I have made it a habit to hold the shutter for at least 3 shots so basically i've only 100 unique shots so the number sounds big but in the end it isn't.

Since this was my first time and tough lighting (concert) I think i'll end up with 20 to 30 keepers.

When i shoot for leisure under normal condition that number is higher tough.

Not sure about the 1:1 part many earlier macro lenses only could do 1:2 and still some are available, like the Carl Zeiss macro's.
I think the biggest defining difference is that Macro lenses are specially made to preform the best at close focus and they also have a very flat field of focus because of that, therefore only Prime lenses can be true macro lenses.
Zoom lenses with macro function only means you can focus close with them but they don't come close to what a real prime does/can in therms of quality, the zoom lenses aren't made for that.

Focal length change the prespective of the macro.
50mm give a wider "immersive" view than a 100mm which more isolate the subject.
Also the 1:1 distance with 50mm is closer then with 100mm. With 100mm it's around 30cm, 50mm around 20cm so with bugs a 100mm would be better.

"the less p&p the better" this certainly very open to debate, you should know how much for example Ansel Adams PP
I believe all great photographers did/do their own processing in the darkroom, i can be wrong though.

But what you said about RAW is the whole point i asked this question.
RAW always need a little bit of processing so if you shoot in RAW why not go a bit further and maximize the data in the photo rather than keep the processing to a minimal?

Made that 304 photos

Just found out i didn't install the plugins that i always used so it takes a bit longer

Yes the DA*50-135 was a nice lens but I'm glad i took the DA*16-50 with me I was literally sitting on the podium, if i would stretch my hand i could have touched them
I have used 16mm sometimes but most shots where around 20 to 40 mm with that lens..
With the DA*50-135 most were around 80 to 135 mm.
Most where shot at f/2.8 1/50 sec at ISO1000 or ISO800 only some shots where shot with a higher f-number for the DOF but not so many because shutter-speed became too low.

Yeah lordi will be great, will contact them today with the hope they can give me permission to take photos.

In response to this poll. What do you shoot? by Mike-p.
I'm wandering how many off you shoot to maximize "data" so you can have a better photo after processing rather than that you aim to get the best photo straight out of the camera.

So do you aim for best shot straight out of the camera of best shots for processing?

No need to feel inferior it's just a different way in doing things and yes RAW can be time consuming but it does reward you though and it can save time in the end because making a JPG better is quite hard.
And all photos can benefit from RAW, it just opens up possibilities but it isn't for everyone.

There is a difference between RAW programs I find that Lightroom works very fast and Aperture works roughly the same way i believe, just try out those programs and see what it can do for you.

I just shot 129 photos yesterday in 2 hours so the numbers off shots say nothing.
I do shot them all in manual mode so hopefully i can work on 3 to 5 photos at a time applying the same settings to all of them.

Not really, if you're used to work with JPG files then RAW shouldn't be a problem either.
You will only gain some extra settings like whitebalance for example you can change that far easily with RAW than with JPG so in a way RAW is much more forgiving also with exposure since RAW holds more information. If a photo is too dark you can most off the time save it when you shot in RAW if it isn't too far off the correct exposure that is.
Shoot some photos in RAW+ you'll have the JPG and when you want you can play with the RAW file to see what that does and can do for you.

The only thing what I try to make clear is that the RAW will not match the JPG 100% because the RAW is literally raw data so it's open for interpretation.
Ask 5 bakers to make an apple-pie and they will all taste slightly different, that's how you should see it.
Also those RAW programs make a basic applepie so to say, it's still open to adapt it so you can add more sugar or some raisins if you want and that's why working with RAW can make a difference. You often can push the photo just a bit further then what the camera or default settings does.

Yes precisely, it just sounded like you said JPG and the RAW file will look the same but there will be some slight differences. There is even a slight difference in how RAW programs render a RAW file, it just shows how open RAW file is to changes. That's a good thing though because you can make it how you see it and are less stuck with boundaries.

Tim you're a true troll you know

DNG and PEF are essential the same things there is no different in the DATA they hold it's just that the container is different.

See it as milk, it comes in various containers but they all hold the same product.