Issues with Kodak digital camera saving images

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Bible John, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. Bible John

    Bible John Guest

    For some reason my nice new Kodak CD33 3.1MP camera seems to take a bit of
    time writing images to my 128MB SD card. Is this normal, or should I buy
    myself a Kodak SD card? I purchased the cheapest 128MB SD card I could find
    at Fry's electronics. I do not even recognize the name of the designer, as
    they are an off brand.

    I can live with the time delay, but it does get annoying.


    John

    --
    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
     
    Bible John, Apr 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bible John

    JTS Brown Guest

    "You get what you pay for."

    Luke 2:12
     
    JTS Brown, Apr 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. And, you now question if "cheapest" == "fastest" ?
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Apr 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Don't know anything about that camera, whether it
    saves fast or not. But I do know that there is no
    need to buy the Kodak brand which will have a
    premium price. Any major brand such as San-Disk,
    Lexar, Crucial, etc. will be high quality and most
    card are guaranteed. If you can, see if you can't
    borrow a card or use one at a store to see how
    long it takes to save.

    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.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Apr 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Bible John

    Bible John Guest

    --
    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
    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
     
    Bible John, Apr 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John,
    First, yes, it may take some time to write the file to the card, but
    you probably don't have to wait before taking another picture. Kodak
    cameras have buffers which will usually save from 2 to 6 pictures before
    you actually HAVE to wait until the files are written to the card. A
    faster card MAY help, or it may not. The limiting factor is usually the
    speed of the camera, not of the card.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Bible John

    Bible John Guest

    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
    [/QUOTE]
    John,
    First, yes, it may take some time to write the file to the card, but you
    probably don't have to wait before taking another picture. Kodak cameras
    have buffers which will usually save from 2 to 6 pictures before you
    actually HAVE to wait until the files are written to the card. A faster
    card MAY help, or it may not. The limiting factor is usually the speed of
    the camera, not of the card.[/QUOTE]
     
    Bible John, Apr 14, 2006
    #7
  8. Bible John

    JTS Brown Guest

    You don't have a clue, do you?
     
    JTS Brown, Apr 14, 2006
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Apr 14, 2006
    #9
  10. Bible John

    Helen Guest

    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.
     
    Helen, Apr 14, 2006
    #10
  11. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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?
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Excuse me? Which Canon models have 18mp?
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Bible John

    Helen Guest

    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.
     
    Helen, Apr 15, 2006
    #14
  15. 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.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Apr 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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....
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Huh? Higher compression equals smaller files,
    poorer quality.
     
    George E. Cawthon, Apr 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Bible John

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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...
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 17, 2006
    #19
    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.