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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
Bruce wrote:
- it is one of the very best superzooms avaiable. Are superzooms good? ;-) BugBear |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter | Paul Ciszek | Digital Photography | 26 | January 28th 10 08:03 PM |
Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20 | Paul Ciszek | Digital Photography | 78 | December 12th 09 12:13 AM |
Disconnect Between HD File Size & PS's File Size | One4All | Digital Photography | 8 | September 12th 07 04:02 AM |
mega pixels, file size, image size, and print size - Adobe Evangelists | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | November 14th 06 05:08 PM |
File Size vs. Printed Photo Size | rafe bustin | Digital Photography | 14 | March 24th 05 12:16 AM |