Steve'sDigicams

heatwave69 · Oct 17, 2004, 6:14 AM

I have recently acquired a Minolta Dimage Xt digicam and finally mastered the proper use of the Exposure and the ISO levels.

My main purpose of the camera is a *take anywhere camera* where I could shoot photos whenever I choose and printing the images out isn't such an importance.

The picture quality is quite good, although nowhere near as good and sharpas a much larger, 6MP digicam so printing may not result the quality I expect - i.e. better than printed film photo.

My question is - since this camera captures in the 2048x1536 resolution, would I lose any quality if I set the camera to resize it automatically to 1600x1200?

It does have a Kingmax 1GB SD Platinum 60X SD card installed which is a bit of an overkill even at 2048x1536 FINE resolution. But for uploading, resizing and thumbnailing hundreds of photos require considerable time if the files are in the maximum resolution - so 1600x1200 would be convenient if the quality does not degrade.

KueH · Oct 17, 2004, 6:48 PM

1 GB is not overkill. If your start taking bracketed shots, continuous shots, the card's memory is going to get eaten up pretty fast.

If in doubt, take a picture. Take one in 2048x1536 and take on in 1600x1200.

Take it to the computer and have a look or print it out. You'll find out if there are any difference.

heatwave69 · Oct 17, 2004, 6:55 PM

Well, the reason I mention overkill was that at the highest resolution JPEG, it can take 500 shots. On one short holiday I managed to snap 200 photos and that wasn't easy. With the 1600x1200 option - it could take more than 1000 shots which would be enormous even for a snap happy photographer.

I did compare the two shots between 2048 and 1600 and couldn't notice any difference - then again - my eyes are not as good as a photographer's eye.

In general - if you let the camera take resized (smaller) photos than its native resolution - will certain details be lost?

Or do most digicams do a fine job resizing to smaller photos?

Baz · Oct 18, 2004, 3:27 AM

"I did compare the two shots between 2048 and 1600 and couldn't notice any difference - then again - my eyes are not as good as a photographer's eye."

Well, Heatwave, how are you comparing the images? Did your eyes look at images on the monitor? or did you print them large? There is a differencewhen printed.

Although with the Minolta X series, not much. Yours is a 3mp camera. I have the X20 2mp camera. So amazingly compact takeanywhere. 3x opt zoom. etc etc. Thing is does it matter? Always best to use the highest resolution @ least compression, to saveevery pic that maybe later youcould want to crop& print. The highest resolution will provide that.

gruss · Oct 18, 2004, 7:04 AM

You will lose some detail. May never notice it on a monitor but printing, it will make a difference.

I always use the highest setting, and downsize/crop for the occasion, cause every once in a while there is a picture I want to blow up and it just looks that much better the higher the setting and gives a little more wiggle room if you didnt center correctly or something is in the way and you have to crop.

Since you have a 1 gig card (and I thought carrying a 128 and 512 was over kill) space isnt an issue, use the higher settings, there are software solutions that can downsize for email automatically, or even as it pulls the pics off the camera. I woudnt risk a 1 in a thousand shot just to save some space. If speed is an issue downloading from the cam, get a card reader, even on my ancient pc with usb1.1 ports there is a noticible difference in speed between the reader and the camera's

heatwave69 · Oct 18, 2004, 7:17 AM

Thank you so much for the information. I suspected detail would be lost, now I know for sure.

Oh yes, I also have a Sandisk 6-in-1 USB 2.0 card reader. Although the 60X SD is much faster than my old 256MB Sandisk SD, it was stilllagging a biton 1600x1200 when Windows Explorer tried to thumbnail.

Oh well - I think I was expecting a bit too much of these little units. But looking back, this Minolta Dimage XT has got to be the most fun little camera that actually takes good pictures and spare batteries cost next to nothing on EBay

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 17, 2004, 6:14 AM	#1
heatwave69 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4	I have recently acquired a Minolta Dimage Xt digicam and finally mastered the proper use of the Exposure and the ISO levels. My main purpose of the camera is a take anywhere camera where I could shoot photos whenever I choose and printing the images out isn't such an importance. The picture quality is quite good, although nowhere near as good and sharpas a much larger, 6MP digicam so printing may not result the quality I expect - i.e. better than printed film photo. My question is - since this camera captures in the 2048x1536 resolution, would I lose any quality if I set the camera to resize it automatically to 1600x1200? It does have a Kingmax 1GB SD Platinum 60X SD card installed which is a bit of an overkill even at 2048x1536 FINE resolution. But for uploading, resizing and thumbnailing hundreds of photos require considerable time if the files are in the maximum resolution - so 1600x1200 would be convenient if the quality does not degrade.

Oct 17, 2004, 6:48 PM	#2
KueH Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 84	1 GB is not overkill. If your start taking bracketed shots, continuous shots, the card's memory is going to get eaten up pretty fast. If in doubt, take a picture. Take one in 2048x1536 and take on in 1600x1200. Take it to the computer and have a look or print it out. You'll find out if there are any difference.

Oct 17, 2004, 6:55 PM	#3
heatwave69 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4	Well, the reason I mention overkill was that at the highest resolution JPEG, it can take 500 shots. On one short holiday I managed to snap 200 photos and that wasn't easy. With the 1600x1200 option - it could take more than 1000 shots which would be enormous even for a snap happy photographer. I did compare the two shots between 2048 and 1600 and couldn't notice any difference - then again - my eyes are not as good as a photographer's eye. In general - if you let the camera take resized (smaller) photos than its native resolution - will certain details be lost? Or do most digicams do a fine job resizing to smaller photos?

Oct 18, 2004, 3:27 AM	#4
Baz Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 219	"I did compare the two shots between 2048 and 1600 and couldn't notice any difference - then again - my eyes are not as good as a photographer's eye." Well, Heatwave, how are you comparing the images? Did your eyes look at images on the monitor? or did you print them large? There is a differencewhen printed. Although with the Minolta X series, not much. Yours is a 3mp camera. I have the X20 2mp camera. So amazingly compact takeanywhere. 3x opt zoom. etc etc. Thing is does it matter? Always best to use the highest resolution @ least compression, to saveevery pic that maybe later youcould want to crop& print. The highest resolution will provide that.

Oct 18, 2004, 7:04 AM	#5
gruss Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 30	You will lose some detail. May never notice it on a monitor but printing, it will make a difference. I always use the highest setting, and downsize/crop for the occasion, cause every once in a while there is a picture I want to blow up and it just looks that much better the higher the setting and gives a little more wiggle room if you didnt center correctly or something is in the way and you have to crop. Since you have a 1 gig card (and I thought carrying a 128 and 512 was over kill) space isnt an issue, use the higher settings, there are software solutions that can downsize for email automatically, or even as it pulls the pics off the camera. I woudnt risk a 1 in a thousand shot just to save some space. If speed is an issue downloading from the cam, get a card reader, even on my ancient pc with usb1.1 ports there is a noticible difference in speed between the reader and the camera's

Oct 18, 2004, 7:17 AM	#6
heatwave69 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4	Thank you so much for the information. I suspected detail would be lost, now I know for sure. Oh yes, I also have a Sandisk 6-in-1 USB 2.0 card reader. Although the 60X SD is much faster than my old 256MB Sandisk SD, it was stilllagging a biton 1600x1200 when Windows Explorer tried to thumbnail. Oh well - I think I was expecting a bit too much of these little units. But looking back, this Minolta Dimage XT has got to be the most fun little camera that actually takes good pictures and spare batteries cost next to nothing on EBay