File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35

Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine.
Did Canon drop the superfine and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon
used to call super fine.

Dave Cohen wrote:
Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine.
Did Canon drop the superfine and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon
used to call super fine.

Zoom in very very very very close and you will see blocky artifacts with
more jpeg compression.

"Dave Cohen" wrote in message
...
Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine.
Did Canon drop the superfine and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon
used to call super fine.

There is no "official standard" as to what standard, fine and super-fine
mean, Dave, and in any case the file size will depend on the scene
content. More pixels, at the same compression level, will mean larger
files. When buying new cards, be sure to get ones fast enough for the
camera and the shooting modes you intend to use.

Perhaps shops will have greater discounts after Christmas, although I
somehow doubt it!

Cheers,
David

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:22:36 -0500, Dave Cohen
wrote:

Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine.
Did Canon drop the superfine and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon
used to call super fine.

What's in a name?

Don't obsess about settings like this. Shoot the FZ35 in iAuto and
enjoy the camera. If you want more control, shoot RAW and post
process. But get the FZ35 before they're gone. The new models stink.

On 12/23/2010 05:22 AM, Dave Cohen wrote:
Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine.
Did Canon drop the superfine and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon
used to call super fine.

There are some parameters in the JPEG compression that can make a very
significative difference in the output size, one of them being
"subsampling" (which, IIRC, means that the colors are averaged of 2 or 4
pixels before being encoded).

Personally , I don't see much purpose in cards that hold more that 500
JPEG pics, because I'll never take that many pictures in a single day
(even when I'm burst-shooting happy: car & m/c races, air shows) and I
don't trust the card as a storage medium in the camera (if something
goes bad after a few days, or the camera is stolen, I lose all the
pics...). And when I use RAW, I'm shooting even more carefully so I'm
even less likely to make 100 pics in a day. Also consider the time
required to review (and for the RAW, to extract) all these pictures
afterwards. I have a second card as backup (mostly for the case wheere
I forget the other one in the computer), but I don't remember using it
because I filled the other one.

--
Bertrand

Bruce wrote:
- it
is one of the very best superzooms avaiable.

Are superzooms good?

;-)

BugBear

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:22:36 -0500, Dave Cohen wrote:

Using a 4GB card in my Canon A3100IS, I get around 1000 shots in fine
mode (finest setting)
Reading the Panasonic manual (I'm considering purchase), they quote 560
shots in their fine mode. Other setting (highest) same on both cameras.
This would make for very large files. Why the big difference in
compression and what settings do users of this camera use.

On my old and broken A95, there were three setting. I could never see
any difference between super fine and fine. Did Canon drop the superfine
and is Panasonic calling fine what Canon used to call super fine.

A little background first: jpeg is what is referred to as a 'lossy'
compression. That means that each time the compression is performed, some
information is lost - the loss is a by product of 'robust' compression.
There are some methods of compressing images which loose no information -
the uncompressed image is exactly, pixel for pixel, the same as the
original - that is not true of jpeg compression.

There are a number of settings that govern how much the data is
compressed when you make a jpeg. 'fine', 'super-fine', etc. are basically
meaningless - except that for a particular camer, 'super-fine' will
probably be a better (more faithful) representation than 'fine'.
Depending on what you are using it for, an image can be compressed a LOT
before you notice any degradation. For example, images used on web sites
and such, besides being a limited resolution, can often be compressed
very agressively - this results in much smaller images which translate to
faster page loads.

As a previous reply noted, if you expand a 'fine' image and a 'super
fine' image from the same camera to 100% - you should be able to tell
which is which just by looking at the image. The amount of compression
you select is ultimately up to you - but remember that you can't regain
lost information. Depending on what you intend to do (or to keep your
options open) it's often best to save in the highest quality the camera
is capable of. And if your camera can save a raw image - that's best. You
can then be assured that you have the greatest amount of detail possible
if you want to do some grandiose output at a later date. Obviously, if
you KNOW that you will never need to print out more than a 3x5 picture or
use the photos anywhere other than a low res web site, then you can save
with lower quality.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:20:34 +0100, Ofnuts wrote:
: Personally , I don't see much purpose in cards that hold more that 500
: JPEG pics, because I'll never take that many pictures in a single day
: (even when I'm burst-shooting happy: car & m/c races, air shows) and I
: don't trust the card as a storage medium in the camera (if something
: goes bad after a few days, or the camera is stolen, I lose all the
: pics...). And when I use RAW, I'm shooting even more carefully so I'm
: even less likely to make 100 pics in a day. Also consider the time
: required to review (and for the RAW, to extract) all these pictures
: afterwards. I have a second card as backup (mostly for the case wheere
: I forget the other one in the computer), but I don't remember using it
: because I filled the other one.

I used to agree with that, but I've concluded that there's another side to the
argument. I tend to leave my pictures on the card until I'm absolutely sure
that the copies I've placed on the computer have been properly backed up. (My
backup workflow is beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say
that it's rather complicated.) So I find that I often don't have a card's full
capacity available. As a result, I'm starting to buy larger cards than those I
once used.

BTW, I recently attended a trade show at which a tschotschke being passed out
by one of the vendors was little metal boxes of breath mints. I discovered
that one of those boxes is exactly the right size to hold four CF cards, much
more compactly that anything else I've found. Be sure to wash out the leftover
powdered sugar first, of course.

Bob

On 12/24/2010 12:24 AM, Robert Coe wrote:


I used to agree with that, but I've concluded that there's another side to the
argument. I tend to leave my pictures on the card until I'm absolutely sure
that the copies I've placed on the computer have been properly backed up. (My
backup workflow is beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say
that it's rather complicated.) So I find that I often don't have a card's full
capacity available. As a result, I'm starting to buy larger cards than those I
once used.

You have a good argument in favor of more cards, not bigger cards :-)

--
Bertrand

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:21:24 +0100, Ofnuts wrote:
: On 12/24/2010 12:24 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
:
:
: I used to agree with that, but I've concluded that there's another side to the
: argument. I tend to leave my pictures on the card until I'm absolutely sure
: that the copies I've placed on the computer have been properly backed up. (My
: backup workflow is beyond the scope of this discussion, but suffice it to say
: that it's rather complicated.) So I find that I often don't have a card's full
: capacity available. As a result, I'm starting to buy larger cards than those I
: once used.
:
: You have a good argument in favor of more cards, not bigger cards :-)

More cards means more to sort out and carry around. Bigger cards means they
don't fill up as fast. And bigger cards are usually cheaper, per byte. ;^)

Bob