Canon vs Kodak jpg file size very different

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Louise, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. Louise

    Louise Guest

    I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.

    We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    same shot with both cameras.

    Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.

    On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    seems to produce a more detailed picture.

    Canon - 1743kb
    Kodak - 736kb

    Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    totally different sizes?

    TIA

    Louise
    Louise, Mar 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Louise

    Ron Recer Guest

    "Louise" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    >
    > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    > same shot with both cameras.
    >
    > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    >
    > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    >
    > Canon - 1743kb
    > Kodak - 736kb
    >
    > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    > totally different sizes?


    JPG files use lossy compression. The higher the compression, the more
    detail is lost and the smaller the file size. PhotoShop Elements allows for
    12 compression rates and you will get a different file size for each. The
    Canon apparently uses less compression than the Kodak, thus more detail and
    larger file size.

    Ron
    Ron Recer, Mar 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Louise

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Louise wrote:

    > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    >
    > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    > same shot with both cameras.
    >
    > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    >
    > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    >
    > Canon - 1743kb
    > Kodak - 736kb
    >
    > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    > totally different sizes?


    As Ron Recer responded.. There are different compression levels.
    Canon and Kodak use slightly different levels.

    If you really want to be confused, open one of your images in your
    favorite image editor and save it again..

    It should be a completely different size.. It could be larger, or
    smaller.. It all depends on the default JPEG compression level of
    your editor.

    If you choose 'save as' you'll see you can pick the compression
    level and have many different file sizes for the same image.
    Jim Townsend, Mar 26, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "Ron Recer" <> wrote:

    > "Louise" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    > > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    > >
    > > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    > > same shot with both cameras.
    > >
    > > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    > >
    > > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    > > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    > > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    > >
    > > Canon - 1743kb
    > > Kodak - 736kb
    > >
    > > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    > > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    > > totally different sizes?

    >
    > JPG files use lossy compression. The higher the compression, the more
    > detail is lost and the smaller the file size. PhotoShop Elements allows for
    > 12 compression rates and you will get a different file size for each. The
    > Canon apparently uses less compression than the Kodak, thus more detail and
    > larger file size.
    >
    > Ron


    And Canon has massive amounts of application data in the EXIF/JFIF
    format. I've seen it as bad as 1MB for the 300D. Running both files
    through a utility to strip the app data and optimize the Huffman
    encoding will result in a better comparison. Jpegtran can do it with
    the "optimize" and "copy none" flags.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Mar 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Louise wrote:
    > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    >
    > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    > same shot with both cameras.
    >
    > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    >
    > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    >
    > Canon - 1743kb
    > Kodak - 736kb
    >
    > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    > totally different sizes?
    >
    > TIA
    >
    > Louise


    Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
    the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
    Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
    quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
    conserving flash card space.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 27, 2005
    #5
  6. Louise

    Louise Guest

    In article <bjn1e.17529$>, says...
    > Louise wrote:
    > > I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    > > Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    > >
    > > We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    > > same shot with both cameras.
    > >
    > > Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    > >
    > > On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    > > produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    > > seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    > >
    > > Canon - 1743kb
    > > Kodak - 736kb
    > >
    > > Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    > > producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    > > totally different sizes?
    > >
    > > TIA
    > >
    > > Louise

    >
    > Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
    > the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
    > Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
    > quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
    > conserving flash card space.
    >
    >
    >

    Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
    has a raw mode as well.

    Louise
    Louise, Mar 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Louise wrote:
    []
    > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure
    > it has a raw mode as well.


    Louise, if you take the same photo with each camera - can you see the
    difference in the JPEG compression other than in the file size, under your
    own typical viewing conditions? If so, then the Kodak is over compressed,
    if not, then the Canon has too little compression.

    Remember that JPEG is designed so that the compression it does is
    invisible - but the visibility of the artefacts will depend on viewing
    conditions. Print and view a 6 x 4 inch and an 8 x 10 inch image - you
    will likely be more critical of the larger image because you view it
    closer - i.e. the image diagonal will subtend a greater angle.

    What I am saying is that there will be an optimum JPEG compression for
    each circumstance. Go beyond that and you are simply wasting memory.
    David J Taylor, Mar 27, 2005
    #7
  8. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Louise wrote:
    > In article <bjn1e.17529$>, says...
    >
    >>Louise wrote:
    >>
    >>>I have a Canon S400 which is 4 megapixels. A friend just purchased a
    >>>Kodak CX7430 which is also 4 megpixels.
    >>>
    >>>We both use what appears to be the "best" quality settings. I take the
    >>>same shot with both cameras.
    >>>
    >>>Both cameras produce an image size of approximately 2200x1700.
    >>>
    >>>On download from the memory card(s) to the computer however, each camera
    >>>produces a radically different size jpg file and the larger, of course,
    >>>seems to produce a more detailed picture.
    >>>
    >>>Canon - 1743kb
    >>>Kodak - 736kb
    >>>
    >>>Why would two cameras, both with the same number of pixels, both
    >>>producing a very similar image size, then produce jpg files of such
    >>>totally different sizes?
    >>>
    >>>TIA
    >>>
    >>>Louise

    >>
    >>Because JPEG compression is subject to various parameters which affect
    >>the compression, thus the size of the file. It's what JPEG DOES. The
    >>Kodak camera compresses more, giving a smaller file, but somewhat less
    >>quality for that savings. Some would say Kodak was a bit overzealous at
    >>conserving flash card space.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
    > has a raw mode as well.
    >
    > Louise


    In 99% of the cases, the advantage is with the Kodak and its higher
    compression. As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
    long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
    media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
    ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Louise wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    >>not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure
    >>it has a raw mode as well.

    >
    >
    > Louise, if you take the same photo with each camera - can you see the
    > difference in the JPEG compression other than in the file size, under your
    > own typical viewing conditions? If so, then the Kodak is over compressed,
    > if not, then the Canon has too little compression.
    >
    > Remember that JPEG is designed so that the compression it does is
    > invisible - but the visibility of the artefacts will depend on viewing
    > conditions. Print and view a 6 x 4 inch and an 8 x 10 inch image - you
    > will likely be more critical of the larger image because you view it
    > closer - i.e. the image diagonal will subtend a greater angle.
    >
    > What I am saying is that there will be an optimum JPEG compression for
    > each circumstance. Go beyond that and you are simply wasting memory.
    >
    >

    In a few (very few) pictures I have taken, the Kodak compression becomes
    a problem. More often (99% of my pictures), it is an advantage is
    saving storage. I would say that if you take a LOT of pictures of trees
    and grass, you might want to avoid the Kodak cameras before the DX7440,
    which has an optional 'fine' compression.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 27, 2005
    #9
  10. Louise

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:

    > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
    > has a raw mode as well.


    Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
    cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
    settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
    Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
    compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
    manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.

    Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
    mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
    for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
    use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
    either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
    compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
    only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
    to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
    ASAAR, Mar 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Ron Hunter <> writes:

    >As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
    >long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
    >media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
    >ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.


    What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?

    My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
    a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
    certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Mar 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Louise

    Larry Guest

    In article <d27a95$4s$>, says...
    > What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
    >
    > My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
    > a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
    > certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
    >
    > Dave
    >
    >


    The longest wait in the industry (I think) is the Sony F 828 with a 12 to 13
    second delay while writing a RAW file (It seems like MUCH longer, but it
    isnt).


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Mar 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>As for raw mode, be prepared to WAIT between shots, as
    >>long as 30 extra seconds, as the raw file gets written to the flash
    >>media. It's a great feature, but only on a camera that has a very large
    >>ram buffer, or a very fast flash card, and card interface.

    >
    >
    > What camera takes 30 seconds to write a raw file?
    >
    > My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
    > a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
    > certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.
    >
    > Dave

    And that is how may megapixels?


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Louise

    Louise Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
    >
    > > Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    > > not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
    > > has a raw mode as well.

    >
    > Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
    > cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
    > settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
    > Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
    > compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
    > manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
    >
    > Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
    > mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
    > for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
    > use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
    > either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
    > compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
    > only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
    > to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
    >
    >

    Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
    think about wanting RAW.

    Louise
    Louise, Mar 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Louise wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    >>On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:52:28 GMT, Louise wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Thanks everybody - it's very clear now. I'm glad I have the Canon and
    >>>not the Kodak. And the next time I purchase a camera, I'll make sure it
    >>>has a raw mode as well.

    >>
    >> Louise, I'm not familiar with your Canon S400, but with several
    >>cameras that I've used (Canons and Fujis), the highest resolution
    >>settings had multiple jpg compression levels available. Two for the
    >>Fujis and three for the Canons. The S400 may only have one
    >>compression level, but if you aren't completely sure, just check the
    >>manual. The camera's menu may not make it obvious.
    >>
    >> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
    >>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use. My Fuji,
    >>for example, requires lots of PC processing before you can see or
    >>use any of its raw images. And using a 500MB card that can hold
    >>either 268 or 532 of the highest resolution images (depending on the
    >>compression that was selected), if raw mode is used the card would
    >>only be able to hold 61 images. Some cameras may also not be able
    >>to take successive pictures rapidly when shooting in raw mode.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
    > think about wanting RAW.
    >
    > Louise


    Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper (and
    we hope faster).


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Ron Hunter <> writes:

    >> My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
    >> a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
    >> certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.


    >And that is how may megapixels?


    It's 4 MP.

    If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
    you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
    Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
    interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.

    Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
    seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
    seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
    camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
    than 30 seconds total.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Mar 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Louise

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
    >>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.

    >>
    >> Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
    >> think about wanting RAW.
    >>
    >> Louise

    >
    > Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
    > (and we hope faster).


    Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
    :) There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
    even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
    the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
    sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
    be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
    somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
    will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
    not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
    getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
    before, not after the purchase.

    Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
    cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
    battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
    recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
    store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
    quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
    levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
    compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
    adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
    - and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
    get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
    requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
    surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
    alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
    how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
    Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
    frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
    reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
    over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
    Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
    zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
    single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
    improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.


    Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
    That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
    recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
    1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
    And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
    inexpensive CF or SD card.

    But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
    radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
    much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
    CDs.
    ASAAR, Mar 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Dave Martindale wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>>My old Canon G2, using an older standard-grade (not fast) CF card, takes
    >>>a few seconds to write a raw image. It's longer than a JPEG image,
    >>>certainly, but it's on the order of 5 seconds not 30.

    >
    >
    >>And that is how may megapixels?

    >
    >
    > It's 4 MP.
    >
    > If you assume that 8 MP cameras have no faster interface to the CF card,
    > you might extrapolate that 8 MP would take 10 seconds for a P&S camera.
    > Some DSLRs have more pixels than this, but they also have faster card
    > interfaces and larger RAM buffers making this less of a problem.
    >
    > Now, how about an example of a camera that takes anywhere near 30
    > seconds to write a RAW image of any size? Actually, you said "30 extra
    > seconds", not "30 seconds", so you must believe that there is some
    > camera that takes 30 seconds longer for RAW than for JPEG, and thus more
    > than 30 seconds total.
    >
    > Dave


    You make many assumptions, many of which aren't true in general.

    It takes my camera about 25 seconds to write 6 jpg pictures to the flash
    card. The files are about 1 meg each. Given a write speed in that
    range, you figure out how long it would take to write a RAW file from a
    camera with 8 MP. If you snap pictures until you fill the camera's
    buffer, it will probably take at least that 30 seconds before it has
    emptied the buffer to the card, UNLESS you have a very fast camera, and
    a very fast card. So the warning is well-founded.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 29, 2005
    #18
  19. Louise

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:10:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>> Also, before selecting a new camera based on whether it has a RAW
    >>>>mode, make sure it's not going to be impractical to use.
    >>>
    >>>Oh - 61 images isn't very much. I guess I will consider that when I
    >>>think about wanting RAW.
    >>>
    >>>Louise

    >>
    >>Don't worry too much as large capacity cards keep getting cheaper
    >>(and we hope faster).

    >
    >
    > Hmm. Why am I not surprised at who has given contrarian advice?
    > :) There's no reason to worry, but my recommendation still holds,
    > even if it's used 10 years from now. If making a purchase based on
    > the fact that a camera has RAW mode, even far in the future, make
    > sure that it's not going to be impractical to use. Yes, cards will
    > be larger. But sensors and image sizes will also be larger,
    > somewhat canceling the advantage of larger cards. And if the camera
    > will often be used for action photography, RAW pictures may (or may
    > not) slow the camera down. Again, try to know exactly what you're
    > getting. It's better for the blood pressure to get the facts
    > before, not after the purchase.
    >
    > Returning to a familiar topic, who knows but that in several years
    > cameras might be able to take 500 pictures using a single AA
    > battery. In support of this contention, Sony makes minidisc
    > recorders (that use very small magneto-optical discs), that can
    > store up to 45 hours of stereo audio on a single disc with very high
    > quality, easily comparable to FM stereo at the highest compression
    > levels. I believe this to be higher than 20:1, much more than the
    > compression used in cameras. Even with this high compression that
    > adds to battery consumption, these MDs can play up to about 24 hours
    > - and this is from a single alkaline AA battery. While you can't
    > get as many hours when recording, writing to the disc probably
    > requires more current than writing to a flash card since the disc's
    > surface must be heated for recording to occur. Even then, a single
    > alkaline battery can last up to 9 hours when recording. Think of
    > how many pictures a camera could take in only one hour of operation.
    > Mine can continuously shoot 1.6 frames per second. But allowing for
    > frequent pauses to select different subjects the average could be
    > reduced to 1 frame per second. That's still enough to take well
    > over 3000 shots, far more pictures than you or I take in a year!
    > Even if AF and zooming had to be replaced with manual focus and
    > zooming (which I'd prefer, actually) to get so many pictures from a
    > single battery, it would be quite an achievement, and not as
    > improbable as 'common sense' would have us believe.
    >
    >
    > Maybe Sony should consider putting a minidisc in their cameras.
    > That's not entirely unreasonable, as there's at least one MD
    > recorder they make that's extremely thin, probably taking up 1/3 or
    > 1/4 the volume of a moderately small camera such as Canon's A80.
    > And 1GB minidiscs are far cheaper than the smallest, most
    > inexpensive CF or SD card.
    >
    > But no, I don't think Sony will consider doing anything this
    > radical. It would be nice if they did though. Optical discs are
    > much more rugged, and supposedly have much longer archival life than
    > CDs.
    >


    I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
    now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
    way out there on your speculations.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Mar 29, 2005
    #19
  20. Louise

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:29:17 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > I have been expecting to see minidiscs in high end cameras way before
    > now. Surely by the end of this year. Other than that, I think you are
    > way out there on your speculations.


    Well of course. I didn't say you'd see anything like such an
    efficient camera anytime this year. Or within five, if ever. But
    it's doable today. Might even have been done already by one of our
    "skunk works" if there was a need for it. There are other toys
    that'll keep our attention diverted. Someone, probably Canon will
    soon have a very small camera with a very big 3" LCD, including
    built-in wifi, so you can immediately upload shots to a website,
    etc. Now that's one camera I'm sure won't be used with alkalines. :)
    ASAAR, Mar 29, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thomas Reed

    Quick Book file access very very very slow

    Thomas Reed, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    742
    Palindrome
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. Joe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,256
  3. mark heinemann

    jpg file size ---> print size problem

    mark heinemann, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,703
    Jonathan Wilson
    Apr 29, 2004
  4. Chris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    477
    Chris
    Oct 21, 2004
  5. aussieworker

    Kodak DX6340 jpg size very small at max res.

    aussieworker, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    315
    J├╝rgen Eidt
    Jan 3, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page