[zkarj]

RAW (DNG) is, quite simply in my opinion, the only file type I would shoot my own photography with. It is, if properly processed, much more sharp, contrasted and closer to how i envisaged than any out-of-camera file.

I used to shoot DNG on my K10D until I realised it was slower and I got less shots on a card.

Now I shoot PEF files and convert them to DNG automatically as I import to Lightroom. Best of both worlds. LR's DNGs are smaller than the PEFs, whereas the in-camera (uncompressed) DNGs are larger than the (compressed) PEFs.

The only upside I found to in-camera DNG was the frame counter was accurate.

---

Last edited by zkarj; 03-05-2010 at 02:36 AM.

[CWyatt]

I used to shoot DNG on my K10D until I realised it was slower and I got less shots on a card.

Now I shoot PEF files and convert them to DNG automatically as I import to Lightroom. Best of both worlds. LR's DNGs are smaller than the PEFs, whereas the in-camera (uncompressed) DNGs are larger than the (compressed) PEFs.

The only upside I found to in-camera DNG was the frame counter was accurate.

It does save space, but I'm using large SDHC anyway so it's not really a big deal most of the time.
I've found some interesting things speed-wise. On my K10D the DNGs are quicker - initially - and in continuous shooting the DNG can always manage a few more frames before bugger lag kicks in. But then PEF is slightly faster to write to the card. So it's kind of a toss up as to what you prefer.

So my results were the same as here: Re: PEF is compressed, DNG is not...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

PEF files save to fast flash memory faster because they are smaller, but there is an overhead in compression time and extra buffer required to do the compression. You can still shoot at maximum rates for either format until the buffer is full, although the number of frames to buffer full is less by a few frames with PEF due to the buffer space used for compression. When the buffer is full and provided you have fast enough SD memory, PEF buffer-full frame rates are actually faster than DNG because the extra time used to compress the files is more than made up for by the time saved in writing the smaller files.

[zkarj]

Interesting. Actually, now that I think about it the DNG/PEF decision was made when I had my slow card - where the file size was the bottleneck.

Now I have my Sandisk Extreme IIIs, I guess I could go with either speedwise, but I'll stick to my PEFs for size reasons.

I thought I was a prolific shooter, having equipped myself for 900+ shots in one day for air shows (3 x 4Gb cards). Then my son borrowed it the other day and complained I had only left 2 of the cards in the camera/bag. He ran out of space in a little over 4 hours!

[Arpe]

Kids today don't know how lucky they are.

[CWyatt]

My only regret with the Sandisk Extreme iii's is that I didn't buy one earlier. I found I've shot less the more I learn, but I still want the buffer cleared ASAP.

Was just checking out some buffer info and seems the K-7 turns around the PEF/DNG point I made earlier around:
K20D: 3.0fps 38 JPEG/14 PEF/16 DNG
K-7: 5.2fps 40 JPEG/15 PEF/14 DNG
(Pentax K-7 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review)

[Class A]

FWIW, the K-7 compresses DNG files (not just PEF files). Hence it is no longer necessary to shoot PEF to initially save space.

[Arpe]

What annoys me about the K-7 is, with an empty 4GB card it says 161 photos left, whereas it's more like about 280 I've found. They might be indicating worst case scenario, but that's waaaaaaayyyyy out.

[zkarj]

What annoys me about the K-7 is, with an empty 4GB card it says 161 photos left, whereas it's more like about 280 I've found. They might be indicating worst case scenario, but that's waaaaaaayyyyy out.

That's the compression at play I think. When I set my K10D to (uncompressed) DNG, the counter decreases by one every shot. When I have it on PEF it starts with the same initial figure, but doesn't decrease every time. It just becomes an approximate guide.

The same has always been true of JPEG shooting because you never know how one frame will compress compared to the next. A seagull against a clear blue sky compresses waaaay better than a wide angle of a crowd.

[Arpe]

Yeah but it's about 80% out! I don't find my file sizes vary that much, and it knows whether or not it's compressing them. Yeah, anyway I can live with it.

Oi! Anyone here photographed Rock n Roll dancing, or even done it? I've been asked whether I'm interested to photo some, not sure. What's involved? They MUST allow flash, otherwise I think you'd get few usable shots (fast motion, low light). Obviously they move around a fair bit, and there's plenty of fast motion, but don't generally move around the floor quickly I imagine, you know, go from one side to the other, I'm sure they do it, but working thier way around. A 70-200/2.8, or my 50/1.4 may be the answer, thought the 17-70/2.8-4.5 would also have its uses. It's in a fairly big hall.

[Class A]

I don't find my file sizes vary that much, and it knows whether or not it's compressing them.

Your file size may not vary much but the K-7 still thinks (hopes) you could be shooting less boring (read "harder to compress") stuff. It apparently gives you the most conservative figure possible. It knows it will compress the files but the compression rate depends on the image content and the K-7 doesn't know that you have a fixation with capturing green grass.

A 70-200/2.8, ... may be the answer,

Only if its a Pentax.

Seriously, I think it will be too long, unless your trying to go for close-ups of faces or your really far away. In the latter case the images may become uninvolving.

thought the 17-70/2.8-4.5 would also have its uses.

That would be my best bet. And yes, pray they allow flash and figure out a way to use a wall or ceiling to bounce it off. Direct flash will look ugly.

[mingdie]

Yeah but it's about 80% out! I don't find my file sizes vary that much, and it knows whether or not it's compressing them. Yeah, anyway I can live with it.

Oi! Anyone here photographed Rock n Roll dancing, or even done it? I've been asked whether I'm interested to photo some, not sure. What's involved? They MUST allow flash, otherwise I think you'd get few usable shots (fast motion, low light). Obviously they move around a fair bit, and there's plenty of fast motion, but don't generally move around the floor quickly I imagine, you know, go from one side to the other, I'm sure they do it, but working thier way around. A 70-200/2.8, or my 50/1.4 may be the answer, thought the 17-70/2.8-4.5 would also have its uses. It's in a fairly big hall.

I have photographed dance including Rock n Roll. My best advice is to avoid it as the plague. Joke aside it is very hard. As you say the light is often bad and they move fast.
If you use a flash you will freeze the movements which can be quite good. The hard part is to do it at the right time. It is easier if you have done the dancing yourself. This is without flash as I was not permitted to use it. High ISO, lot of noise and shallow DOF.


But the best shots I have got is with slower shutter speed. That way you can show the movements in your photo. Once again it is difficult but can be done. My success rate was very poor.
Once again this is taken in bad light, with high ISO and at least three different light sources that made the white balance a nightmare. Click for bigger photo size.


But give it a go. It is fun to try something new and it is awesome to see a really good pair dancing.

[Arpe]

Seriously, I think it will be too long, unless your trying to go for close-ups of faces or your really far away. In the latter case the images may become uninvolving.

That would be my best bet. And yes, pray they allow flash and figure out a way to use a wall or ceiling to bounce it off. Direct flash will look ugly.

It's a big hall though, but I would be able to go have a look first anyway. And so big I don't think bouncing would be an option, also spectators all around, so no wall bouncing, and a stud height of over 9m!
Maybe my homemade bounce card could be of use.

[CWyatt]

I guess it'll depend on how well lit it is, but I'd go for the 50 f1/.4 myself. I'd imagine, without knowing anything about the venue, that it might let you get sharp full-body shots and also half-body shots. If you focus that is. 17-70 would be a pretty good range too, maybe that one for the longer shutter shots? Or some wide context-setting type shots?

Finally got the K-7 yesterday. Pretty impressed. Wonderful little piece of engineering, fit so well in my hand that when I picked up the K10D today it felt quite odd. Happy with the points I bought it for - fast, small, quiet. Seems close to silent on the street. I also find the very, very short shutter 'black-out' is great. I can only remember seeing that point on one review but I think that's a major feature. It's no monumental upgrade on the K10D by any means, but it seems to deliver on the reasons I upgraded for so far.

New Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 also looks quite good. Haven't really had a chance to test it out too much. First impressions: seems bit soft at 10mm, not un-usably so. Very sharp at longer focal lengths. Decent at f/3.5, but contrast improves a lot a stop down. Very sharp at f/5.6. HSM is good and quiet, not as quiet and fast as other motor-drives I've used but pretty good.

[CWyatt]

Well right after I do a miniature review of new photo gear, I get yet another good reason to stop worrying about photo gear. Got 4 from 4 images into the PSNZ National Exhibition, and picked up the under 25 Woolf award.
My favourite bit - all shots were with kit lenses (shh don't tell them, and noone will know).

[Arpe]

I have photographed dance including Rock n Roll. My best advice is to avoid it as the plague. Joke aside it is very hard. As you say the light is often bad and they move fast.
If you use a flash you will freeze the movements which can be quite good. The hard part is to do it at the right time. It is easier if you have done the dancing yourself. This is without flash as I was not permitted to use it. High ISO, lot of noise and shallow DOF.

But the best shots I have got is with slower shutter speed. That way you can show the movements in your photo. Once again it is difficult but can be done. My success rate was very poor.
Once again this is taken in bad light, with high ISO and at least three different light sources that made the white balance a nightmare. Click for bigger photo size.

But give it a go. It is fun to try something new and it is awesome to see a really good pair dancing.

Sorry Eddie, didn't see that for some reason. Yeah flash is obviously best, no flash will have very shallow dof, I've got my 50/1.4 and 35/2 for that, I think even 2.8 may be too slow! and white balance will have to be adjusted later using raw. I see you're down to 1/125, have to try and catch the peak at that speed.

Maybe I'll just decline the invitation! As a part-timer one man band this may just be too big. They're only after expressions of interest at this stage.