Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 26, 2006, 9:57 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Hi there. first post. I am not sure if this is where this goes. But anyway...

Upgraded from the Kodak CX4300 3.2MP NO ZOOM camera to a Z700 4 MP 5xZOOM camera a few weeks ago and I love the new camera.

But I have a question. Pictures taken on the CX4300 in "BEST" mode are over 1 Meg (1,000KB) insize every time. But pictures on the Z700 in 4 MP mode are average around 500-600KB which is about half the size. This is both on memory card and after capture from card to hard drive.

Is there a reason for this?

Charles.
cvearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 26, 2006, 10:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

That really shouldn't be happening... are you entirely sure that both cameras are shooting in there very top quality? Because quality makes a huge difference. (For example, my camera's low quality Jpeg takes about 600KB compared to 3MB for high).

If it's not that, I suppose your new camera could just be using a better form of compression. Do the pictures look any worse on your new camera? If they don't look any worse, than no use worrying about a good thing, right?
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2006, 11:03 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Morag2 wrote:
Quote:
That really shouldn't be happening... are you entirely sure that both cameras are shooting in there very top quality? Because quality makes a huge difference. (For example, my camera's low quality Jpeg takes about 600KB compared to 3MB for high).

If it's not that, I suppose your new camera could just be using a better form of compression. Do the pictures look any worse on your new camera? If they don't look any worse, than no use worrying about a good thing, right?
Strange... That's what I would expect as well.

I just did some various tests. Visually on my PC they look about the same as long as both cameras are in Auto mode and no flash. The Z700's flash is twice as powerfull it seems and it is far better at indoor pics as well.

But during my testing, I found something wierd. The pics from the Z700 vary in size depending on colors in the field and details and so on.

In fact Itook some pictures where the files werelarger than the CX4300 files. But only if there is alot of items and colors in the field like a garden. Then the files from the Z700 are more like 1,600KB. But then average pics are only around 600KB. They fluctuate as I am beginning to find out. But no matter what with the CX4300 I get 1,100KB pics. It can be an empty white wall. no change in file size with the CX4300. But then the Z700 will be 500KB in size.

Hmmm...
cvearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2006, 11:35 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

That is quite interesting.

I have found that my file size varies quite a bit depending on colour with my camera. Normal shots range between 2 and 3 Megabytes but if I set a super long exposure even though it's a bright shot (so the picture is all white) it can be as low as 500KB.

I don't have much experiance in this field, but that definately points to something about how the image is saved and compressed. I believe that in your CX4300, the compression still saves each pixel individually even if it is the same colour, but in your Z700 it can somehow save space by using a repeated pixel.

I could be completely off, but I believe a pretty logical theory is that it is simply and newer and better compression technology.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 4:57 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
Default

My Z700 pics have the same size variance. Must be what the reviewers term 'aggressive' compression. Nonetheless, I got some durn good pics with that camera.
domang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 10:15 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Default

domang wrote:
Quote:
My Z700 pics have the same size variance. Must be what the reviewers term 'aggressive' compression. Nonetheless, I got some durn good pics with that camera.
Oh I have definately been happy with the output so far. Like any person getting a new camera I have probably taken a years worth of shots in a week to ensure it's what I want. I may go up one more step but I am not sure.

This Z700 came with the printer dock series 3 for $249 CDN! Great price! That's like $219 in US funds. That was at a local big box store.

So I can hardly complain. But here is where I wonder... It's 4.0 MP and 5x Optical Zoom. The new one that I can get by paying $60 more is 5.0 MP but then only 3x Optical Zoom. I give up 2x Optical (which a tripod is really recommended for anyway) for an extra MegaPixel and better and smoother videocapture. Arrrggg....

The new one is a little sexier looking as well.

What to do!
cvearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 10:50 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

I would take the optical zoom over an extra megapixel anyday. My camera has 12 times zoom and I absolutely love it, to be honest, when I have to buy a new camera, I won't settle with anything less than 10 times. So definately take the 5. And as for the tripod recommendation, can I assume that the Z700 doesn't have optical image stabilization? Mine does and I can take prefectly clear shots at 12 times zoom.

I would keep your old camera definately, a higher zoom is worth more than a higher resolution in my opinion. But again it's up to you... or you could buy my camera if you're willing to dish out about $400 canadian:lol: A bit more than you seem to want to spend, but it's a great camera.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 10:59 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
sameroad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 241
Default

I have the Z700 as well and the file sizes do change but i never worried about it
i think it's something alot of cameras do.

and I've only had my Z700 for about 5 months? and I just upgraded to the P850
but i can't really tell that much difference between a 4mp and a 5mp

now on video my 5mp is better then on my Z700 but for pics i can't tell that much difference

but i think my Z700 takes better close up then my P850 but thats probably just cause i still don't know how to "fully" work it just yet

sameroad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 27, 2006, 11:20 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4
Default

sameroad wrote:
Quote:
I have the Z700 as well and the file sizes do change but i never worried about it
i think it's something alot of cameras do.

and I've only had my Z700 for about 5 months? and I just upgraded to the P850
but i can't really tell that much difference between a 4mp and a 5mp

now on video my 5mp is better then on my Z700 but for pics i can't tell that much difference

but i think my Z700 takes better close up then my P850 but thats probably just cause i still don't know how to "fully" work it just yet

Interresting. What ever happend to the "for average Joe printing 4x6 prints or even 8x12 anything over 3.2 MP was a waste" theory a few years ago? Or was that just because 3.2 was considered fairly high in 2003 and earlier?

But ya. I am falling in love with my 5x Optical. :-)

Thanks for all the replys!

C.
cvearl is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:04 AM.