[marinb]

Ooooo, by the way, I dream of having the option to choose right from the camera different sizes of RAW files. On my k5 it could be 16MP, 14MP, 12, 10, 8, 6. Is it that hard to do? No, just a little tweaking in Pentax firmware.

[Anvh]

It won't be RAW anymore... RAW is minimal processed data from the sensor, so if you change the pixel size then it will be processed.

[wombat2go]

I was about to say my wish was for wireless connection so I don't have to plug the cables in all the time.
Then I saw the Eye Fi which had some reviews on the forum from last year
Are there any user using the latest version, and are the issues better now?
My needs are fairly simple, I only use 2~3mB camera jpgs, 10~ 20 shots per day or so
I see my Olympus M43 mentioned as compatible but what about my ist ds? The earliest Pentax dslrs on Eye Fi website are K10 & 20 and they say compatibility unknown.
I might try the $40 4Gb version on the Oly

[Anvh]

From what i know the Eye-Fi works stand-alone so it doesnt need support, it simply transmit the info thats on the card and thats it.

[Alizarine]

On my k5 it could be 16MP, 14MP, 12, 10, 8, 6. Is it that hard to do? No, just a little tweaking in Pentax firmware.

"Changing file size" for RAW files means compressing them.. and while PEF files themselves are compressed raw image data, further compression may cut down/simplify data to the point that there is loss in IQ or detail. Then that wouldn't be "raw" anymore....

The numbers you see there are the image sizes, with the stars counting as jpeg compression/quality rates, not applicable to RAW files... (if I understand my K-x correctly, that is, since the estimated card space drops whenever I highlight "RAW" on the options)

[marinb]

I know that some PRO Canon cameras have the option to choose between the RAW size. I am sure that Canon guys are not stupid. So, there is a reason to do that. And I am sure that making incamera a RAW file from 16MP to ... 8MP, that means no compression, but only transforming the file to a smaller one, like it was shot with a 8MP camera. That is all about. Buy the way, I understand that there will be less information than in a 16MP RAW, but anyway, the 8MP RAW file will have a lot more information than a 8MP JPEG. So, be nice. I know what I am talking about.

[Alizarine]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude or anything... was just trying to explain how I understood the process from how I see it working on my K-x. I'd like to know which professional Canon camera you're pointing out so I can try it first-hand, I have a number of friends and acquaintances shooting Canon professionally for wedding and video production, which I join at times. Interesting really, if Canon cams have that feature.

And I am sure that making incamera a RAW file from 16MP to ... 8MP, that means no compression, but only transforming the file to a smaller one, like it was shot with a 8MP camera.

With what little I know about compression and stuff, it all sounds, if not compressing, then somewhat "cropping". Or maybe using less pixels? I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable in the matter like monochrome or falconeye if ever they get to read about this.

[marinb]

Well, let's take the first one, Canon EOS 5D Mark III --- Canon EOS 5D Mark III Review: Digital Photography Review --- Read full review. At page 7 Menus, you will see there RAW-> RAW -> MRAW -> SRAW (MRAW - medium RAW, and SRAW - small RAW, where - RAW = 5760 x 3840, MRAW = 3960 x 2640, SRAW = 2880 x 1920). The same thing with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV - RAW-> RAW -> MRAW -> SRAW. ANd something a little different at Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II. Search review/menius on Digital Photography Review and You will see. I am almost sure that some Nikon cameras have that function to. I've already searched and found that Nikon D800 choosed a little different way. By compression of data: NEF (RAW) recording: Type Lossless compressed / Compressed / Uncompressed. By bit depth: NEF (RAW) bit depth 12-bit / 14-bit. So, we can call it compression. The fact is that there is such a function, and even shooting directly in TIFF. My k5, allows me only to convert to TIFF, not to shoot in that file format.

[Clavius]

Well, let's take the first one, Canon EOS 5D Mark III --- Canon EOS 5D Mark III Review: Digital Photography Review --- Read full review. At page 7 Menus, you will see there RAW-> RAW -> MRAW -> SRAW (MRAW - medium RAW, and SRAW - small RAW, where - RAW = 5760 x 3840, MRAW = 3960 x 2640, SRAW = 2880 x 1920). The same thing with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV - RAW-> RAW -> MRAW -> SRAW. ANd something a little different at Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II. Search review/menius on Digital Photography Review and You will see. I am almost sure that some Nikon cameras have that function to. I've already searched and found that Nikon D800 choosed a little different way. By compression of data: NEF (RAW) recording: Type Lossless compressed / Compressed / Uncompressed. By bit depth: NEF (RAW) bit depth 12-bit / 14-bit. So, we can call it compression.

RAW=RAW. When any processing is done to it, it's no RAW data anymore. What's the point in going only halfway and doing the rest of the PP on a computer?

The fact is that there is such a function, and even shooting directly in TIFF. My k5, allows me only to convert to TIFF, not to shoot in that file format.

TIFF? Bigger file-sizes then DNG, but much less information then DNG... What's the point in TIFF? It's only usefull when you use outdated software that's unable to read DNG. Do you actually know of any such software?

[marinb]

RAW=RAW. When any processing is done to it, it's no RAW data anymore. What's the point in going only halfway and doing the rest of the PP on a computer?
TIFF? Bigger file-sizes then DNG, but much less information then DNG... What's the point in TIFF? It's only usefull when you use outdated software that's unable to read DNG. Do you actually know of any such software?

Well, as a graphic designer, I think it is my problem why I need TIFF. It doesn't matter if it is bigger or smaller, contains less or more information. Someone needs JPEGs, some RAWs, I need TIFF, but TIFF directly from camera, not TIFF converted from JPEG. TIFF is a standard graphic format and it is better then JPEG. The size is not a problem. TIFF is something in between JPEG and RAW. At least for me.

[wombat2go]

TIFF can contain a range of lossless encoding schemes or less commonly a jpeg, according to:
Tagged Image File Format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Clavius]

I'll phrase it differently then: Why implement TIFF in a camera, if the camera already supports the better DNG? DNG, which can be converted to TIFF if required.

No, a camera that can shoot in TIFF straight away doesn't exist. Those cameras actually only converts the RAW data to TIFF in the background. So that's the exact same as converting DNG to TIFF.

[marinb]

I'll phrase it differently then: Why implement TIFF in a camera, if the camera already supports the better DNG? DNG, which can be converted to TIFF if required.

No, a camera that can shoot in TIFF straight away doesn't exist. Those cameras actually only converts the RAW data to TIFF in the background. So that's the exact same as converting DNG to TIFF.

I don't agree. There is a difference between shooting JP, TIFF and RAW. Even JPGs are amde from RAW. It is not correct to say that DNG/RAW is better than TIFF. Thinking this way, there is no reason to shoot JPEGs either. The reason to shoot TIFF is that it will retain more info that JPEG, but les than RAW, BUT!!! it will retain (as JPEGs do) the white ballance settings, unsharp settings, color adjustment etc. If You know, the RAW file is not afected by these settings. So, i think there is a reason to shoot in TIFF. As I said, TIFF is something in between JPEG and RAW.

[elliott]

I don't agree. There is a difference between shooting JP, TIFF and RAW. Even JPGs are amde from RAW. It is not correct to say that DNG/RAW is better than TIFF. Thinking this way, there is no reason to shoot JPEGs either. The reason to shoot TIFF is that it will retain more info that JPEG, but les than RAW, BUT!!! it will retain (as JPEGs do) the white ballance settings, unsharp settings, color adjustment etc. If You know, the RAW file is not afected by these settings. So, i think there is a reason to shoot in TIFF. As I said, TIFF is something in between JPEG and RAW.

A RAW file does retain white balance and other settings from the camera, they are just not applied permanently to the image, you have the option to do that when you process the image or you can tweak the settings before permanently applying them without degrading the image, something that cannot be done with TIFF.

[Brangdon]

Apparently it doesn't already exist, because both my HTC sensation XE and my wife's brand new iphone suffer from ears pressing 'buttons' during conversations. Both phone are supposed to block the screen during conversation.

That you know two phones that get it wrong, doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist and works in other phones.

Why would we want a proximity sensor bothering our processors anyway?

To fix the problem someone raised with touchscreens. Touchscreens provide better user interfaces than cursor-keys and OK buttons. Not when your eye is pressed the viewfinder, of course, but at other times. Think about how virtually all phones and tablets use touch now.