More \"bang\", I mean \"storage\" for y

[AGeoJO]

After going back and forth, I decided to get a 10D while waiting for the price of the 1Ds to drop (more wishful thinking on my part). Anyway, the first thing I did was to format the two 1GB mircrodrives I have using my laptop. After that I formated them again using the 10D. To my (pleasent) surprise, the 10D displays that I can take/store 160 RAW images. I know for sure that the maximum number I could get using the using my D60 is 141 images using the exact same drives. I popped the microdrive back into the D60 and voila (is this still a politically correct expression considering the introduction of freedom fries, etc?), the D60 displays that indeed 141 images can be stored there. I know it is no big deal but I am just curious whether anybody else has noticed a similar situation with his/her microdrives or compactflash cards?

Joshua

[AJSJones]

The estimate of how many files can be stored is just that, an estimate, given that actual files will vary. But you knew that. What size jpeg is being embedded by the 10D ? If it's smaller than it is for the D60 this might account for some of the difference. The DIGIC chip in the 10D may also have a small influence on the final raw file size....

Andy

[AGeoJO]

The estimate I got from the D60 is a pretty accurate one. May be I was off by only a single image, if that. I do not anticipate that it would be significantly different from the 10D. Again, we are talking about a difference of 19 images here between the two cameras. So far, I have only shot 12 images or so using the new 10D. Time will tell whether the estimate of the 10D is accurate or not. I use the RAW setting on both cameras because who knows of the amount of the compression at the different JPEG settings.

[lziering]

Yes, you can still use the expression "voila" just as long as you don't pay the French for the use of their word. Duplicity is a French word that you are encouraged to use, especially when describing the goverment of Jacque Chirac.

[AGeoJO]

Hello Andy,
After reading the 10D manual, now I understand what you meant with "embedded" JPEG. Indeed, the default embedded JPEG with the RAW setting is a small, jagged icon. When I changed it to a higher setting (C Fn 8), the number of images that can be stored on the microdrive did go down accordingly. Out came the manual of the D60 but I could not find any reference of JPEG embedded with RAW in there. Does the D60 have this feature? Anyone? I have been able to extract JPEG images from RAW using the Canon's RAW Image Converter Software and I did not pay much attention to this issue until now.

Joshua

[jmublueduck]

AGeoJO wrote:
...while waiting for the price of the 1Ds to drop...
just a side note: the 1Ds wil likely never drop too low. 1 reason: from what I understand, the sensor has a high quality anti-aliasing filter (for moire reduction) on it that costs about $2000.

check this out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1Ds-Pricing.shtml

[AJSJones]

Joshua, The D60 embeds a medium/fine jpeg into the raw file but you have no choice on the size or compression quality. On the 10D you can choose the size and compression of the jpeg to be embedded.

This is a nice feature, in my mind. If I had a 10D, I'd routinely embed the biggest bestest jpeg because I don't feel the need to tweak EVERY image by going the raw route. Extracting the jpegs from the raw+jpeg is very quick with Canon's RIC - I can extract them from a folder of 100 images as fast as processing one raw file, even using ACR, which is waaaay faster than Canon's converter. By reviewing the jpegs from the D60 I can dump the obvious "failures" right away but I've been happily surprised at the quality of some of the processed raw images because they are much better than the D60 embedded jpeg would suggest. If I had a full-size high-quality jpeg to review, I'd be happy - I could decide which to keep as jpegs (and save time by not processing them as raw) and which to either "rescue" or tweak for printing big prints.

The embedding of a high quality jpeg will increase the file size (to your original post) but with 1GB microdrives just over $200, it's not really a big issue - given the convenience I feel this approach has.

Andy

[Longwatcher]

AJSJones wrote:
Joshua, The D60 embeds a medium/fine jpeg into the raw file but you have no choice on the size or compression quality. On the 10D you can choose the size and compression of the jpeg to be embedded.

Andy

Well that explains why I got a crappy version when I extracted jpeg, but got a good jpeg version when I converted the RAW image.

I have also noticed an increase of about 10-20% in the number of images I can take with the same card on the 10D versus D60. Given the way I take pictures, I plan on reducing the embedded jpeg to small/useless or if I can figure out how, avoid the embedded jpeg altogether. So the image takes up the least space, since if I shoot in RAW, I don't need the jpeg embedded. Then again it might save me a lot of time if I extract instead of convert, in which case I want to embedd lg-fine.

[AJSJones]

longwatcher wrote:
Then again it might save me a lot of time if I extract instead of convert, in which case I want to embedd lg-fine.

You got it!

That's exactly my point - if the image is destined for web viewing or simply archiving and doesn't require tweaking, the full-size jpeg is usually more than good enough if the exposure etc was OK - why go to the trouble of processing the raw if the end-result isn't a whole lot better than the original lg/fine jpeg (unless the final purpose of the image is such that the difference is imprtant)?

A recent example is a shot of a bird with a long lens that was a bit blurred because of too long a shutter speed - RAW processing wouldn't have helped fix it but I want to keep the image just for archive for my Photo-life-list. I kept the jpeg and dumped the raw without processing it.

Andy

[AGeoJO]

Hello Guys,
Changing the compression level of the embedded JPEG of the RAW setting on the 10D definitely plays a role in the actual number of images you can store on your microdrive or compactflash card. However, I do believe that the 10D can squeeze in more images on your storage card. Well, I went back to Phil Askey's dpreview site (an excellent site, by the way) - http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos10d/page10.asp where he did a side-by-side comparison of the D60 and 10D). Let's take a look at the shots of the London Bridge. There is difference in file size of 163KB and 413KB at ISO 100 and ISO 800, respectively between the two while the line of resolution remains the same I do not know whether this can be attributed to the Canon's DIGIC processor or what but for sure it is a welcome storage improvement and with a better quality vs the D60 to boot. So, may be there is still a truth in the title of my original posting.