>:-) Thanks for reporting back, Theresa. Glad you coped! (And yes, as others said, the "number of images left" count is pretty pessimistic most of the time. Probably better than the reverse...)</p>

[ShunCheung]

When you use lossless compressed RAW, compression ratio is very roughly 50%, obviously depending on the image

content. That is, when the camera estimates that you have 1000 images left, you may actually have 2000. The estimate is highly conservative and assumes that no compression is possible.

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>The number at the top at the beginning said I had 1,200 images available, which seemed low. I am still processing / downloading, but I think I shot about 1,000, and my number was still 465 when I stopped. So, something's up with the calculation which can lead to panic. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Missing in this discussion : If this is the official "photgrapher Job" even then it might be wise to have a backup camera available too, (and use it ) , since this is a bout a wedding..</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Regarding the "backup camera"....to me that's a given.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the info....it was truly helpful.</p>

<p>BTW, the same evening I shot mine, a photographer in my area experienced a smash&grab, and all cameras/memory cards were taken!!! Note to self: keep everything on you or have a guard by the car!</p>

[ShunCheung]

After the job, if you need to leave the camera, in the car trunk or wherever, take one of the two memory cards out (or one

from each set if you use more than a set) and keep that with you. Insurance can pay for the replacement camera

equipment. Images are likely gone forever.

 

That is another area dual cards help.

[User_276104]

<p>Do I get a gold star for answering the question with one sentence?</p>