Peter Loveday mused: > > Out of interest, how has it been improved in the DS, any idea? Is it > compressed, or no padding, or both?
It's improved on the *ist-DS; the camera estimates 97 RAW files per GB, I believe (vs. 73 on the *ist-D, IIRC), and generally does significantly better than that. It's done by compression alone. There's still those 4 bits of padding, but eliminating those wouldn't help you; they are all the same (zero) at every pixel position, so they effectively compress down to nothing. Disclaimer: I haven't seen very many DS raw files, so I'm basing this on information from the limited samples I have seen.
