On 19/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >I'm having a dicussion with my brother: Will I loose (visible) data when >shooting/saving files in camera as JPEG's. >I think I will prefere to shoot RAW. Then edit, compress etc. later in the >computer. The discussion comes from limited storing capacity/the high cost >of RAM cards compared to i.e. the X-drive. My question to you is (I dont >have the *ist D yet. My brother has a Canon G5): >Is ther a visible difference betwen RAW shots, converted to TIF and a low >compression (best) JPEG shot. Your answer will be highly appreciated.
I'm not an *ist D owner but I can certainly vouch for shooting jpeg for 99% of my shooting. Long ago I shot the same scene RAW and large/fine jpeg. I printed both of them out on my domestic setup and enlarge the frames on the computer screen, looking at the same area magnified many times. The difference was on the screen was minimal. The difference on the prints was not detectable at all. Since, I have shot large/fine jpeg for anything I print out at home. If I were shooting for periodical publication I would shoot RAW. On a 512MB card, I can get 197 large/fine jpegs @ 100 ISO, less as the ISO rises, down to 150 at 1000 ISO. With 2 cards, that's between 3 and 400 shots - more than enough for what I shoot, per session, almost per day. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
