OK fair enough. I use the free Nikon ViewNX 2 to manipulate RAW files. If you shoot RAW you can process them on your computer instead of the camera deciding all the settings. Then when it looks as you want, you convert to jpg. The trouble with tweaking jpgs is that you lose information. With RAW, you don't.AndrewS wrote:Brilliant, I think we have a winner!
I wouldn't even begin to know what to do with a RAW file. I'm a programmer, not a graphic designer.
That's part of it, but I was under the impression that, for example, sharpening and many other adjustments lose information if you work in JPG and it is much better to shoot RAW and do all such tweaks on that - then you're only processing the file once. If you shoot JPG it's already been processed. JPG is great if you are a good photographer and know exactly what you're doing and how to set up the camera to get what you want. I've not achieved that happy place, so I nearly always shoot RAW.rew wrote:The compression "losses" in "JPG" isn't the problem.
The problem is that the camera converts the raw sensor data to standard RGB colorspace using the "whitebalance" setting. I left my whitebalance on some "inside" setting again, and didn't notice. I now have a bunch of weird-bluish photographs. These would've been 100% recoverable if I'd shot them in "raw".
The 19.2 MHz crystal looks different and says Japan on it. The composite plug is crooked on the latest one.AndrewS wrote:Wow! No PCB "batch number" and an entirely different RAM chip! Any other differences you've noticed?
EDIT: My mistake, the batch number has moved to the back - "1218"
I think the holes filled is pot luck, both of mine came from Farnell, both stamped 1215 ...alexeames wrote: Oh yes. One more thing. The row of holes next to P2 have been filled on the Farnell model. On the RS they are still holes.