NEF Lossless Compressed

[marvpelkey]

I am in the middle of setting up a new camera (Nikon Z). Of the options the camera has for image formats, one is uncompressed raw and another is lossless compressed raw.

A few comments in some instructional videos and "pro" websites state that there is no reason to shoot (if shooting raw) anything other than lossless compressed as the file quality is as good as an uncompressed raw file. And a big benefit is the files are smaller.

If this is true (and I am not suggesting I doubt the veracity of this information), then why ever shoot an uncompressed raw? And why does Nikon (or others) even have an option for uncompressed? What value does an uncompressed raw provide that a lossless compressed raw does not?

Marv

[fdisilvestro]

Hi,

Yes, the quality is the same between lossless compressed and uncompressed. Why shooting uncompressed? You have a better chance to recover your images if the file gets corrupted or suffer from bit-rot

[marvpelkey]

fdisilvestro,
Thanks for the reply. Never thought about recovering corrupted files. Good to know.
Marv

[langier]

So far, I don't think I've had any corrupt files with my Nikon Z and good-quality QXD/CF Express cards and it's been many, many years since the last time I've had to deal with card issues or even corrupted files on my hard drives.

I'm sure there still a chance for that to happen but the cards have improved quite a bit regarding reliability in the past 20 years and the same with hard drives and SSDs. And if you have a good-back up system and quality hardware, it's almost a forgotten problem.

As always, YRMV, but even with my older single-slot mirrorless cameras, file corruption never seemed to be an issue.