Odd look at 100% ( 3.1m Kodak )

[voxmagna]

Luisr...... interesting, so the camera really must be looking at the scene and optimising compression. So if you do have detail in a night shot, does it still come out ok without softening, artefacts or 'puddling' in pastels and uniform colour parts of a pic? It all sounds very economical on flash cards if the quality holds up. VOX

[ewitte]

Originally Posted by luisr

A night shot with lots of nothing but black sky will come out at 200-300 KB in size. A daytime shot with lots of detail will be larger than 1 MB at the same resolution.

I would say it made some incorrect assumptions on image 100_1995. After hearing the specs on the Kodak camera's I'm surprised people complain about the 300d not being customizable enough

Eric

[luisr]

Originally Posted by ewitte

I would say it made some incorrect assumptions on image 100_1995. After hearing the specs on the Kodak camera's I'm surprised people complain about the 300d not being customizable enough

I would say not the camera, but the JPEG algorithm instead. For comparison purposes, check the sample pictures right here in Steve's Digicams for the DX4330 (which I believe is the nearest cousing resolution-wise given that there is no review for the DX6340) http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...0_samples.html and see the file sizes of the most detailed images. They are typical of what I get myself (DUH! same camera :lol: ).

About that particular picture, (100_1995) I agree with you to some extent.