Image recording quality - opinion pls

[Drac]

The DRebel has, among others, the ability to save jpgs in "large/normal compression" (6.3megapixels - 1.8 megabytes) or "medium/fine compression" (2.8 megapixels - 1.8 megabytes).

After some testing under 8x maginification, it seems to me that "large/normal compression" is a better choice than "medium/fine compression" since the file size takes about the same space in the CF card, yet the image is 6.3mp as opposed to 2.8mp.

I would like to not lose the ability to make sharp prints (with good color/tonal gradation) up to 11x14 (not inkjet) of any shots taken.

Thank you for your opinions or alternate suggestions

[chtgrubbs]

Shoot RAW!

[Scottes]

Why not take Large Fine? That's your best quality besides RAW.

[Drac]

Why not take Large Fine? That's your best quality besides RAW.
One reason is I would like to be able to get 200+ shots in my 512mb CF without having to download. Also, I would like to reduce download times to my computer and keep file sizes more manageable for Photoshop Elements.

By the way, will a CF reader speed up download times to the computer??

[Scottes]

If you want the best quality go Large Fine - who cares if you fit another 200 pictures on a CF card if they don't look that great? Take less but better pictures IMHO. If the card doesn't have the room then delete on camera when you have a moment and/or just wait for better shots.

And yes, a card reader will be faster, but make sure that it's USB 2.0 and will transfer at USB 2.0 speeds. My card reader transfers at USB 1.x speeds so i just bought a new one that specifically states USB 2.0 speeds on the packaging. I have not yet tested it though.

[sid]

By the way, will a CF reader speed up download times to the computer??
Unless it's USB 2.0 or firewire conneciton, it's not gonna make a big difference

[Phil V]

You have seen how little memory cards cost? You paid all that money for a camera for the quality of the sensor. Unless you are shooting for the web there is no reason to shot anything less than top quality. There's an old english phrase about 'sinking a ship for 'a'perth o' tar'. translates to spoiling the images from your multi thousand dollar camera / lens combination for the price of a 30 dollar CF card.
my first post!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Welcome to the forum Drac :)

To be completely blunt,

It would be an odd error in judgment to invest so much time effort and $$ into your photography and then cripple your results by setting the camera to shoot at a lower quality intentionally...

Think about it,. you have a $1000.00 camera in your hands and you are setting it to "low" quality?

[kb244]

I've always been a firm beliver that shooting, more doesnt always mean shooting better. I shot raw on a 256MB Ultra II for a while now, of which can only hold maybe upto 40 shots ( once I used the hack to make it save RAW + SMALL insteado f RAW + Large like on default ). I now have a 1 Gig Ultra II card, to hold upto 170 raw shots. Having less shots to take makes you more rigourous in your shooting, there are several very fine shots I did that would not have been the way they are now if I shot jpeg.