Quality - Standard or Fine?

Discussion in 'Panasonic' started by JLSchutt, Apr 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JLSchutt

    JLSchutt New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am getting familiar with the many features of my new DMC-TZ5 and its numerous settings. For picture size in megapixels the choices are 9, 7, 5, 3, 2 and 0.3. An additional choice for quality is Standard and Fine. If Fine is chosen, the number of pictures that can be stored on a memory card is about half of that for Standard. Which is more significant for overall picture quality and potential for future editing and cropping - size or quality? For example, would 9MP at Standard quality be better or worse than 7MP at Fine quality? I think taking all pictures at 9MP with Fine quality might be overkill for most situations. Any advice?

    --Jim--
     
  2. Andy Stanton

    Andy Stanton Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Messages:
    11,164
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My advice is use the highest quality setting available. If you're worried about space on your memory card, buy an extra card. You can buy a four GB SD card for under $15.
     
  3. JLSchutt

    JLSchutt New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Andy, thanks for the recommendation. It was most timely. We were just leaving on a short shopping trip, and I picked up a two-pack of SanDisk Ultra II 4GB SDHC cards at Costco for $27.99.

    --Jim--
     
  4. leaftye

    leaftye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what I would've recommended too. The only time I use lower quality is when I don't want to wait for the larger high quality pictures to be saved to the memory card between shots.
     
  5. JLSchutt

    JLSchutt New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've taken some photos with my new TZ5 using a number of different settings and have tentatively come up with two interesting conclusions. First the numbers from the experiment. The first view was a shot looking down the street in front of our house. A car was parked about halfway down the block. I did not zoom in on this scene. The file sizes for the photos taken with several different settings are the following:

    9MP Standard Quality - file size 2174KB
    9MP Fine Quality - file size 4368KB

    7MP Standard Quality - file size 1740KB
    7MP Fine Quality - file size 3344KB

    5MP Standard Quality - file size 1206KB
    5MP Fine Quality - file size 2530KB

    The next view was the same as the previous but with the lens at the maximum 10X zoom position. The file sizes for this view are the following:

    9MP Standard Quality - file size 2242KB
    9MP Fine Quality - file size 4199KB

    7MP Standard Quality - file size 1768KB
    7MP Fine Quality - file size 3467KB

    5MP Standard Quality - file size 1294KB
    5MP Fine Quality - file size 2372KB

    I next transferred the photos to my computer and looked at them with the Windows (Vista) Photo Gallery Viewer. I did some extreme zooming with the viewer to examine a small object in each photo at many times normal magnification.

    Conclusion 1: There is a significant difference between pictures taken with Standard Quality and Fine Quality. Small objects magnified in a Fine photo are considerably clearer than the same objects in a Standard photo.

    Conclusion 2: There is very little difference between pictures of different sizes when they are all taken with Fine Quality. A small object magnified many times in a 5MP, 7MP, and 9MP photo appears almost identical in all of them. A 5MP Fine photo is considerably clearer than a 9MP Standard photo.

    Given these conclusions, I am considering the use of 7MP Fine or even 5MP Fine for taking everyday snapshots. But I will definitely use Fine rather than Standard regardless of the MP setting.

    Any comments about these results? Are they what you would expect?

    --Jim--
     
  6. leaftye

    leaftye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would expect to lose something irreplaceable at lower resolution and quality. I would rather shoot at the highest quality and resolution. If I need smaller file sizes or pictures I'll use a batch script to make a smaller copy.

    The camera merely does what we can easily do on our computers, but if you do it in the camera you will lose picture information that you cannot get back. Do it on the computer and you can save the originals.

    Unless you're unable to acquire more storage or need/want to take pictures faster you should just use the highest resolution and quality and leave the editing to your computer. The latter reason is why I tend to shoot in jpeg versus raw. I have large memory cards and lots of hard drive space so picture to picture shooting speed is really the only reason I have to shoot with lower quality jpegs.
     
  7. kennerdull

    kennerdull New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have enjoyed this thread. I shoot all my photos on highest resolution also.I have a couple questions that I think are related. I now use a Panasonic TZ1. If I upgrade to the Panasonic FZ28 I will have almost double the zoom and double the megapixels than the TZ1. How much difference will that make in the real world of prints?

    Also Eugene, I thought raw was the "best" to shoot in if you have the choice. Why do you choose JPEG?.

    I also am debating between the Panasonic FZ28 vs Nikon P90.I love my TZ1 and am leaning toward the FZ28. I wonder if the 24x zoom on the Nikon will really be that much better that 18x on the Panasonic. At some point there is a maximum zoom that actually creates GOOD prints. I have read reviews on both and the Nikon does not get the props I had expected. I do mostly outdoor wildlife (lots of birds) photos. Any thoughts? I have been waiting for a Nikon P90 full review on this site! THANKS!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2015
  8. JLSchutt

    JLSchutt New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting that you are considering those two models. My wife has planned to buy a new high-zoom camera for quite some time and has spent days doing research and reading reviews on the Internet. Those are two of the three models she considered, but just today she placed an order (at Costco.com) for the third candidate - the Canon PowerShot SX10 IS. Her main reasons for choosing the Canon are its movable LCD screen and the clarity of pictures taken at high zoom levels. She looked at a number of comparisons on the cameralabs.com website.

    --Jim--
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2015
  9. leaftye

    leaftye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    kennerdull, I would shoot raw all the time if my memeroy card was fast. I bought cheap memory so shooting big raw files takes more time than I'd like to save. I'll be shooting raw all the time when I get a dslr since those things come with a buffer that'll make it faster to shoot a couple shots off quickly....at least the Pentax k20d does.
     
  10. kennerdull

    kennerdull New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eugene, thanks for the followup. I like the Panasonic FZ28 as it can shoot Raw or Jpeg or both. Jim, hope you are happy with the Cannon SX10 IS. I looked at this at Best Buy and really considered it, although I felt that the LDC was a little small (oxymoron?) and I prefer lithium ion to the AA batteries. does that camera shoot Raw? I will have to read all the reviews again before I buy. Please let us know how you like it!

    Kenner
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page