[JJ_SO]

Valid points. For those who like to read more about the RAW salad Nikon cooked, see an article in Nasim Mansurov's Photographylife

[mst]

That's a perfect excuse to have a D500 next to a D850

[davidmanze]

That's a perfect excuse to have a D500 next to a D850

   Can you explain....what is?

[JJ_SO]

That's a perfect excuse to have a D500 next to a D850

 

I don't think so: RAWs or RAWm are entirely different of RAW 14 bit lossless, just in APS-C mode - no downsampling involved. And this is what you get out of a D850.

 

So it's a perfect excuse to get 2 D850 

 

:lol:

[davidmanze]

Note: the 25 and 11mp sRAW are not actually RAW at all. They do not contain RAW data and do not have the headroom of RAW either. Nikon's sRAW is already demosaiced and reconstructed (and downsampled from full res.), with 11 bits of data instead of the 14 bits of the full res. real RAW.

 

Canon's mRAW and sRAW also are demosaiced, reconstructed and downsampled from full res., but with 14 bits of data.

 

So think of the D850's sRAW as glorified (11 bits vs 8 bits (or 14 bits vs 8 bits with Canon)) JPEGs. One better uses the  12bit lossy compressed NEF option instead of sRAW, if space saving and WB and exposure headroom of RAW is important to you.

<p style="font-size:14px;">Ok I haven't been down that route, but I have been down the D7100 one in 12 bits for extra buffer depth....on the D500 I don't think I've even looked for the 12bit size in the menu, maybe some will use that as an alternative to sRaw.

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">  There's lossless compressed in 12 bit also!

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;"> I feel that most will be delighted to pixel peep at max. res!

[mst]

Can you explain....what is?

The mess with small NEFs that Nikon created.

Personally, I'd prefer to have a D500 next to a D850 as 'real' action camera, since it provides more fps (out of the box, so without the need to spend lots of additional money on grip, batteries and charger) and has wider viewfinder AF coverage. And produces 'real' raw files with all data still intact, not downsampled ones like the D850.

[JJ_SO]

APS-C out of D850 is IMO NOT downsampled - it's already covering a smaller area, so why downsize it? AF point coverage of a D850 / D5 are exactly the same in APS-C mode as with a genuine APS-C D500. All three bodies share the same AF module.

 

Uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW are both 14 bit AFAIK. Can't tell about lossy compressed as I'm not interested in that.

[davidmanze]

 The mess with small NEFs that Nikon created.


Personally, I'd prefer to have a D500 next to a D850 as 'real' action camera, since it provides more fps (out of the box, so without the need to spend lots of additional money on grip, batteries and charger) and has wider viewfinder AF coverage. And produces 'real' raw files with all data still intact, not downsampled ones like the D850.

 

   Yeah I see, but if the D850 is in DX mode the files are already normal D500 size (approx) so no need to carry another Dx body, but yes you would have to buy the battery grip.....however, that should be smaller lighter and cheaper than two cameras, for only 1 Fps less!

 

    Or has lasts night's "booze up" finally created a vacuum where my brain used to be?  :o

[JJ_SO]

No, I think you took the right medicine 

 

It's like you say: Fullframe 45.7 MP in RAW is possible in 14 bit, lossless compressed or uncompressed. The evry same goes for DX-files out of a D850: Same resolution as D500, same AF-point scheme and really a saver of diskspace without loosing quality.

[davidmanze]

No, I think you took the right medicine 

 

It's like you say: Fullframe 45.7 MP in RAW is possible in 14 bit, lossless compressed or uncompressed. The evry same goes for DX-files out of a D850: Same resolution as D500, same AF-point scheme and really a saver of diskspace without loosing quality.

 

   We seem to be in perfect harmony today JoJu!