On Nikon D200: Image Quality has options of Fine, Normal and Basic.
Image Size has L, M, S.
I once read an article from a pro saying that there is no need to shoot in either Fine or Normal Image Quality setting. He said he always shoots in Basic as it saves a lot of disk space and you wont see the difference between Basic and Fine. I have not printed out comparisons and therefor ask if someone here can comment. If you travel, and space is a huge consideration - what is the optimal settings. Thx
My guess is these settings only apply to JPG capture. If you're using raw (NEF) capture, there should be no difference.
In JPG, the lower settings mean more compression which means less detail. Whether or not you'll notice a difference depends not only on the setting but also on the specific image.
Pros have their own reasons for doing things (e.g. a pro photographing exclusively for newspapers doesn't have the same quality requirements as someone who plans to make large fine prints) so just because a pro said it doesn't mean it necessarily applies to what you have in mind.
"Pro" can mean many things, and I suspect the one you cite has pretty specific (and probably limited) market requirements. I agree with Guy that those are JPEG captures, and while I shoot a lot of JPEG, I couldn't service many of my own markets using Basic file settings. It's far easier and more sensible for me to shoot the larget JPEGs and downsize for smaller applications such as the web. At the same time, many (most?) uses for photos pay more as size goes up. I'm shooting a D2X with slightly larger files rather than a D200, but I still get just over 500 of that camera's largest JPEGs on a 2gb chip. Space is simply not an issue for me nonetheless, especially considering the price of chips these days. The 2gb versions requently sell for <$50 now, and I recently saw good quality 1gb chips for arond $15. Contrast that with the nearly $300 I paid for my first 1gb chips, and the $300 I paid for my first 2gb chip seemed like quite a bargain. Back then memory cost was an issue, but why handicap yourself now?
As someone who shoots JPGs (no RAW capture on my camera - a Canon S2 IS), I definitely see a difference between the various settings on my camera. If you are only ever going to print 4x6 or view images on a small screen, you probably won't notice much difference (although the lowest quality setting can look funny sometimes, even in 4x6). If you are going to do photoshop work, or print/view the images in a larger format, the higher quality starts to make a real difference. I'd agree completely with Hank and suggest ALWAYS using the highest quality setting.
That being said, I'd really suggest shooting in RAW if you want the best quality images. Even with the larger file size, space shouldn't be that much of a consideration.
I intend to shoot in RAW format because I want the best quality images too, like David. If space is a consideration, I would suggest a digital storage device like the Epson P5000. I started a thread "Digital Storage Devices" a year or so ago and there are many good suggestions. The other option is to have extra cards.
Discussion
4 repliesImage Size has L, M, S.
I once read an article from a pro saying that there is no need to shoot in either Fine or Normal Image Quality setting. He said he always shoots in Basic as it saves a lot of disk space and you wont see the difference between Basic and Fine. I have not printed out comparisons and therefor ask if someone here can comment. If you travel, and space is a huge consideration - what is the optimal settings. Thx
In JPG, the lower settings mean more compression which means less detail. Whether or not you'll notice a difference depends not only on the setting but also on the specific image.
Pros have their own reasons for doing things (e.g. a pro photographing exclusively for newspapers doesn't have the same quality requirements as someone who plans to make large fine prints) so just because a pro said it doesn't mean it necessarily applies to what you have in mind.
Guy
That being said, I'd really suggest shooting in RAW if you want the best quality images. Even with the larger file size, space shouldn't be that much of a consideration.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada