Shooting in RAW

Rob Tolley

Rob Tolley

Suspended / Banned
Messages
47
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm going to invest in a Sony Alpha a330as it's a bit cheaper then the Canon EOS 1000D and the Nikon D3000, and it also has the capability to shoot in RAW format, whereas the other two don't.

I was wondering what the typical number of RAW images you can get on a memory card as opposed to JPEG's?
 
The D3000 certainly shoots raw files called NEF by Nikon.
 
Rob Tolley said:
I'm going to invest in a Sony Alpha a330as it's a bit cheaper then the Canon EOS 1000D and the Nikon D3000, and it also has the capability to shoot in RAW format, whereas the other two don't.

I was wondering what the typical number of RAW images you can get on a memory card as opposed to JPEG's?
Click to expand...


:thinking:

AFAIK both the 1000D and D3000 will shoot in raw.....
 
PsiFox said:
The D3000 certainly shoots raw files called NEF by Nikon.
Click to expand...
Ahh, they trying to confuse us then? The buggers!

Flash In The Pan said:
AFAIK both the 1000D and D3000 will shoot in raw.....
Click to expand...
Not according the Jessops catalogue they don't.
Although on the website it's say that the 1000D does.
 
Well, many thanks for clearing that up guys, maybe someone should point this out to the people at Jessops in readyness for their next publication? So that's got me in a quandry of which one to buy, although there's not a great deal of difference between the 1000D, D3000 and the a330 in general spec.

So at 3872 x 2592 pixels, what is the maximum print size I can get away with, without losing noticeable quality?
 
Rob Tolley said:
I'm going to invest in a Sony Alpha a330as it's a bit cheaper then the Canon EOS 1000D and the Nikon D3000, and it also has the capability to shoot in RAW format, whereas the other two don't.

I was wondering what the typical number of RAW images you can get on a memory card as opposed to JPEG's?
Click to expand...

There are a lot of variables that affect the answer to that.
RAW may be anything from about twice or more times the size of jpegs (that is a very, very approximate answer).

Camera make, megapixels, jpeg quality selected by the photographer, compression and maybe more factors affect the file size.
Of course the size of the memory card also affects how much you can get on it.
Buy a card with a big memory is the easy advice.:thumbs:
 
Rob Tolley said:
Ahh, they trying to confuse us then? The buggers!
Click to expand...

No,RAW isn't a file format the way JPEG is, raw simply means raw data, Nikon's file type for raw data is .NEF and Canon's is something like .CR2

Rob Tolley said:
Not according the Jessops catalogue they don't.
Click to expand...

Then the Jessops catalogue is wrong....


Nikon D3000 (you may need to click on the Specifications link)

Canon 1000D


I'd suggest going along to a store and physically trying each of these cameras before making a decision, it's all very well something being the cheapest, or having the most megapickels, but if it feels wrong in your hand you'll never use it....
 
according to Nikon's UK site the D3000 does shoot in RAW, so Jessops must have it wrong :shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Then the Jessops catalogue is wrong....
Click to expand...

Where's the number for Trading Standards.......? :lol:
 
lesson number 1 : don't rely on advice from Jessops
 
They have missed out the raw icon next to the d3000 in the summer 2010 cat.
Cthulhu knows why.

The d3000 is coming with a 2 year warranty and is cheaper than the sony, perhaps the 30 quid could buy you a bag/tripod/filter/15 mins with a lady or gent of negoitiable morals?

Best advice is above - go into the shop and play with them, see what you like and what you don't.

Tony
 
The D3000 has 10.2megapizels and my D90 has I think.. 12 point summat...

But I can roughly get around.. 600, give or take, at large size, on an 8GB card. It won't be exact of course but it gives a rough idea, Currently it has 159 on it and says I can take another 409, obviously that does vary though!

I agree with the go and feel advice - and while I decided to go for new, I will point out as well that for the £329 of the D3000 body new (and the others are similar price) you can get a D80 or equivilent 2nd hand, which i think is the old version pf the d90, so possibly a better camera.
 
I will deffo go into J'ops and have a 'look and feel' and see if it helps me decide because at the moment, I'm like this....

I like the Sony for the tilting screen, but as I already use a Canon the 1000D I could still use my 35-80mm lens. And as for the Nikon, that's got the bigger screen of the three at 3 inches. Oh decisions, decisions!
 
Rob Tolley said:
I will deffo go into J'ops and have a 'look and feel' and see if it helps me decide because at the moment, I'm like this....

I like the Sony for the tilting screen, but as I already use a Canon the 1000D I could still use my 35-80mm lens. And as for the Nikon, that's got the bigger screen of the three at 3 inches. Oh decisions, decisions!
Click to expand...

The biggest difference between the D3000 and the 1000d is that there is no Live View on the Nikon, so don't rely on the screen to compose a shot. I own the Nikon nevertheless as it can technically use ISO 3200 and for one or two other reasons which totally escape me now. Possibly I liked the red bit on the body.

General consensus seems to be you can't get a fag paper between the Canon and the Nikon and it's a coin toss job.
 
Well I went into Jessops and had a look at the 1000D and the D3000, but neither felt 'right' in the hand, I then tried the D5000, and although the width isn't really anything different, it's a bit deeper and higher and felt much more comfortable in the hand.

The question is now, wheather I buy it with the kit lens or spend a little extra and go for the 18-105mm one and the 70-300mm Tamron. The 18-105mm ED VR lens would be much more versitile than the kit lens and more akin to my needs so is probably the choice I'll go with, so now I just have to hammer out the best deal.
 
By all reports the standard 70-300mm Tamron is only really of use as a door stop.

The 18-105 is the kit on the D90, I personally haven't had any issues with it :) And at 18mm it's f/3.5 which isn't bad.

You could always pick up s 2nd hand 70-300, the Nikons appear to be going for just over £300 for the AF-S VR version on ebay, or you could pick up a sigma for around £100 used (guessing it'll be lower quality than the Nikon but higher than tamrom, probably perfectly usable).
 
littlemonster said:
By all reports the standard 70-300mm Tamron is only really of use as a door stop.

The 18-105 is the kit on the D90, I personally haven't had any issues with it :) And at 18mm it's f/3.5 which isn't bad.

You could always pick up s 2nd hand 70-300, the Nikons appear to be going for just over £300 for the AF-S VR version on ebay, or you could pick up a sigma for around £100 used (guessing it'll be lower quality than the Nikon but higher than tamrom, probably perfectly usable).
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's the standard one they offering, it's normally £169 but if you buy with any DSLR its £119.Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Nikon AF)

Although for £149 there is this Sigma Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro (Nikon AF Including D40/D40x) or this Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro DG (Nikon AF Including D40/D40x) for £199.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top