If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
Bible John wrote:
Yes I am aware that I can take 2-4 pictures in the time frame it takes to save the image to the card. I doubt a new card will help, as I tested this with the internal RAM, and its still slow. Internal RAM is always faster than external RAM (I know this from experience with PDA's). Well with the exception of CF, which with some cards seems to be nearly as fast as internal RAM. But only high end cameras use CF. Low end cameras did at one time use CF, but not anymore. But what I do not understand is why my old Vivitar 3625 2.1MP camera saved pictures faster than my newer Kodak, and why the Kodak still has this time delay even when I take images using the 1.1MP mode. I can take more pictures while the light flashes, but I just hate that delay. The Vivitar may have this one advantage, but overall the Kodak is ages ahead of the Vivtar especially with the lens system. The images come out so much cleaner! You cant always base a cameras quality on the MP I have learned from experience. On the Vivitar if I took a picture using the low res 800x600 setting, the images always seemed to come back fuzzy. I do not have this problem with the Kodak. John The speed of writing the image to the card has never been a problem with my Kodak DX6440. The only time I have ever actually had to wait on the writing process was when I was on an Alaskan cruise and was snapping pictures as fast as the camera would allow near Sawyer Glacier. Yes, writing to the card is slower (usually) than other camera processes, but doesn't often get in my way. In order to get a camera/card combination that is really fast, you will need to spend big bucks. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
George E. Cawthon wrote:
Bible John wrote: -- 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries Founder and director http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards. Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by the public that they do. I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. John Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............" I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to their computer. As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want. I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
Helen wrote:
"Bible John" wrote in message ... -- I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel counts of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels nowadays is a pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of camera, and I doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound this with your carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy and, well, caveat emptor. Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Helen wrote: "Bible John" wrote in message ... -- I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel counts of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels nowadays is a pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of camera, and I doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound this with your carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy and, well, caveat emptor. Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp? Excuse me? Where did I say x6? Read again, I think this time you might find I said "almost 6 times". The 16.5 megapixels of my 1DSIIs stated as "almost 6 times" 3.1 megapixels is close enough for me, and 4 times 3.1 as 12.4 is as near as never mind to the 12.7 of my 5Ds. By the number of posts you've made on this matter it seems that you're quite obsessed with finding the elusive Canon 18. But I think the word "almost" is what you should really be looking at. Helen. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote: Bible John wrote: -- 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries Founder and director http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards. Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by the public that they do. I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. John Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............" I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to their computer. As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want. I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use? Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge. It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the lowest compression ratio. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
Helen wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Helen wrote: "Bible John" wrote in message ... -- I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. Most peoples' consumeristic cravings, as you call them, are engendered by research before buying and a desire to get something pretty decent. I'm unfamiliar with the camera you have chosen - I use Canons with pixel counts of 4 and almost 6 times yours. Strikes me that 3.1 pixels nowadays is a pretty down-to-a-price rather than up-to-a-quality sort of camera, and I doubt you can expect up-to-a-quality performance. Compound this with your carefully searching out the cheapest card money can buy and, well, caveat emptor. Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp? Excuse me? Where did I say x6? Read again, I think this time you might find I said "almost 6 times". The 16.5 megapixels of my 1DSIIs stated as "almost 6 times" 3.1 megapixels is close enough for me, and 4 times 3.1 as 12.4 is as near as never mind to the 12.7 of my 5Ds. By the number of posts you've made on this matter it seems that you're quite obsessed with finding the elusive Canon 18. But I think the word "almost" is what you should really be looking at. Helen. I don't want to get into definitions of 'almost', but it would have to be closer to 18 than 16.5 to match my definition of 'almost'. Again, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a new model. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
George E. Cawthon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: George E. Cawthon wrote: Bible John wrote: -- 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries Founder and director http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards. Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by the public that they do. I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. John Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............" I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to their computer. As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want. I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use? Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge. It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the lowest compression ratio. Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem, but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably 'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next digital camera, in like 5 years.... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
Ron Hunter wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: George E. Cawthon wrote: Bible John wrote: -- 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries Founder and director http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards. Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by the public that they do. I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. John Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............" I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to their computer. As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want. I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use? Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge. It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the lowest compression ratio. Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem, but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably 'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next digital camera, in like 5 years.... Huh? Higher compression equals smaller files, poorer quality. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images
George E. Cawthon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: George E. Cawthon wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: George E. Cawthon wrote: Bible John wrote: -- 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries Founder and director http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible "George E. Cawthon" wrote in message ... Two points. One, the speed of saving in cheaper cameras is usually limited by the camera not the card. Second, all cards are the same (not brands, but versions) and later versions may be quite a bit faster and more expensive. 128MB SD cards are not very expensive and some are practically free after rebate. 128 MB may be all you need with a 3.1MP camera but most people want at least 512 MB cards. Not me. 3.1MP is plenty enough for me. I used a 2.1mp camera for years. The public tells people they need stuff that they do not. Most people do not need a 7.2 or 10MP camera, yet most people are told by the public that they do. I am smarter than the average sheep, and will not buy a product I do not need nor will I follow the public's consumeristic cravings. John Have no idea what you are talking about. So I reread my statement and found an error. Suppose to say "All cards are Not the same............" I didn't say anything about the need for a higher definition camera, just that many people preferred a higher capacity card. My 4MP camera will take 256 pictures at max resolution on a 512 MB card and I need that much when traveling because I have no other storage. Not sure how many shots you would get on a 128MB card with a 3.1MP camera but it sure wouldn't be enough for me or many other people before they get back to their computer. As for your comments on 3.1MP cameras, buy what you want. I have a 4mp camera, and get 300 pictures on a 256Meg card. I have considered buying a 1GB card ($20 at Fry's), but can't imagine why I would even need a card this large, given that a 7 day cruise to Alaska only generated 470 pictures. I suppose if I regularly made trips longer than 1 week, to scenic places, a larger card would make some sense, but given that I have 3 128 meg cards, and one 256 meg card, and that totals to about 800 shots, and my laptop travels with me.... What's the use? Not much, especially if you travel with a laptop. Although cameras very in their compression ratios, putting 300 pictures on a 256 MB card means your camera is set for a smaller image size or stores the pictures at a higher compression ratio (lower quality). On a 256 MB card I could store only 132 negs of high quality (1:4 compression) and only 20 negs in TIFF format. I don't use TIFF because I don't seem much improvement, if any, and write times is very long because the files are huge. It make much little sense to store negatives at less quality than the lowest compression ratio. Higher compression, in the case of my camera. This is seldom a problem, but taking pictures of trees on a mountainside produces unacceptably 'muddy' images. Something I will look out for when I buy my next digital camera, in like 5 years.... Huh? Higher compression equals smaller files, poorer quality. Yes, but when the camera firmware doesn't offer a choice, you are left with whatever the programmers decided was 'optimal'. Unfortunately, the nature of JPEG compression is that it is 'scene sensitive', with some types of scenes requiring different settings for optimal results.. I am stuck with only on compression level, which I will correct when I get my next camera. It is a problem only one percent of the time, but there is that one percent... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Issues with Kodak CD33 saving images | Bible John | Digital Photography | 2 | April 14th 06 09:54 PM |
Issues with Kodak CD33 saving images | Bible John | Digital Point & Shoot Cameras | 1 | April 14th 06 09:54 PM |
Non-Canon photo papers for PIXMA iP8500? | tomviolin | Digital Photography | 230 | April 15th 05 12:03 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 10:58 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 10:51 PM |