1 person found this helpful
The only people who know the answer to that question are not allowed to disclose that information. Support for that camera will be included when it's ready.
My guess is that it is. It remains to wait.
> When we can expect the support for the NX200?
publicly stated "...UPDATE: Following the provision of Beta raw support from Adobe, we've updated our previously published studio samples from the Samsung NX200 to include raw files..."
RAW files from NX200 are enormous, which does not facilitate their storage.
I'm trying to determine what you mean by this statement...
Are you saying you prefer to shoot in raw mode, but then immediately would like to convert your files to JPEG or some other less space-intensive format?
That sounds basically flawed to me... One of the most attractive aspects of raw shooting is that all the data is there, so that if you should want to process it differently, or maybe a newer, better raw conversion technique comes out, you can do it again.
And on a second note, gargantuan amounts of computer storage can be pretty cheap nowadays... How many "enormous" NX200 raw files would it take to fill up a 2 terabyte Western Digital MyBook external drive, for example, which costs less than $100. Keep in mind 2 terabytes is 2 million megabytes.
I shoot only in RAW.
Samsung RAW Converter is obviously supports the files from the NX200.
But I prefer to work in Lightroom, which so far does not support SRW with NX200.
It remains to me and other users to wait.
Another way is to struggle in the SRC or do export to TIFF / JPG and work with those files in LR.
I have a spare hard drive, but I've camera about 3 weeks and about 1000 images * 45MB, so it is a lot of space
In fact, I mean convenience. DNG files are more versatile.
As I wrote, just still waiting for support
Thanks for the clarification. 45 MB is a bit large, but that's the way of all things digital today: Bigger and bigger. Better and better. 40,000+ such raw files would fit on a 2 TB disk, or about 2-1/2 years of shooting at your current rate.
I just never delete my out-of-camera images, whatever the size, and whatever else I might convert them to.
I also keep old ( all) photos.
When I come back to them, I've always new ideas.
Noel Carboni wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. 45 MB is a bit large, but that's the way of all things digital today:
Yeah ... especially if it is 14 bit data saved uncompressed in 16 bit, so 12.5 % of the file are binary zeros, like in this case ... + 7-8 MB embedded jpeg
Converting it to dng would reduce it significantly, once Adobe dng converter support it
Worse than this was only some old Oylmpus cameras like E-1 I think (12 bit uncompressed data in 16 bit, so 25% of raw file was wasted)