Going FX. D600 or D800

[pony]

Why? 14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.

Smaller! Right? Or am I still not getting it?

Thank you for your patience

 

[480sparky]

Why? 14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.

Smaller! Right? Or am I still not getting it?

Thank you for your patience

The D600 will have smaller files in terms of memory requirements. This is simply due to the pixel count of the two. But it's not like D600 14-bit images are somehow inferior to D800 14-bit images when it comes to bit depth. The D800 will simply have more 14-bit pixels.

 

[Mach0]

Yes. The actual area is smaller.

Ohh ok the AF points in the frame. I was thinking body size lol.

 

[Ballistics]

Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.

Why? 14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.

Can I be a real pest and ask, in which cases *might* you notice a difference?

If you do a lot of heavy-handed editing. If all you do is slight adjustments and changes, you'll never know the difference.

I don't think that you would notice a difference in any real world scenario. I've tried to find a difference and I really can't.
Taking the same image in both uncompressed and lossless compressed 14bit, there's nothing that sticks out that says uncompressed
has a higher image quality.

 

[pony]

The D600 will have smaller files in terms of memory requirements. This is simply due to the pixel count of the two. But it's not like D600 14-bit images are somehow inferior to D800 14-bit images when it comes to bit depth. The D800 will simply have more 14-bit pixels.

I'm in 16bit for my D7000 (16mp), 14 bit D800 would be smaller than 16 bit D800?
I have a good computer and don't mind filling up some externals. The 36mp just sounds overwhelming in terms of SPACE.

I guess I just want to know if there is a way to use it (not in DX mode) that will eat up less space but not cripple the image quality

 

[480sparky]

I'm in 16bit for my D7000 (16mp), 14 bit D800 would be smaller than 16 bit D800?
I have a good computer and don't mind filling up some externals. The 36mp just sounds overwhelming in terms of SPACE.

I guess I just want to know if there is a way to use it (not in DX mode) that will eat up less space but not cripple the image quality

You have two choices: 14 bit and 12 bit. 16 bit is not an option.

 

[pony]

My RAW files say "Bit depth 16"
???

 

[Ballistics]

My RAW files say "Bit depth 16"
???

In photoshop it is, but not in camera. Go into your cameras settings and look for your raw settings. 14bit is the max.

 

[pony]

Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?

I feel like such a bozo, I totally did not get what you were saying. I'm sorry :/

 

[Ballistics]

Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?

I feel like such a bozo, I totally did not get what you were saying. I'm sorry :/

The encoding algorithm is different. Lossless compressed will show you no difference in image quality and will have a smaller file size.
The theoretical drawback, is that it writes slower because it has to be compressed first then written, but I haven't experienced
any issues with that.

 

[480sparky]

Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?

I feel like such a bozo, I totally did not get what you were saying. I'm sorry :/

The more you edit your images, the more data you need to keep the IQ acceptable. Raw files have a bit depth of either 12 or 14 bits, while JPEGS are 8-bit. If your editing consists of straightening, cropping and some cloning, you may not need to shoot raw at all and can take JEPGs to your heart's content. For the vast majority of people, compressed is more than enough data.

 

[pony]

I don't think I could go back to jpeg, I have been 100% RAW for a couple years now and I have my ACR flow down and I love it

Thank you both for your IMMENSE patience. I'm going to go drink a bunch of coffee, try to wake up, and then attempt to make a decision

 

[480sparky]

I shoot the occasional JPEG, but it's for a quick and simple purpose.... post on the forum, email, etc. The image will have no use after that.

But for my 'serious' work, its raw all day long.

 

[pony]

I don't ever switch mine anymore. Gave my hubby the D90 a while back because we could not find the P&S. Switched it to jpeg and auto.
Forgot to switch it back to RAW and was bummed

Gave it much thought last night and think I am going to go D600.
The extra $1000 I would love to put toward a lens. I have an old skool manual focus 55mm/2.8 micro and would love an AF macro lens.
And I am going to go through B&H so hopefully if the 600 has issues it will not be a problem to exchange.
I want FX now but I am going to wait and see what is up next and hope it is my dream body. For now I definitely think the D600 is a step up

Thanks again for all the advice

 

[sandollars]

good choice.