D7000 jpg

[Anteaus]

My D7000 creates ~16 megapixel jpgs when set at Large, but I'm thinking about using the medium size (~9 megapixels) in order to get more images on my memory card. From what I understand, 9 megapixels is still more than enough for 8X10 so I think I'm ok from that angle.

Hypothetically, let's assume that there is nothing wrong with the photo that would have needed to be fixed prior to export. Would an image that is scaled down within the camera be the same quality as one that is shot via raw and scaled down on the PC?

I'm not asking about the virtues of shooting raw. I'm just curious about JPG quality coming from the Nikon software via raw versus in-camera.

Thanks.

 

[Syborg1211]

Sorry I can't comment on your question, but what if you get that one random awesome shot that you might want to print out larger than 8x10? Isn't it worth it having the raw full sized file for that? Why not buy another SD card? They're pretty cheap these days, and the D7000 has two SD slots so you can just add in your new SD card as overflow storage or set it to backup mode if you're worried about losing data.

 

[Throckmorton]

If I were you I'd just get a bigger memory card and use full res JPEGs. You're only saving half the space by going to 9 megapixel. Can you turn down the JPEG quality? That is probably a better option.

 

[Anteaus]

Well the difference in size between the 14-bit raw files and the best quality jpg is quite substancial. I have a 16GB card and with raw I can only get 300-400 pictures. With large jpg that number jumps till over a K, and with medium (9mp) over 2K.

I'm not really worried about losing data as much as I am worried about storing the thousand plus pics I would have acquired over a week long vacation, especially if we are only talking about a marginal increase in quality. While it's true memory cards are cheap, I still have to store these pictures after the fact.

Eventually they'll all end up as JPGs, so my interest is primarily in the quality of the in camera JPG compression compared with JPG quality derived from the included software.

I think I'm probably splitting hairs so I'll just shoot best quality JPG and not worry about it .

 

[Throckmorton]

Yeah, I don't think a Nikon D7000 is going to have bad JPEG compression (like Sony does).

Can you adjust the compression ratio? If you need more than 1000 pics, I would do that before lowering resolution

 

[fralexandr]

get a 2nd memory card, they're pretty cheap atm if you're in the US
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=REG&A=details

you can even get one at bestbuy for ~$35 + tax if you need it now

 

[CuriousMike]

Your D7000 has that sweet dual-slot setup.

I'd be totally pimping that thing with dual 32GB cards, having the second slot backing up the photos.

Putting all your eggs in one basket is a recipe for a recipe.

 

[AkumaX]

if you plan on shooting high FPS, i'd recommend getting the UHS-I cards (SanDisk Extreme 45MB/s, Lexar Professional, etc...) since the D7000 supports it

 

[Anteaus]

I have a 16GB class 10 and it has no problem keeping up. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[AkumaX]

I have a 16GB class 10 and it has no problem keeping up. Thanks for the suggestion though.

No problem. Which card? Class 10 means a minimum of 10MB/s sequential write. SanDisk Extreme 45MB/s C10 promises 45MB/s sequential read, and write speed may be lower. From my own testing, it can do 43MB/s sequential write.

Lastly, what do you mean by "keeping up"? If you want to see a video about keeping up (uses your D7000), this is what I'd imagine

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2729BA...videoPreplay=1

 

[Anteaus]

I've used it for 1080P video as well as test shooting with high speed FPS. My camera can shoot about 5-6 FPS. The memory card had no problem keeping up with the file transfer. I did about 20 shots in a row. It's rare that I would ever need to shoot more than a handful at a time. I haven't needed more than single shot since I quit testing it tho.

 

[swanysto]

If you are more worried about HD space than anything, you can do what I do and edit the raws, make them jpgs and delete the raws. Raws in my opinion are easier to work with in programs like lightroom and photshop. My raws go from 16-20mb down to 1-3 when all is said and done.

If you do not do anything with post production, you might as well just shoot jpg. Or if you are happy with what you can do it post production with jpgs, then stick to it.

 

[Anteaus]

If you are more worried about HD space than anything, you can do what I do and edit the raws, make them jpgs and delete the raws. Raws in my opinion are easier to work with in programs like lightroom and photshop. My raws go from 16-20mb down to 1-3 when all is said and done.

If you do not do anything with post production, you might as well just shoot jpg. Or if you are happy with what you can do it post production with jpgs, then stick to it.

That is what my original question was. Are JPGs that are encoded via software of higher quality than those produced in camera? All I have is the included software and have no intention of buying any third party software. I'm just a amateur and have no problem discarding the occasional bad exposure so actual photo editing is not really something I'm looking at for the moment, although that may change over time.

 

[magomago]

Sorry I can't comment on your question, but what if you get that one random awesome shot that you might want to print out larger than 8x10? Isn't it worth it having the raw full sized file for that? Why not buy another SD card? They're pretty cheap these days, and the D7000 has two SD slots so you can just add in your new SD card as overflow storage or set it to backup mode if you're worried about losing data.

9MP can't print more than 8x10?!?!?!

 

[radhak]

That is what my original question was. Are JPGs that are encoded via software of higher quality than those produced in camera? All I have is the included software and have no intention of buying any third party software. I'm just a amateur and have no problem discarding the occasional bad exposure so actual photo editing is not really something I'm looking at for the moment, although that may change over time.

No, the reduced resolution output in camera will not be any worse than reducing the size on your computer; if anything, it would be much better than reducing on the computer.

Remember, you have the file size settings (Large, Medium, Small), and Image Quality settings (NEF or raw, Fine, Normal, Basic); the combination of these two dictate how big your files will be. You should also look at the JPEG Compression setting, which should be at Optimal Quality, to allow the camera to adjust the compression as need be.

The quality of your print is more dependent on the ISO. ISO 100 are best if you plan to print, degrading as the ISO climbs higher.

Looking at your needs, you should be perfectly okay keeping the size at medium, or even small, and you should experiment with the quality fine/normal/basic. Trust me, if all that you are doing is emailing (or Facebook-ing) pictures, small+basic would be good too.

If I am not wrong, the earlier digital cameras had much lesser resolution, and still got great pictures published by major magazines.

 

[Throckmorton]

That is what my original question was. Are JPGs that are encoded via software of higher quality than those produced in camera? All I have is the included software and have no intention of buying any third party software. I'm just a amateur and have no problem discarding the occasional bad exposure so actual photo editing is not really something I'm looking at for the moment, although that may change over time.

The purpose of postprocessing isn't to fix bad exposure, it's to create a final product out of your photos. But there's no reason you can't postprocess your JPEGs.