The Pentax RAW files are not much smaller than the TIFF, so, IMO, size isn't much of an issue.
You say RAW is better, but HOW is it better? Does one get better quality "images" from a RAW file than from a TIFF file? Just because a TIFF may be processed a bit more in the camera, will that lessen the quality of the final image? Or does that just mean that the steps for processing RAW v the steps for processing TIFFS (as far as the photographer is concerned) are different? Is the final image better, and in what way, when the original is RAW? Will knowing the points that John made make for better photographs, or is it just so much more arcane or useless information that. What difference does it make where some marker in a file is positioned WRT the final photograph? If the marker were somewhere else, would the quality of the image be "better?" Finally, is the amount of extra work converting a RAW file to a final image worth it? Having worked a little with some RAW formats, I cannot tell any difference between a photo made from a RAW file or one made from a TIFF, by the time a final print is made. scb alex wetmore wrote: > The TIFF files produced by the *ist D are 8 bit and have full RGB at > every pixel. The RAW files are 16 bits (only 12 are used) and still > have the colors of the bayer array (25% red, 50% green, 25% blue). > > The TIFF files have already gone through the bayer interpolation > algorithm and have had white balance applied. > > RAW is better and smaller, so there really isn't much point to using > TIFF on this camera. > > alex
