The biggest issue with the A7r4 that can be fixed very easily...

[PWPhotography]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

I'd agree with you that provided Sony offered lossless compressed mode, then I will also take all my photos with this mode, daylight or evening photos regardless. However it's not showstopper without this option. I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed mode and only 10% of my photos under tripod mode with uncompressed RAW that reflected in all my photos in my Flickr forums for examples. A few times I forgot to change back to compressed mode at scenes in daylight and then realized moments later then changed back to compressed mode. I am simply unable to see noticeable difference between two modes at the same scenes honestly.

Believe there is a reason why Nikon and Canon both now offer lossy compressed mode for those care file size but not obvious IQ loss under most light condition.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[JimKasson]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

nobody except for most folks: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4314552#forum-post-61576785

only benefit is if you're shooting base ISO, and pull hard...... like landscape shooters, and even then, it's negligible at best. You need to pull 3 stops before you can start telling a difference, and then you'd have to be 1:1 to see the most subtle difference........

I think that’s an overstatement. you can see the difference on a C-size print, at base ISO with a push — not pull, BTW.

Honestly I have not seen noticeable difference in daylight hand-held photos. I have tons of photos (about 90% of my total photos) taken in compressed mode including from A7r IV. However most of them are not under highly contrasty scenes in daylight so I only pushed moderately, guess 2-stops. But as I said I do shoot uncompressed mode under tripod mode in mostly evening scenes or whatever when I shoot on tripod where usually with highly contrasty light condition from pitching dark sky or unlit areas to illuminated buildings etc, where I pushed shadow and recover highlight aggressively, where compressed RAW likely will have artifacts after aggressive push that is well documented.

Here is a sample in full size that is my typical daylight photo, even with e-shutter if you can point out artifacts?

View attachment ae47ce2625ac4f08a58f487b44f89038.jpg
full size, hand-held, compressed mode under very windy condition

I was talking about the Nikon lossy compression, not the Sony lossy compression. And I don't think you need much of a push in a capture like that.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[SrMi]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

I'd agree with you that provided Sony offered lossless compressed mode, then I will also take all my photos with this mode, daylight or evening photos regardless. However it's not showstopper without this option. I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed mode and only 10% of my photos under tripod mode with uncompressed RAW that reflected in all my photos in my Flickr forums for examples. A few times I forgot to change back to compressed mode at scenes in daylight and then realized moments later then changed back to compressed mode. I am simply unable to see noticeable difference between two modes at the same scenes honestly.

Believe there is a reason why Nikon and Canon both now offer lossy compressed mode for those care file size but not obvious IQ loss under most light condition.

The difference in file size between lossless compressed and uncompressed is about 47%. The difference between lossy and lossless compressed is about 6% (data from link ). I wonder why would anyone use lossy compression if lossless compression is available?

 

[Mr_Win]

Google is your friend

https://encode.su/threads/2762-PackRAW?highlight=PackRAW

Den

I saw this, still no info if it uses a proprietary format, which I suspect it does, hence it is useless at least for me. But may be I am wrong, and it converts raws into to a standard DNG format.

Additionally, the compression ratio mentioned there is 196/291 = 67%, far from the ADobe DNG Converter with 50%.

The ideal solution would be to have the Adobe level of compression done by Sony cameras. Adobe DNG is a good workaround, likely to be better than the PAckRAW with it's proprietary format.

Again, you can't revert back to the original RAW file once you convert it to DNG.

PackRAW is a "proprietary" compressor optimised for RAW files, so you'll always have a copy of the original RAW archived.

It has a great balance of speed and compression ratio, I've been using it since 2016 without any issues.

If it's no use to you, fine, but others reading this thread might find it very useful.

Den

Speed? You spend extra time on manually compressing and uncompresssing raw files, fidgeting with scripts.

It might be a good option for a backup though.

Nonsense,

The time taken to compress RAW files using PackRAW is no more inconvenient than the time taken to convert RAW files to DNG.

The time to decompress RAW files using PackRAW is no more inconvenient than copying RAW or DNG files from one directory to another.

I use one batch file to compress all RAW files in a directory to half the size of the original uncompressed RAW, and another batch file to decompress all RAW files in a directory.

Here's all anyone needs to do:

1. Copy PackRAW.exe to the directory where the RAW (ARW) files are.

2. Copy and paste this line to notepad then save as Compress.bat to the same directory.

for %%a in ("*.arw") do (packraw.exe p "%%a")

3. Copy and paste this line to notepad then save as Uncompress.bat to the same directory.

for %%a in ("*.prw") do (packraw.exe u "%%a")

All it takes is a doubleclick of my mouse button, hardly what you claim "fidgeting with scripts".

NOTE: If anyone trying the above batch commands wants to delete the original after each file is converted, just add the following to the end of the command:

& DEL "%%a"

Examples below of the added delete command:

for %%a in ("*.arw") do (packraw.exe p "%%a" & DEL "%%a")

for %%a in ("*.prw") do (packraw.exe u "%%a" & DEL "%%a")

Den

you can add packraw.exe into a system variable and never have to have that file around ever again, one less step permanently.

Example?

Den

put the folder in C:\packrawfolder\bin\packraw.exe for example

go into "Environment variables" under system variables look for "path", hit edit add "C:\packrawfolder\bin"

from there on out, in command line, you simply call packraw or packraw.exe and it should run from the system variable location, no need to carry the exe with you everywhere.

 

[PWPhotography]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

I'd agree with you that provided Sony offered lossless compressed mode, then I will also take all my photos with this mode, daylight or evening photos regardless. However it's not showstopper without this option. I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed mode and only 10% of my photos under tripod mode with uncompressed RAW that reflected in all my photos in my Flickr forums for examples. A few times I forgot to change back to compressed mode at scenes in daylight and then realized moments later then changed back to compressed mode. I am simply unable to see noticeable difference between two modes at the same scenes honestly.

Believe there is a reason why Nikon and Canon both now offer lossy compressed mode for those care file size but not obvious IQ loss under most light condition.

The difference in file size between lossless compressed and uncompressed is about 47%. The difference between lossy and lossless compressed is about 6% (data from link ). I wonder why would anyone use lossy compression if lossless compression is available?

That is based on Nikon compressed format? Sony compressed RAW is just half size of uncompressed's one. Don't think if Sony ever had lossless compressed RAW will be only 6% larger but likely between two sizes. But we will not know until it comes out.

It's not a showstopper without lossless compressed format as I said. By default it's compressed RAW. I assigned dial '1' to tripod mode - uncompressed RAW, IBIS off, base ISO 100, LENR off...and usually shoot with MF (even with an AF lens). So 90% of my total photos taken in compressed mode that usually taken in daylight hand-held effectively save half size without noticeable side effect.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[PWPhotography]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

nobody except for most folks: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4314552#forum-post-61576785

only benefit is if you're shooting base ISO, and pull hard...... like landscape shooters, and even then, it's negligible at best. You need to pull 3 stops before you can start telling a difference, and then you'd have to be 1:1 to see the most subtle difference........

I think that’s an overstatement. you can see the difference on a C-size print, at base ISO with a push — not pull, BTW.

Honestly I have not seen noticeable difference in daylight hand-held photos. I have tons of photos (about 90% of my total photos) taken in compressed mode including from A7r IV. However most of them are not under highly contrasty scenes in daylight so I only pushed moderately, guess 2-stops. But as I said I do shoot uncompressed mode under tripod mode in mostly evening scenes or whatever when I shoot on tripod where usually with highly contrasty light condition from pitching dark sky or unlit areas to illuminated buildings etc, where I pushed shadow and recover highlight aggressively, where compressed RAW likely will have artifacts after aggressive push that is well documented.

Here is a sample in full size that is my typical daylight photo, even with e-shutter if you can point out artifacts?

View attachment ae47ce2625ac4f08a58f487b44f89038.jpg
full size, hand-held, e-shutter, compressed mode under very windy condition

I was talking about the Nikon lossy compression, not the Sony lossy compression. And I don't think you need much of a push in a capture like that.

Yes as I said I truly don't see difference from 90% of my total photos taken in daylight hand-held. I shoot uncompressed RAW on tripod regardless anyway that includes waterfall photos with ND filters on tripod in daylight.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[DenImage]

Google is your friend

https://encode.su/threads/2762-PackRAW?highlight=PackRAW

Den

I saw this, still no info if it uses a proprietary format, which I suspect it does, hence it is useless at least for me. But may be I am wrong, and it converts raws into to a standard DNG format.

Additionally, the compression ratio mentioned there is 196/291 = 67%, far from the ADobe DNG Converter with 50%.

The ideal solution would be to have the Adobe level of compression done by Sony cameras. Adobe DNG is a good workaround, likely to be better than the PAckRAW with it's proprietary format.

Again, you can't revert back to the original RAW file once you convert it to DNG.

PackRAW is a "proprietary" compressor optimised for RAW files, so you'll always have a copy of the original RAW archived.

It has a great balance of speed and compression ratio, I've been using it since 2016 without any issues.

If it's no use to you, fine, but others reading this thread might find it very useful.

Den

Speed? You spend extra time on manually compressing and uncompresssing raw files, fidgeting with scripts.

It might be a good option for a backup though.

Nonsense,

The time taken to compress RAW files using PackRAW is no more inconvenient than the time taken to convert RAW files to DNG.

The time to decompress RAW files using PackRAW is no more inconvenient than copying RAW or DNG files from one directory to another.

I use one batch file to compress all RAW files in a directory to half the size of the original uncompressed RAW, and another batch file to decompress all RAW files in a directory.

Here's all anyone needs to do:

1. Copy PackRAW.exe to the directory where the RAW (ARW) files are.

2. Copy and paste this line to notepad then save as Compress.bat to the same directory.

for %%a in ("*.arw") do (packraw.exe p "%%a")

3. Copy and paste this line to notepad then save as Uncompress.bat to the same directory.

for %%a in ("*.prw") do (packraw.exe u "%%a")

All it takes is a doubleclick of my mouse button, hardly what you claim "fidgeting with scripts".

NOTE: If anyone trying the above batch commands wants to delete the original after each file is converted, just add the following to the end of the command:

& DEL "%%a"

Examples below of the added delete command:

for %%a in ("*.arw") do (packraw.exe p "%%a" & DEL "%%a")

for %%a in ("*.prw") do (packraw.exe u "%%a" & DEL "%%a")

Den

you can add packraw.exe into a system variable and never have to have that file around ever again, one less step permanently.

Example?

Den

put the folder in C:\packrawfolder\bin\packraw.exe for example

go into "Environment variables" under system variables look for "path", hit edit add "C:\packrawfolder\bin"

from there on out, in command line, you simply call packraw or packraw.exe and it should run from the system variable location, no need to carry the exe with you everywhere.

Ah ok, I understand what you meant now.

Den

 

[JimKasson]

I shoot 90% of my photos with compressed RAW files that effectively cut file size in half. Only 10% of photos with uncompressed RAW under tripod mode. I really cannot see difference in those 90% of photos usually taken in daylight time or at 10fps burst mode in respective applications between compressed and uncompressed RAW files.

I have taken close to 10K A7r IV photos so far, compressed or uncompressed, not much issue. In addition hard drive is cheap these days.

If we had lossless compressed RAW everybody would be shooting in that mode. With Sony's lossy compressed RAW I keep switching, depending on the situation. This complicates the workflow unnecessarily.

Sure. But really no visible IQ difference with compressed RAW in most scenarios. Therefore even Canon offers similar lossy compressed RAW CR3 format. Lossless compressed RAW file size will be between compressed and uncompressed. You can achieve indirectly if you convert uncompressed RAW to Adobe DNG format judged by file size.

Nikon offers lossy and lossless compressed RAW. I do not understand why they even offer lossy compressed RAW as nobody uses it, AFAIK.

nobody except for most folks: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4314552#forum-post-61576785

only benefit is if you're shooting base ISO, and pull hard...... like landscape shooters, and even then, it's negligible at best. You need to pull 3 stops before you can start telling a difference, and then you'd have to be 1:1 to see the most subtle difference........

I think that’s an overstatement. you can see the difference on a C-size print, at base ISO with a push — not pull, BTW.

Honestly I have not seen noticeable difference in daylight hand-held photos. I have tons of photos (about 90% of my total photos) taken in compressed mode including from A7r IV. However most of them are not under highly contrasty scenes in daylight so I only pushed moderately, guess 2-stops. But as I said I do shoot uncompressed mode under tripod mode in mostly evening scenes or whatever when I shoot on tripod where usually with highly contrasty light condition from pitching dark sky or unlit areas to illuminated buildings etc, where I pushed shadow and recover highlight aggressively, where compressed RAW likely will have artifacts after aggressive push that is well documented.

Here is a sample in full size that is my typical daylight photo, even with e-shutter if you can point out artifacts?

View attachment ae47ce2625ac4f08a58f487b44f89038.jpg
full size, hand-held, e-shutter, compressed mode under very windy condition

I was talking about the Nikon lossy compression, not the Sony lossy compression. And I don't think you need much of a push in a capture like that.

Yes as I said I truly don't see difference from 90% of my total photos taken in daylight hand-held. I shoot uncompressed RAW on tripod regardless anyway that includes waterfall photos with ND filters on tripod in daylight.

You miss my point. As i said earlier, I wasn't talking about Sony lossy compression.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

That is based on Nikon compressed format? Sony compressed RAW is just half size of uncompressed's one. Don't think if Sony ever had lossless compressed RAW will be only 6% larger but likely between two sizes. But we will not know until it comes out.

If they used the same algorithm, the compression ratios would be virtually the same.

It's not a showstopper without lossless compressed format as I said.

No, it's just a PIA. And completely unnecessary, AFAICT.

Jim

 

[Jimmy Simpleton]

An interesting discussion so far!

So just to clarify, is the consensus that adding lossless compression can be done in firmware for current cameras (should Sony decide to do so) or would it require a change at the hardware level and therefore only be an option on as-yet unreleased bodies?

I would hate the idea of being saddled with having no lossless compression forever (on a current body).

 

[JimKasson]

An interesting discussion so far!

So just to clarify, is the consensus that adding lossless compression can be done in firmware for current cameras (should Sony decide to do so) or would it require a change at the hardware level and therefore only be an option on as-yet unreleased bodies?

It could certainly be done in firmware. The question is how fast would it be. That is unknowable, at this point.

I would hate the idea of being saddled with having no lossless compression forever (on a current body).

I think you should plan on being thus saddled; Sony has shown no interest in fixing this, and they've had years to think about it.

 

[Jimmy Simpleton]

An interesting discussion so far!

So just to clarify, is the consensus that adding lossless compression can be done in firmware for current cameras (should Sony decide to do so) or would it require a change at the hardware level and therefore only be an option on as-yet unreleased bodies?

It could certainly be done in firmware. The question is how fast would it be. That is unknowable, at this point.

That's encouraging to hear.

I would hate the idea of being saddled with having no lossless compression forever (on a current body).

I think you should plan on being thus saddled; Sony has shown no interest in fixing this, and they've had years to think about it.

I feel you are right on this point. It's too bad, because every little bit of space saving adds up.

Oh well, I guess one can't have everything.

 

[Sharkyy]

It's not necessarily as easy as you think to add lossless compressed raw, but it's certainly unforgivable.

Storage is also incredibly expensive if you shoot often and have a 3-2-1 backup system in place.

 

[pollup]

It's not necessarily as easy as you think to add lossless compressed raw, but it's certainly unforgivable.

Let's say the code itself is rather straightforward, but there are extra "invisible" steps that this would involve:

1) firmware update in multiple cameras, but we can start from one, ex: the A7riv. The code must be optimized for speed and if it's too slow, then it will have an impact on other functionalities of the camera, like burst shooting speed.

2) add the option in the menus, RAW quality: compressed, uncompressed, lossless compressed.

2) update the online manuals => mention the #2 and if this causes some slowdown anywhere, this must be mentioned too.

3) update their RAW processing softwares to support this new format.

4) let third party softwares know about the changes so they can also update their ARW raw support, for softwares like Capture One and Lightroom.



#3 could be slightly problematic as it would require other teams to change and test their software.

Storage is also incredibly expensive if you shoot often and have a 3-2-1 backup system in place.

Storage cost is not the main issue as those raws can be compressed later, but it adds to the workflow. One issue is how many raws can be stored in the memory card itself, and, if the lossless compression can be made efficient, then it would also improve the buffer clearing speed. So there are 3 issues:

- fewer raws in the memory card

- slower buffer clearing

- more storage required to store those files (but could be fixed at a workflow cost)

 

[DenImage]

You make some good points.

I'm sure Sony have their reasons for not providing a lossless compressed RAW option.

If this feature is a priority for people, then maybe Nikon Z or Canon mirrorless is a better option for them.

Personally, it's not an issue for me. I use 256Gb SD cards (which stores approximately 3000 80Mb uncompressed RAW's from my 42 megapixel a7rii) , and dump my images to my laptop at the end of each day if traveling. I then run the PackRAW batch file to quickly compress the images to half the size (see my earlier post in this thread).

This lossless RAW issue is really overstated IMO.

Den

 

[Johann Kruger]

I am a happy owner of an A7r3 and I loved the specs of the A7r4, but, I will not get it. Why? Because of the uncompressed RAW files SIZE...

Seriously, I have no idea why Sony cannot add a single LZW compression on their firmware. I am not talking about fancy proprietary compression, I am talking about open-source industry standard ones.

Just do a simple test: get ANY RAW file from a Sony camera and run on a ZIP software in your computer. Completely lossless and makes the file actually smaller then the "lossy" compressed RAW that Sony offers.

I just don't get it. A7r3 RAW files are already a nightmare for my backup drive. I just cannot handle 61mp of that ...

If Sony just comes out tomorrow with a firmware across the board (A7iii, A7r3, A9 and A7r4) offering lossless compressed RAW (like everyone else, and like their customers are asking for ages), then I will be tempted to get the A7r4. Until then, I am not planning to spend the cameras worse in more external drives, thank you

One solution is to convert raw files to DNGs at import. The converted DNGs are compressed.

I do not like to convert my raw files to DNGs. Therefore I am also bothered by the lack of lossless compressed option.

Don't throw away the ARW files which has proprietary chip information which will be used by future Sony software programs. Dumbing down destroys this information and it's lost forever.

 

[Chester McCheeserton]

DNG ?

DNGs are size optimized and IMHO there is no issue with this file type at all.

Converting to DNG reduces the file size by 20% as opposed to a good lossless compression that would reduce file size by 50% no?

 

[lattesweden]

DNG ?

DNGs are size optimized and IMHO there is no issue with this file type at all.

Converting to DNG reduces the file size by 20% as opposed to a good lossless compression that would reduce file size by 50% no?

I don't mean to talk bad about DNG, but I prefer to have my RAW-files in their original format.

There are two options for saving disk space on RAW-files, like Sony ARW:
1) Zip them (or use other preferred compression algorithm), one and one or in bulk.
2) Turn on disk compression on the folder you store the RAW-files in.

Method 1 gives higher compression, when I tried I got about half the original file size.
Method 2 is more convenient since it is seamless to view and edit the files, but I only gained about 0,75 to 0,66 of the original sizes when I tried.

 

[PWPhotography]

DNG ?

DNGs are size optimized and IMHO there is no issue with this file type at all.

Converting to DNG reduces the file size by 20% as opposed to a good lossless compression that would reduce file size by 50% no?

Lossless compression no matter how good will not reduce 50% but more likely around 20~30%. But if you shoot compressed RAW, that basically cut file size in half.

As I said I default shoot in compressed RAW in daylight, and only shoot in uncompressed RAW on tripod (dedicated assigns to dial '1' with bunch of other customization). I really don't see the difference in virtually all daylight scenes between compressed and un-compressed.

 

[brulain]

Try Rawsie by Dotphoton which produces DNG.

For BIF, uncompressed RAW file size is 117 MB and DNG file size is 17MB.

For landscape, uncompressed RAW file size is 130 MB and DNG file size is 30 MB.

It is very fast and there is no degradation in quality.