Fine or Normal-Please HELP!!
Hello, I have a Nikon 7900 and I am using a 1g sd card. My ? is does it mattter if the camera is set to fine or normal? I am in Disney World and my card can take 200+ pictures in fine but in normal it will take 500+ pictures. I am sure I will be taking a lot of pictures so I would like to leave it in normal but I want them to turn out good, so should I put it in fine? I will just be printing 4x6 pictures so will it really make a difference? PLEASE HELP!
Thank you, jvan
for 4x6's normal should be more than adequate ... keep in mind that you may end up with a shot that you'd like to blow up and then you'll be wishing you shot it in fine ... i know this doesn't help you make a decision but my outlook on this is that i paid for a good quality camera so i'm gonna shoot at its highest settings at all times ... you could always borrow a laptop to dump your files too on a daily basis
Originally Posted by jvan
I'd always shoot in the best mode available in the camera. If you want to crop, or you take a shot you really love and want to enlarge, you will be kicking yourself if you can't do it because you scrimped on quality.
200+ pictures is a good number of shots - you can always review the pictures you have taken. There will be many that didn't turn out right, or ones you know you will never print. Delete the rubbish ones as you go and you will find that 200 shots will go a long way. 5 minutes at the end of a day, or in the morning before breakfast will give you plenty of time to review what you've taken. You could also shoot mainly in fine, but if you know that you're only taking a snap reduce the qualiy for that shot and bump it back up for the rest.
Either that or get a spare card, or load them onto a laptop as pyrohavoc says.
I am going to give you mixed messages with my reply - but I will try to simplify. Ultimately top quality is the best, no doubt!
I have an 8mp Camera, but I use it most of the time on 5mp at the middle quality setting ~ sounds crazy. The saving in space is handy on holiday. When I want to take a picture that I think I may want to blow up and crop etc I flip it over to 8mp - but truly the difference is not big and certainly not worth it unless you are printing HUGE pictures. I have cropped my 5mp pics succesfully.
Also - I find that a medium (or low in some cameras) 5mp will give better quality than top quality 3mp. Even though the file size is similar.
Has anyone else on this site found this???
Geoff Chandler. UK/England/Surrey
NIKON D90 / D80. Nikon 16 - 85 VR, Tamron 28-200,
Sigma 70-300APO, Tokina 100 AT-X Pro D.
SB600 flash. Panasonic DMC-TZ25
I have shot myself in the foot before by having the camera set to a reduced resolution image. There was one image in particular that I wanted to print at 17x11 and couldn't, there wasn't enough info there.
The 8mp imager in my camera makes decent sized files, so a big card is a must. I shoot RAW + JPEG because I demand the most out of my equipment. I can always delete the bad ones and save room for good ones.
Cards are getting cheap too btw.
Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,
Lots of flashes and Honl gear.
If you have to, try cutting off resolution and keeping the quality cranked up. That's a fair compromise if it's an option.
This is why the MP race stinks...
Here's a poster with a 7MP camera who only wants to print 4X6 prints, wondering if it's "safe" to compromise compression to get more than 200 images on a 1GB card. I'm sure that whoever sold him/her the camera convinced the sale by saying that somehow they needed the 7MP to get the best quality, right? Then, when push comes to shove, and there are only 200 photos available on a 1GB memory card, something's gotta give! Not to mention when you bring the photos home and load them up on your computer? Hey, my computer would be heading for memory/disk drive upgrades right now if I'd opted for a 7MP camera. I guess the salesmen don't bring this up at the point of sale for cameras?
Still, I have in the past, to save memory when on a trip when there was no alternative, knocked the compression quality down a notch to free up more memory space. I did this in France with a 3MP Nikon 990, shot hundreds of shots that way, loved every one of them. Likewise, with a 2MP Panasonic FZ1 in Panama. I have a beautiful, seemingly artifact-free, 13X19 framed print on my office wall made (with Photoshop interpolation) from a 2MP FZ1 image, shot in "standard" compression, original file size only 317KB! My current camera is a 4MP FZ15, which in "fine" compression gives me about 600 shots/GB of SD card. I do normally shoot in "fine" mode, but I'd like someone to demonstrate what I'd lose if I switched to "standard" mode, one notch "down" in quality, supposedly.
Last edited by John_Reed; 05-13-2005 at 07:59 AM.
be your umbrella!
<<If you have to, try cutting off resolution and keeping the quality cranked up. That's a fair compromise if it's an option.>>
Why is that? I have a Nikon 7900. The manual states that 5MP at fine takes up the same amount of storage as 7MP at normal. If I decide to crop part of the picture, wouldn't I get the same amount of detail?
I guess that fundamentally, I don't understand exactly what the difference between megapixels and compression. Could you please enlighten me?
At 4 x 6 you could probably set it at 5MP normal and get 760 shots without any difference in quality. I doubt it would make much difference at 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10. If you weren't on vacation at Disneyland I would suggest you try it.
Originally Posted by jvan
But 7MP at normal should be fine.
P.S. I use a D70 and shoot exclusively in RAW (NEF). But primarily because I print a lot of my shots at 13 x 19, and occasionally 16 x 20 or even 20 x 30. Sometimes these end up on someone elses wall and help me pay for my habit... I shoot in RAW because it allows me to make major changes to the original, when required, without affecting the quality.
When I shoot snapshots (like at Disneyland) with the D70 I set it to JPEG-Large-Normal (not fine) so that I am not changing memory cards frequently. If there is a really nice shot I might want to print larger then I go back to RAW, but I've come to discover that even printed at 13 x 19 the JPEG-Large-Normal shots look almost as good, and from normal viewing distance there is no difference.
It's a mental thing...
Last edited by D70FAN; 08-04-2005 at 05:15 PM.
D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
Ha! See, I can change...
I've been printing (on plain paper and not photograph quality) 8x10s from my 2.1 MP Canon 775 for years and been very happy. I even plotted on on a 36" poster for my wife's birthday - came out just fine unless you stuck your nose right up to it (I used Powerpoint to scale it). Pictures are best looked at using computers or projection equipment anyway.