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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 11, 2003, 8:28 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Default 414 takes 45 seconds between shots? !!

In the summary of Steves review of the 414 he says it takes 45 seconds between shots when shooting in hi res, large image mode. Is this a typo? Did he mean 4 or 5 seconds. Maybe I can't see the decimal on my cheap monitor and he wrote 4.5 seconds? Can any 414 owner confirm or refute this?
wolfee is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 11, 2003, 10:46 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

it will take about 45 seconds for the camera to finish writing to the CF card when you set the rez to Tiff.......which is about a 12 megabyte file. Tiff is the uncompressed file that is like a digital negative. if you set the camera to highest quality jpeg, then it only takes around 8-10 seconds to write the file to the card.........i haven't done any timings to test the large jpeg, but i'll be glad to do it this weekend if it helps you on a decision.
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 1:49 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

Though this lag time may seem unusual, from what I've seen, it looks to be the norm in mainstream consumer digicams that offer this feature (unfortunately that number is shrinking every day). Camera companies probably figured that few people actually used uncompressed, especially with the highest jpeg setting using little compression and the fact that with digicams going mainstream, fewer and fewer people actually sit down, read the manual and know what tiff is let alone how to use it, thus they decided to dedicate the camera to jpeg and throw in the uncompressed tiff format as a bonus, a sort of movie mode of compression.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 6:21 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

movie mode???.......hmmmm................here is another way of answering. this is a shot taken with a 414 using Tiff, then saved as jpeg.

http://www.pbase.com/image/15365346/large.jpg


and this one is from just jpeg.........


http://www.pbase.com/image/15365530/large.jpg

not much difference on the web, but if you must have the absolute best for printing, then the Tiff will give you plenty of room for editing, as jpeg will start to deteriorate after you do any post processing. the 414 really is designed to take beautiful pics and print right off the card when shooting with highest jepg setting.[/img]
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 9:52 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks for all the replys. Can I assume that the large image with minimal jpeg will produce a 5X7 print that is similar in quality to the tiff?
wolfee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 10:20 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
a 5X7 print that is similar in quality to the tiff?
At 5x7 you don't need any tiff! You're just wasting memory space and slow down the camera... (it also slow down your editing, and clutter your hardisk) ops: ops: ops:

With the 1st generation lowest compression jpeg no one can tell the difference unless they no know what to look for (ie the areas of compression), and even so it's not discernable when you print at those small sizes. You're not gaining much by using tiff, in the future look for cameras with raw output. This file type is smaller than tiff and still preserve the full camera data from the CCD, be it 10 or 12-bit unlike the tiff(or jpeg) which is only 8-bit/color... This is only useful when you perform a lot of post-edit or enlarge to larger sizes 8)

BTW the 45s may decrease if you use faster cards, but this is a moot point if you decide to use jpeg (since you won't be able to tell the speed difference in this mode anyway...) :P :P :P
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2003, 2:16 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 88
Default

I finally broke down and paid to test the jpeg vs. tiff on my 404 and took 2 shots on a tripod in good light/good focus - looked about the same on monitor and had an 8x10" print made of both at an online photo printing place: they came back and I almost went to find my magnifying glass to figure out which was which, then realized that was what I wanted to know- it wasn't worth the write time or card space to shoot in tiff. Not to mention in shooting fullsize jpegs- you can rattle of 5 or 6 pretty dang fast, which is very nice. Now if it had RAW instead of tiff it would be a little harder to decide for me.
whittonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2003, 6:32 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whittonj
I finally broke down and paid to test the jpeg vs. tiff on my 404 and took 2 shots on a tripod in good light/good focus - looked about the same on monitor and had an 8x10" print made of both at an online photo printing place: they came back and I almost went to find my magnifying glass to figure out which was which, then realized that was what I wanted to know- it wasn't worth the write time or card space to shoot in tiff. Not to mention in shooting fullsize jpegs- you can rattle of 5 or 6 pretty dang fast, which is very nice. Now if it had RAW instead of tiff it would be a little harder to decide for me.
did you do any post processing to either file?
Tiff is a pain in the butt, but if you do any post processing to the Tiff and jepg files, you may see the difference.
once the jpeg file starts to become smaller in file size, i think this is where you would see the difference. and again, i may be wrong, but so far, any jepgs i have tried to rework usually don't print out as well as a Tiff file that i've reworked.
the one thing i really do like about using the S414 though is that the shots in "jpeg" right from the camera usually print out just fine.
it makes this camera a much more usuable camera for my wife than our D60.
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2003, 9:38 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Tiff is a pain in the butt, but if you do any post processing to the Tiff and jepg files, you may see the difference.
What if you start with the jpeg from the camera, post process the picture, and then save the result as tiff? This way you can have your cake and eat it too: ie gaining the camera speed, and not loosing any detail due to the compression after editing (you'll still have to live with the 1st generation compression from the camera!) 8) 8) 8)

In most photo editors you can also decrease the jpeg compression level... so the resulting won't be as small.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2003, 11:21 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

yes you are right.
the wife took some shots of her co-workers today and we took the images on the CF card, stuck them into the epson 785.............printed 5x7's and they turned out great.........now i can't have the 414 back..........LOL
at least i finally got her into picture taking........she loves the 414 now.
thanks for you help NHL 8)
Hawkeye12 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 3:14 AM.