Comment re D800 from Nikonians

Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-02-27 16:49 , Eric Stevens wrote:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault
gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus,
camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you
to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good
tripod technique) even more.

Just don't use larger output sizes than before :-)

2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and
computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB
(!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when
just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…"

Computer processing power keeps rising along with ram and hard disks.
Storage cards are fatter and cheaper too.

True. However, so do camera files. So basically it's a race
between faster computers and larger files. (Think: How fast
would your slower programs of 10 or 20 years ago on today's
hardware? And how fast are their contemporary
replacements?[1])

Where it will show up more, perhaps, is for people who do offline
backups to DVD's and even tape.

'even' tape? :-)

DVDs will make way for Blue Ray and that probably to HVD
(Holographic Versatile Disk) ... so there.

Tape units are getting faster and larger for the same purchase
power corrected money.

But! Online backup etc. is dependent on transmission speeds and
they grow rather linearly, not exponentially ...

For someone forking over $3K for a camera body, updating the computer
equipment won't be a huge outlay.

Another 12-25% easily ... that's not trivial. OK, if you already
have a recent computer, say 1 year ago, you can get off cheaper,
but you'll want all the cores you can get, most of the GHz (2.8
- 3.2 doesn't do much) you can get, lots of RAM, another big
HDD, Blue Ray or USB3/Firewire/eSATA (or at least GigaEthernet)
drives or one generation newer LTO ... (whatever floats your boat
as backup).

And of course online backup ... space does cost money (how much
is 500 GB per month?) and you need to upload that stuff as well,
so you might need to upgrade your internet connection as well,
unless your *upload* is very fast already! That can be a sizeable
per month cost over the lifetime of the camera.

-Wolfgang

[1] Word processing and spell checking for example hasn't become
faster with, say, "Word" and the additional features shouldn't
slowdown everything by a factor 100+ ...

On 3/1/2012 10:52 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2



Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.

And throw away the post processed.
Great idea.

--
Peter

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:42:12 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 10:52 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2



Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.

And throw away the post processed.
Great idea.

Unless you are using Nikon NX2 in which case you can store them both
away in the one file.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 22:19:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:42:12 -0500, PeterN
: wrote:
:
: On 3/1/2012 10:52 PM, Rich wrote:
: wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
: :
:
: On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:
:
:
: snip
:
:
: Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
: storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?
:
:
: I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
: accepted that for a fact.
:
: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2
:
:
:
: Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.
:
: And throw away the post processed.
: Great idea.
:
: Unless you are using Nikon NX2 in which case you can store them both
: away in the one file.

Canon's DPP works the same way. I use it for almost everything. It doesn't do
redeye correction, so I have to apply that to the JPEG with Office Picture
Manager or something similar. But that's so automatic (just point to the eye
and push the button) that it's no big deal if I have to do it over later. (I
use one of the numbered checkmarks to indicate that redeye correction is
needed.)

Bob

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.

And throw away the post processed.
Great idea.

the adjustments done to the raw files are tiny and take up a negligible
amount of space.

On 3/3/2012 4:19 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:42:12 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 10:52 PM, Rich wrote:
wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2



Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.

And throw away the post processed.
Great idea.

Unless you are using Nikon NX2 in which case you can store them both
away in the one file.


I have seriously considered using NX2, bout only for the initial
conversion. My workflow centers around PS. I can end up with several
final images from one exposure. Also, NX2 doesn't seem to play with LAB
as ell as PS. YMMV


--
Peter