I guess not, thank you both. When I set it up I disregarded anything that said compression thinking I might hit compatibility issues - it’s a new (to me) camera so I’m still early in the discovery phase
That screenshot doesn’t tell the whole story…
For the best results, I wouldn’t dream of using anything less than the highest resolution without compression, even though the small compressed files seem to be readable in PL5/6. Especially since I regularly print larger than A2.
3 Likes
@Joanna
The lossless compression raw in your table means that we don’t loss anything.
So that’s completely un useful to use uncompressed raw except to use plenty of unuseful disk space!
And with lossless compression you will still be able to print in A2 with the same quality.
And by the way, the latest Z9 does not propose any non compressed raw…
That’s plain rubbish and indicates you never compared lossless 14 bit RAW with uncompressed RAW.
That is your opinion and I thank you for it.
2 Likes
That’s not my opinion alone: Compressed vs Uncompressed vs Lossless Compressed RAW Options
2. Lossless Compressed – as the name implies, lossless compression means that a RAW file is compressed like an archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, similar to what happens to archived data contained in a ZIP file. Lossless compression is the ideal choice, because all the data is fully preserved and yet the image takes up much less space.
3. Uncompressed – an uncompressed RAW file contains all the data, but without any sort of compression algorithm applied to it. Unless you do not have the Lossless Compressed option, you should always avoid selecting the Uncompressed option, as it results in huge image sizes.
On every camera I shoot with, I always default to Lossless Compression, because it is the most efficient way to store RAW images. There is no benefit of shooting Uncompressed RAW and Lossy Compression results in loss of potentially valuable data, which I might need to recover shadow / highlight details in images.
So, if you want to feel better by filling more harddrives with no more information contained in 14 bit RAW, do so.
It condenses down to “disk reading speed” vs. “processor speed for decompression”.
“Luckily” I do not have the option of lossless compressed 
…it’ s either compressed or uncompressed. So I mostly use uncompressed.
I would do so as well if I only had the choice between the two.
All this stuff is great now, in 2023, but ten or twenty years from now, the software to uncompress these files may no longer be available - like other file formats that are rarely used.
I’m shooting in non-compressed format, just the standard RAW file. I remember being burnt too many times over many years from things that were common long ago.
I tossed them out, but my 8" floppy disks I think are now useless.
Ditto for 5 1/4" discs, or the ones that the Macintosh liked, 3" I think.
I’ve got video tapes from long ago that are now useless to me, Hi-8, ED-Beta, and even standard 8mm.
I’d rather have a slightly larger (uncompressed) file, than one which in 25 years or whatever, would be useless. At worst, I’m “wasting” space, while I could save space by using compression. No big deal to me. Everyone should do what they feel comfortable doing.
Even if I liked it, which I don’t, Leica’s new M11 shooting 60-meg images is not on my wish list. For that matter, if/when Nikon releases a D880, I have no interest - for me. 24 megapixels is more than I ever dreamed of. The small change between compressed and non-compressed is nothing like what would happen to my disk space if I bought that new Leica. Actually, it can be set to three different file sizes, but knowing me, I’d just leave it at 60 and forget about it.
I never dreamed way back when, that my ED-Beta, S-VHS, and the better 8mm video formats would vanish, along with my chances of retrieving my old video.
Files are written faster to card with compressed raw, I guess. So, faster shooting if necessary.
For that video part: I had 35hours of 8mm video digitalized recently. All on my computer right now, and on a separate small disk. I was surprised at how good the quality still is. Recommended.
It would also be a great idea if the manual wasn’t confusing…
But, since I don’t take thousands, or even hundreds, of shots - I only have 14,000 images dating back to 2005, a lot of which could easily be junked - do I really care? My 64GB card allows me to take 635 uncompressed shots and, if I change the setting to lossless compressed, the readout says it can take 635 shots so, for some unknown reason, even though the files are supposedly smaller for lossless compressed, it doesn’t allow me to take any more images on the card.
I think in the 17 years since I started digital photography, I have only once taken 600+ shots in a single session, of which I deleted all but 40 as soon as I downloaded the card onto the computer.
Don’t forget, I am also a LF photographer, where taking one shot per day can be extravagant and the file size is anywhere between 500MB and 1GB.
I didn’t forget your LF background. I was just a bit concerned about the “lossless compressed RAW = bigger risk or worse quality part” And the manual… well, I also read some parts which I found confusing, sometimes even wrong or “very inviting for misunderstanding”. But here you clearly show one of the not very rare mistakes in it 
If I’d wanted to shoot a little arrow towards Nikon technical documents: What can one expect form a company relying on Google translation services for their reference manuals? Other companies are not better or partly worse, but for some dials Google translated 2 or 3 different terms. On one page. Not acceptable.
The thing I like with lossless compression: Faster culling, quicker file transfers, no quality loss (and vice versa, no quality gain by not using lossless compression), export no slower, no restriction to print A1. Apparently processors are fast enough these days. When I do focusstacks or shoot bicycle races (the difference in buffer size is also bigger than I thought [except there’s another mistake, but 50 images are possible with lossless compressed RAW, I already tried that to compare various memory cards]), the memory cards do get fuller than usual and since I prefer to use multiple smaller ones than one huge 256GB or bigger size, I do benefit daily by using lossless compressed RAW.
The problem is though, the same “mistake” is visible on the camera, in that the indicator for the number of images left on an empty card is the same whether for uncompressed or lossless compressed, even though the file sizes are vastly different.
As far as I can remember you already updated the firmware, right? Me, too.
Hmm, I’d trust the “remaining images” display not much more than the battery display, which I always wonder why the camera doesn’t see a fully charged EN-EL15 + 80% of EN-EL14, plenty of charge for hours of fw-update. Maybe the “remaining pictures” number remains for a while and gets more accurate towards the real end of capacity?
I just downloaded the latest manual. The mistake is still in. According to wolfram alpha, both numbers are incorrect. 695 RAWs with uncompressed 14bits, or 1230 with lossless compressed 14 bits - it’s embarassing for Nikon either way.
Maybe I gonna find out for myself. 1000 shutter actuations more or less don’t matter. Or I use the electronic shutter…
@Joanna
Nikon numbers are conservative in manual.
As lossless compression can be in some case very low, ie if every single contiguous pixels are different we can imagine that the size of the compressed raw could be quite the same that the non-compressed.
That why Nikon keep the same NB of images available on card.
They are just estimation, and they take “ceinture et bretelle” to avoid criticisms if someone is not able to get this number of images on card.
2 Likes
@Pathal I do see this big gap between REAL numbers and too low estimated MAYBE numbers as a result of the incredible sloppiness of Nikon’s technical authors.
Even if (and I tell you in a minute more about the real numbers) the file sizes were accurate or maxed out, I don’t need an Einstein to calculate the amount of possible images on a freshly formatted XQD card.
So, I used my old 64 GB SONY XQD G (400MB/s write / 440MB/s read) and set up the D850 to silent shutter and Continuous High (don’t know how many exposures/sec). I turnt the camera, focused occasionally and was aiming at high details scenes.
Results
619 exposures with a range from 96.3 … 97.4 MB uncompressed, buffer went down in no time - in less than 5 sec it was on “00”
1116 exposures with a range from 50.6 … 55.6 MB lossless compressed, buffer was going down very slowly, after 15 sec continuous high (app. 60 frames) it reached “01” or “00” and kept going. Nearly no pause need to write the files, it kept on pumping megapixels to the card.
So, first: all numbers in the Nikon manual are wrong, none is close to accurate - so why the waste of ink and paper?
After that little series of 1.700 files I went to my catalogs. Of app. 10k files from 2017-09 until today the range of file size (only 45 MP, only lossless compressed RAW) was from 45 … 80.7 MB/each. That’s quite a range, but the “heaviest” lossless compressed RAW is still 15 MB lighter than the lightest uncompressed RAW.
And no matter how conservative or cautious the file sizes are given: I think it would not go unnoticed that 52 MB files cannot result in the same number of files on a memory card like 92 MB. An “error” of 45% is not because of being careful with numbers - but careless.
Another try: I switched cards. The very same XQD of the D850 (597 files remaining) in the S1R (same sensor resolution) showed 811 remaining files. A 128GB card: 1.2k in the Nikon and 1873 in the S1R. ⅓ more? And I don’t believe Panasonic’s compression is more magical. Some manufacturers are a bit more accurate than Nikon.
Thanks - I had about 30 hours of my S-VHS video coped to disk. That was the only important thing. I’ll never get my ED-Beta tapes converted, nor will I likely find an ED-Beta machine to do it myself. As to all my 8mm digital video, it will likely go in the dumpster, either now, or after I am in a “dumpster”.
I never did plan ahead - I tried to get my ED-Beta machine fixed, but nobody knows how any more, and the parts are no longer available, and Sony was no help at all.
I have one working Beta VCR, and one working S-VHS VCR. And, lots of tapes, which will likely go in the dumpster too, unless they are “special”.
All this old-technology stuff that is not only obsolete, but not worth buying new devices to copy them. At least all my 3" MacBook disks were copied - should have kept the old Macintosh computer, as it’s no a valuable antique. Oh well, live moves on. Lots of things I should have kept, including my cars. But how???
With cameras, I did keep most of what I thought I wanted to keep, but some of the ones (lots) I sold are now worth a lot as antiques.
I searched the internet and there seem to be possibilities to get ED-Beta tapes digitalised.
For me those 30+ hours of 8mm video where precious and well worth the effort (video from a trip I made long ago)
I found a local shop that was able to deal with S-VHS. Those tapes were very important to me. Here is a small amount of them, that I copied to computer myself, and uploaded to YouTube, first as a small video, and then a much longer version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVrp77ikSw
The ED beta tapes - I have maybe a dozen, with no idea of what is on them. I have many more 8mm tapes, again with no remembrance of what I’ve got. If I could play them, I’d know what is worth converting. Or, I can write them off - useful at the time, but now maybe no longer that important.
I appreciate what you wrote - glad you were able to retrieve your video, and now have it on a computer.
In another 20 years, I wonder if all the things we’re doing nowadays will be obsolete, and lost unless someone converts them. What percentage of people understand PhotoLab? Of them, what percentage know of @Joanna’s wonderful help topics? In 20 years, how much of all this will be relevant? Never mind me, I’m just being overly pessimistic.
Did you publish your trip to YouTube? Where did you go?
:-)…nice to see that video of Bombay/Mumbai so many years ago (I only watched part of it, but still good memories). Not pessimistic; Even after converting these old videos I think they’ ll eventually be obsolete (or not viewed anymore). Not relevant. But that doesn’ t matter, as long as you have fun with it.
I didn’t publish anything of any of my trips on any website, and I do not plan to do so. Just personal remembrance and fun.
I traveled to quite a few places. A bit of topic I think. Could be worth a whole new thread (maybe on another forum).