> > Oh, raw files tend to be smaller than TIFF too (even compressed TIFF). > Cool! More stuff learned today :-) Beware Karl: on this I'm only passing on what I've read - this is not personal experience with the EOS 10D (need Jim for that). Basically the 10D has a Bayer Pattern sensor (well, most of them do). That's 12-bits per REAL pixel of either R, G, B or a second G. After in-camera-quickie-interpolation the uncompressed TIFF would have 8-bits per channel - or 24-bits per pixel. In my experience compressed (losslessly) TIFFs seldom reach 50% compression - depends on the image. But, Jim would answer better, in the Canon line you have the option to save the jpeg along with the RAW file - so you have the best of both worlds (albeit the slowness). I guess a lot depends on why you are photographing, and what. If I were sat for hours waiting to catch some once-in-a-lifetime shot then I'd not want to trust the camera to decide it all for me. With nature photography, for instance, you can't be sure which shots are keepers till you see them later. The little LCD screen might screen out some total crap but it's no way good enough to be sure. Bob PS: I still hate digital. These days it's on cost more than quality. Actually, its mostly on cost ;o)
