300D: Best pic size to save space?

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

05/11/2005 02:20:50 PM · #1

I am going away for 4 days, and this will be my first trip with my Rebel. I have become shutter happy, and yes, I can blame DPC for that. In the past i have had only the capacity of 200 pics or so, but they were smaller files, and, well, now i shoot LOTS more. And i just got a 70-300 lens...gotta play with that on a trip!

So...I have 2 512 CF cards and 1 256. i am getting another 512 later today ($25 at circuit city...). I have no place to transfer images while away from home (i have an older laptop, but, umm, i have more CF card space than it has HD space!)

So my options are:
Large Fine Jpg, total of about 490 pics. This is what I normally shoot, or sometimes RAW.
The camera can do large JPG with more compression OR same compression and a smaller file size (2048x1360 vs 3072x2048), same size files are the result...so i can have about 840 pics. I don't plan on making 8x10s, but you never know...

So - which is the better option -
large pic with more compression
medium pic with less compression
??

Mark

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

05/11/2005 02:34:37 PM · #2

personally, I would shoot full resoloution jpg, simply because you'll probably get a nmber of shots that are very good, and if you take them on lower resoloution, you'll probably regret it later. What I do with my cam (which takes lower res shots anyway) is try to purge shots that are OOF, poorly exposed, blurry, or praticularly bad for any reason. If you have your laptop, you should probably be able to review prety well.

To get more photos on your laptop, you can use lossless compression programs like zip-it, but I'm not sure how much space that'll save.

If you can, it's probably worth getting another 512 card or two (or 6) if they're only $25 each

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/11/2005 02:36:55 PM · #3

Largest best quality jpg. Use RAW for the tricky lighting situations.

Don't downgrade the size/quality as you'll regret it later.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

05/11/2005 02:50:44 PM · #4

My laptop has about 150Mb free..and is an older pentium, as in Pentium 1, the first model. 100Mhz. NOT Ghz. Shall we say it takes a while to do much of anything?

I wanted to get a 1Gb Ultra 2 card, looking ahead toward my next camera. This week they are $80-100 after any rebates. The 512 is $40, less a $15 rebate. I can do $40, but not $80. Just sunk $185 into my car on monday, with more to go there soon, and bought a lens last week for this trip...

My test shots tell me to do the medium size saved in highest quality. At 2048x1360 i can still get 5x7 prints with no problem. The higher compression option (in either med or large sizes) just kills the sharpness and detail too much.

RAW is not an option on this trip - just no room for it. I am trying to decide on quality/size this trip NOW, not at the time to shoot...did that last fall -

- check out the guy wires on the masts of the sailboats - jaggies. They are in the original capture. Yuk. Now i have a different camera...gotta rethink everything!

As for killing of bad shots...may try that in the hotel at night..perhaps i can hook the camera to the TV and look at them that way. Too hard to cull all but the worst on the little LCD on the camera.

yido

Canon EOS-5D

05/11/2005 05:07:35 PM · #5

I remember reading somewhere that a smaller picture with less compression is a better idea. But to be honest, if you are going to make upto 8x10 prints or smaller, I doubt you 'll see any difference. More so if you are going to only view them on the monitor. Depending on the shot, you can also adjust the compression. The Hack lets you adjust it just by pressing the SET button, ha ah.

05/11/2005 05:24:45 PM · #6

Originally posted by yido:

After the fact? I doubt it. My previous cameras would let me compress or downsize a pic after taking it.

It is not difficult to use the Menu to change photo sizes/quality. (prolly not as easy as the Set button though). I found out - and did you know - that you can set one size/quality for Auto modes and a different one for Creative modes? I suppose that can be useful, but sure can be confusing..one more thing to check besides ISO and WB everytime you go to shoot!

bledford

05/11/2005 06:35:16 PM · #7

Just get one of these (link below)...they're cheap and clunky, but they totally serve the purpose.

X-Drive

05/11/2005 06:49:25 PM · #8

Originally posted by bledford:

Just get one of these (link below)...they're cheap and clunky, but they totally serve the purpose.

X-Drive

Hmm..there is no mention of size of HD.. i assume that is optional? it looks like it takes the 2.5" laptop size IDE drive??

bledford

05/11/2005 07:46:55 PM · #9

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Hmm..there is no mention of size of HD.. i assume that is optional? it looks like it takes the 2.5" laptop size IDE drive??

That's correct. It has an internal, rechargeable lithium battery used to power a standard 2.5" drive, which can be had quite afforably on Ebay for around $40 for a 30GB model.

I used this system on a recent trip to Italy and was therefore able to take 2.5 gigs of photos with nothing more than this device, a single 1gb CF card and a 20gb hard drive.

Just, beware, you get what you pay for and the interface is quite silly. Also, the build quality is very, very cheap. But ultimately, I just needed it for storage and nothing else, and it served this purpose well.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

05/11/2005 08:09:41 PM · #10

I would strongly advise against reducing the quality or resolution settings but sticking to jpeg is still very good. I just bet you would regret it later on looking at a fantastic shot and not being able to do as much with it as you would like. I guess only you can determine what is most important for you but If I were on a vacation taking photos at possibly a once in a lifetime location I wouldn't want to skimp on the quality. If you are limited on memory space you can do these things. 1)Be careful what you shoot in the first place. 2) Edit your images at night and delete the obvious bad shots to make more space. 3)Maybe use lower resolution for any snapshot type shots wen you are just shooting friends or family for fun. You could accidentally forget to change your settings back so I still think it might be best to lower the quality or resolution later in-camera if your camera has these abilities. Most of all have fun and stay safe.

T

Simonkasprzak

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/11/2005 08:34:18 PM · #11

Hey,

I agree with most of those in this thread, about lowering quality to justify the idea of having more shot capacity on the cards. I went on a kayaking trip in upper Quebec, Canada, for a week, without the luxery of hotel-tv-photo-slideshows, to delete bad shots. That X-drive looks like a valuable item, or something like it, that doesn't have the useless Mp3 playback function, (if ur using it strictly for photos). I was using a laptop on my trip and draining my cards every night.

(Important reminder when using a laptop on a trip to drain large amounts of excursion shots: When transferring photos from a flash card/flash card reader (im sure many people use them, they're the best transfer method), even though it is more efficient, DO NOT CUT THE FOLDERS AND THEN PASTE THEM INTO THE HARD DRIVE!!! I did that and ended up with a cord that fell out of the car DC conversion box, (laptop has no battery in it; juiced out), and then a day's worth of photos lost while pasting them to the hard drive....O and a very angry Simon.

So if possible, don't rely just on the flash cards when shooting happy. It's best to be able to shoot freely without having to hastle with memory. Isn't that why we all bought Digital cameras??

Enjoy your trip!!

P.s. REMEMBER TO BRING MANY BATTERIES, AND KEEP THE 'AUTO SHUT-OFF' FUNCTION ON, lol, another mistake, ......Don't judge me differently.

Simon Kasprzak

//www.simonphotography.net

Message edited by author 2005-05-11 20:35:04.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/11/2005 08:40:54 PM · #12

I would regret having the shot of a lifetime in front of me, and having no space left on my cards to take it. Or, as happened to me last summer, getting half-way through my vacation and running low on space and wasting time out of the vacation running around worrying about how to back up pictures or get new cards. And what doesn't seem to be getting through is that there are budget issues - if he can't afford $80 for a 1gig card, he probably can't swing $100+ on an X-drive plus a hard drive (though I do agree, that's ultimately the best solution). In other words, Chris, I feel your pain. :)

I would lean towards lower resolution over higher compression (lower quality). Compression will loose detail. On the other hand, how often do people argue that more megapixels aren't as big an issue as sales people like to suggest? But I don't know for certain - this is just a guess.

Here's a thought: Why not conduct your own test? Take some pictures with a bit of detail at various settings and compare the results. Figure out which gives the best bang for your buck.

Simonkasprzak

05/12/2005 12:41:05 AM · #13

Nice comment Scottk, totally agree, a little photographical experiment under justification for the maximum efficiency of your imaging process and progress...

Simon

//www.simonphotography.net