[Leica] M9 DNG compression

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I too have never seen a difference to date. Early on I shot a number of 
comparisons to make sure I wasn't doing something stoopid, but as a result 
of those tests and information from Leica I now shoot compressed. It's not a 
matter of disk space or card space, but of speed. The buffer in the M9 is 
small enough, and clears slowly enough that any speed enhancement is 
noticeable, and there is a BIG difference in the speed. Try shooting a 
buffer full of compressed vs. non-compressed images and see how long it 
takes for the buffer to clear (write light to stop blinking).

I don't shoot in continuous mode, but I do expect the camera to be ready 
when the shot arrives in the viewfinder. When the buffer is full, the shot 
is often gone by the time the camera is ready again.

Henning


On 2011-12-29, at 12:41 PM, John McMaster wrote:

> I don't think any real difference has been seen at this stage. The main
> thing is whether future software can bring more information out of a DNG
> file which may be lost if compressed. I shoot uncompressed and deal with 
> the
> data ;-)
> 
> john
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever done a comparison of the 34.6 Mb Leica DNGs to the
> compressed versions which are 18 Mb more or less depending on the degree of
> detail in the image? While it is not an issue for me, with a mere 1000 to
> 2000 images per year, terabyte drives being so cheap, It probably is an
> issue to the much more prolific professional photographers.
> 
> The question is: has anyone ever found an image where this degree of
> compression has been seen to matter?
> 
> Herb
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 


Henning Wulff
henningw at archiphoto.com