File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Dave Cohen, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. Dave Cohen

    Dave Cohen Guest

    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, Dec 23, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dave Cohen

    Bruce Guest


    Don't delay too long, because the DMC-FZ35 is discontinued.

    Its replacements (two models) both give inferior results because the
    pixel count has increased and the new sensor is particularly noisy. So
    it is worth making the effort to find an FZ-35 while you stil can - it
    is one of the very best superzooms avaiable.
     
    Bruce, Dec 23, 2010
    #3
  4. Dave Cohen

    Ofnuts Guest

    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.
     
    Ofnuts, Dec 23, 2010
    #4
  5. Dave Cohen

    Bruce Guest


    One would have hoped that it would no longer be an issue.

    At least Canon had the sense to *reduce* the pixel count of the G
    Series high end P&S to 10 MP in the G11 and G12, and Panasonic did the
    same with the LX3 and LX5 models that use the same (Sony) sensor. But
    when it came to the superzooms, Panasonic replaced the 12.1 MP FZ35/38
    with the 14 MP FZ45 and FZ100. That was a step too far because the
    FZ45 and FZ100 produce very noisy results.

    Of course the market for high end P&S digicams is different to the
    market for superzooms, where there is still a perception that ever
    more megapixels and an ever-greater zoom range are both essential
    features.
     
    Bruce, Dec 23, 2010
    #5
  6. Dave Cohen

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Dec 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Dave Cohen

    Bruce Guest


    Superzooms are no good to anyone who wears a DSLR as a badge of
    his/her self-proclaimed status. However, they are more capable than
    95% of camera buyers will ever need.

    The needs of the vast majority of people who buy entry-level DSLRs (or
    mirrorless system cameras) and use kit lenses would instead be far
    better served with a superzoom.
     
    Bruce, Dec 23, 2010
    #7
  8. Dave Cohen

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 23, 2010
    #8
  9. Dave Cohen

    Ofnuts Guest

    You have a good argument in favor of more cards, not bigger cards :)
     
    Ofnuts, Dec 24, 2010
    #9
  10. Dave Cohen

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 24, 2010
    #10
  11. Dave Cohen

    Ofnuts Guest

    But you get to lose more if a card fails or is stolen. And since the
    bigger card spends more time in the camera it is a bit more likely to do so.
     
    Ofnuts, Dec 24, 2010
    #11
  12. How often did that happen to you? Once per quarter? Once
    per week?
    To the contrary, you risk something whenever you change cards.
    Not only can you drop them, step on them or lose them, the contacts
    you excercise every time you insert or remove them aren't built
    for eternity.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Dave Cohen

    John Turco Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:


    What's a "tschotschke," may I ask? That word looks like a combination of German,
    Russian and Yiddish!
     
    John Turco, Jan 12, 2011
    #13
  14. Dave Cohen

    Ollie Clark Guest

    You're not far off.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Jan 13, 2011
    #14
  15. Dave Cohen

    John Turco Guest


    Thank you, for the link.
     
    John Turco, Feb 28, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.