[AquaDome]

Shooting RAW (DNG) with the K-3, I get 600 photos per 32GB card.
I find this to be about perfect because I also get about 600 photos per battery.

[AuraTodd]

So 32g is about right then?

[Bagga_Txips]

I always prefer to carry a few cards at half or quarter of the maximum.

Then if something goes wrong you haven't lost everything.

[AquaDome]

I always prefer to carry a few cards at half or quarter of the maximum.

Then if something goes wrong you haven't lost everything.

This is a good point. If you are not shooting video or 600 pictures before you get back to your workstation, you don't need 32GB. I keep a 4GB in my K-50 because I have never filled it up enough to worry about swapping it. I bought the high-speed 32GB cards when I bought my Canon 70D, which requires big, fat, fast cards for its video capability. Not only do I not use the video capability, I haven't touched it since I bought my K-3. So the K-3 inherited all the nice 32GB cards from the Canon. The fact that they hold 600 K-3 DNG files and take exactly one battery to do it was entirely serendipity.

You could also save your images to both cards simultaneously. This would be my choice if I was on a paid gig.

[Bigdomino]

I use Aperture. I had the impression that all my changes are non-destructive. If so, then I am not always changing the JPEG file. Correct?

[MadMathMind]

This is a good point. If you are not shooting video or 600 pictures before you get back to your workstation, you don't need 32GB.

You can never have too much space available. It's far worse to run out once than have too much a thousand times--you lose nothing in the second case!

The SanDisk extreme 32GB card is less than $40. You can get less insane cards from major manufacturers for $20 or less. For that little money, why screw around with smaller cards?

I have three 32GB cards for my K-5IIs. It is excessive and I never actually need this much. But most of the time, I fall behind on editing photos and end up with a queue of things to edit; having so many cards allows me to keep backups of the original files just in case something goes wrong with the ones on my computer.

[AquaDome]

I use Aperture. I had the impression that all my changes are non-destructive. If so, then I am not always changing the JPEG file. Correct?

Correct. If you import a JPG into Aperture, make your edits, and then Export Version, you are creating a new JPG with the changes you have made, leaving the original imported JPG unchanged. These changes are on top of the changes the camera already made to the original RAW data. The JPG generated by the camera from the RAW data is Generation 1. In the making of this first generation JPG from the RAW data, the camera makes some decisions regarding the RAW data. It takes what it needs to make the JPG it thinks you want and discards all the rest of the data. When you import this first generation JPG to Aperture or any other editor, you aren't able to pull any of that data back to use it to your benefit. This doesn't even take into consideration the amount of color data that was discarded as a result of the JPG file compression. And that's your starting point when you import a JPG to edit. The editing software then takes apart that JPG and pretends it is a raw file, but it only has so much to work with. When you export this to another JPG, you discard unused information and loose more data in the recompression. This is Generation 2.

If, on the other hand, you imported the RAW data to Aperture, you are starting out with ALL the data the sensor gathered. Even data you may not readily see. All of this data is available to be pulled out of the RAW file. There are shadows and textures hidden in the highlights. There are shadows and textures hiding under the dark shadows. There are skin tones and color hues still available to you which, if the camera wasn't told ahead of time to display in a camera-generated JPG, would be lost and unavailable. And when it comes time to actually create that Generation 1 JPG from the computer instead of the camera, you have a much bigger, faster, more powerful processor in your computer that is not under the extreme time constraints that the camera is under. Plus, you are creating YOUR JPG of the picture, not the one the camera settled on with its image presets.

Only you know what looks good to you. If your second generation JPG files pass your sniff test, you're in good shape. If you only edit a photo once in a while, the whole process may seem pretty excessive. On the other hand, if you are importing all of the files on the card into Aperture to edit anyway, you might as well start with RAW data just to keep all of your editing options open.

[Steve.Ledger]

Yeah but how big? (not half a mile I hope)

Capacity is less relevant than reliability and write speed. I have 8Gb, 16Gb and 32Gb cards for various cameras and only shoot RAW. I've never filled them while out. I'm not saying you won't, but I haven't. I prefer reliability and speed over capacity, so buy one of the better brands and not Chinese knock-offs just because the capacity is greater.

[Bigdomino]

AquaDome,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have a better understanding on how this works. I will work with Rae for a while and see what I can do.

Thanks.

Steve

[waterfall]

The difference is that you can edit the RAW file non-destructively in your software of choice. The changes you make to a RAW file are not actually changes to the file itself. They are only references to the changes you made. These references are stored by the editing software and applied to a JPG of the RAW file when you export it. The exported JPG file is what you then use as your finished image. The RAW file is always there, unchanged by the editing software, waiting for you to come edit it again and make another version.

If you were to attempt the same with a JPG file, every time you make a change, you are actually irrevocably destroying the original data. This degeneration accumulates and can result in an image that only gets worse, never better with successive edits.

If you just want the picture and don't anticipate any need to make changes, you can skip the whole step and shoot JPG in the camera. There are editing options in the camera that you can use beforehand that will tell the camera to generate the JPG to your specifications from the RAW file that is captured by the sensor.

Actually Aperture creates a Version when processing Jpeg. The original is not destroyed and you may revert to original at any time.

[AquaDome]

Actually Aperture creates a Version when processing Jpeg. The original is not destroyed and you may revert to original at any time.

Yes, but you can't generate a new JPG from an old JPG non-destructively. You just have a copy of Generation 1 and its degenerated Generation 2 offspring. Being able to switch your view between the two doesn't make Generation 2 into a Generation 1 image.

RAW data is like your groceries you bring home from the store. Generation 1 is the casserole you cooked. Generation 2 is left-overs. You can chop up the leftovers and make them into something else even, but you can't turn them back into the original casserole. Yes you can keep a copy of Generation 1 saved to make as many Generation 2 images as you want. But why would you start with McNuggets if you wanted to roast a chicken?

[waterfall]

Yes, but you can't generate a new JPG from an old JPG non-destructively. You just have a copy of Generation 1 and its degenerated Generation 2 offspring. Being able to switch your view between the two doesn't make Generation 2 into a Generation 1 image.

RAW data is like your groceries you bring home from the store. Generation 1 is the casserole you cooked. Generation 2 is left-overs. You can chop up the leftovers and make them into something else even, but you can't turn them back into the original casserole. Yes you can keep a copy of Generation 1 saved to make as many Generation 2 images as you want. But why would you start with McNuggets if you wanted to roast a chicken?

Aperture makes a copy of the referenced original in the library or other referenced location. According to Apple, the version being processed is completely nondestructive. When you Revert to Oiginal, the processed Jpg is gone. I do not disagree that Raw is more flexible for creativity. I was just pointing out that Aperture processes Jpeg non destructively.

[rgknief60]

I like raw for the ability to compensate for white balance and exposure to a greater extent than .jpg. About a year ago I shot an event. It was reqested that there be no flash, and it was dim. The K-5 was set for raw + jpg. Very few jpgs were usable and fixable. The raw files saved my bacon, so to speak.

[AquaDome]

Aperture makes a copy of the referenced original in the library or other referenced location. According to Apple, the version being processed is completely nondestructive. When you Revert to Oiginal, the processed Jpg is gone. I do not disagree that Raw is more flexible for creativity. I was just pointing out that Aperture processes Jpeg non destructively.

I see what you are saying. When you say non-destructively, you mean that the original JPG is not changed. That is correct. I apologize for becoming distracted from that.

What I mean by destructive versus non-destructive is an entirely different point, elaborated above.