D90 Large Normal, Medium Fine, same file size

So I'm playing around with my new D90 and shooting a ton of experimental shots. I'm just viewing them, not saving them but I have a question about image file sizes:

I shot today on Large Normal at about 3.0 MB each. Large Basic image files are about 1.5 MB each. Large Fine files are between 5.5-6.5 MB each. I checked out Medium Fine, they were in the high 3 MBs, Medium Normals were roughly 1.7 MB.

Let's talk when you would shoot in any of these modes (I'll try RAW later and those are 10-11 MB each!) What exactly am I getting or losing by going with Medium Fine vs Large Normal, seeing as they're roughly the same size files. Is it 12 megs compressed a bunch vs 6 megs not compressed as much? And what difference would that make, if that's even the case? I'm not worried about filling up my 4 GB card or my hard drive, just being rhetorical here.

Great questions. I cant wait to hear from ansewers.

I think if you actually view any of those files, instead of just examining their filesizes, you'll have your answer.

You'll see that resolution clearly trumps compression. Large-Basic looks much better than Medium-Fine, even though it's half the filesize. So, this means that if you want smaller files than Large-Fine, you should step down to Large-Normal, then Large-Basic. And if you still need smaller files, then you can drop to Medium-Basic. But that's an extremely rare case (i.e. event photographer selling 4x6s at the nightclub).

--



http://www.benseese.com

OK, I'm listening. So why is there a Medium Fine setting, which is about the same size as Large Normal? Are these settings legacy holdovers, not really needed now that we have ready access to image resizing programs? Or, for that matter, a Medium Normal which is the same size as Large Basic? Why not just Large Fine/Normal/Basic, then let the user downsize as needed later. I'm asking, why does Nikon give us so many choices if in reality they're choices that don't need to be made?

I have been shooting digital cameras for 10 years (and about as many cameras) and I have yet to shoot any of them at less than the maximum resolution or more than the minimum compression. In fact, I seldom even shoot JPEGs at all except occasionally my Canon G9. I really don't understand why anyone would want to less than the best the camera can do. If you need smaller file for web viewing or e-mail to dial up connections, you can always resize using any of several free programs.

toomanycanons said:

I'm asking, why does Nikon give us so many choices if in reality they're choices that don't need to be made?

Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of legacy holdovers and control for control's sake. Note that lots of point&shoot cameras (including Nikons) do simplify their menus by eliminating those nonsense choices (like Medium-Fine). The D40-D3000 line might benefit from that type of simplification, but your D90 just isn't geared to people that demand that much simplicity. From a marketing standpoint, it would be crazy to remove those choices, superfluous as they are.

--



http://www.benseese.com

Ben Seese said:

toomanycanons said:

I'm asking, why does Nikon give us so many choices if in reality they're choices that don't need to be made?

Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of legacy holdovers and control for control's sake. Note that lots of point&shoot cameras (including Nikons) do simplify their menus by eliminating those nonsense choices (like Medium-Fine). The D40-D3000 line might benefit from that type of simplification, but your D90 just isn't geared to people that demand that much simplicity. From a marketing standpoint, it would be crazy to remove those choices, superfluous as they are.

Click to expand...

Well, if the D90 is geared more for the savvy photographer, who in his right mind would choose some bogus setting that would rob him of quality? I know there are those who only shoot RAW. but I'm not there yet. FWIW, I've never set any camera to "Medium whatever" and I've always wondered who would. And, more importantly, why???

And can someone answer this: so we all shoot Large, if we don't shoot RAW. Why choose Large Normal over Large Basic or Large Fine over Large Normal? Are we hoping for some JPEG Nirvana that is easily attained by just shooting RAW to begin with? At freaking 11 megs per pic? Yikes!!

Is there really some quality difference between LB/LN/LF that is imminently quantifiable and not just infinitesably measurable? Sorry for all the syllables.

The pros need choices depend on the j0b.last sumer i was shoting rafters on the river, thy get in the river at one point, you shot them in anather point on the river, and thy come out at the and in the ofice were thy see there images on a big screan tv and thy can buy a cd with there pix.no way you can do all this shoting raw or large fine. you shot on3-5 fps on midum normall to be able to pross it al in real time,and sel a product. just one example.
--
Thanks itai.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39871864@N05/

toomanycanons said:

Well, if the D90 is geared more for the savvy photographer, who in his right mind would choose some bogus setting that would rob him of quality? I know there are those who only shoot RAW. but I'm not there yet. FWIW, I've never set any camera to "Medium whatever" and I've always wondered who would. And, more importantly, why???

Click to expand...

I already gave you the club shooter example, and Itai gave you his rafting example. Both are highly time sensitive with undiscriminating clientele.

Another reason: I shoot timelapses, where the final product is displaying at 30 frames per second, no larger than 1920x1080. Medium-Basic serves that purpose beautifully, since I'm taking 300 to 3000 images for each "shot."

toomanycanons said:

And can someone answer this: so we all shoot Large, if we don't shoot RAW. Why choose Large Normal over Large Basic or Large Fine over Large Normal? Are we hoping for some JPEG Nirvana that is easily attained by just shooting RAW to begin with? At freaking 11 megs per pic? Yikes!!

Is there really some quality difference between LB/LN/LF that is imminently quantifiable and not just infinitesably measurable? Sorry for all the syllables.

Click to expand...

It's "infinitesimally."

No amount of syllables, correctly used or otherwise, can convey the visual nature of the answer. I'll re-iterate: just look at your own files.

Or don't, since you've already determined that you're going to fill up neither your memory card nor your hard drive. Set your camera to Large-Fine and sleep peacefully.

--



http://www.benseese.com

Firstly let me say that in principle you should always shoot at the highest quality available. I shoot 98% Raw with the occasional Jpeg and when I do its usually at the maximum qulity --- Jpeg Fine. If you get that once a Year shot that you want to blow up the image to a large size and you were shooting Jpeg Basic you will not be a happy camper.
The lesser quality files are used for three reasons:-

Firstly if you are purpose shooting only i.e. for a website and you shoot Jpeg Basic your image size/quality results will be task appropriate.

Secondly if you need to fit a large number of images onto the memory you have available then shooting Raw or Jpeg Fine may not give you the storeage you require.

Thirdly if you need to shoot in long bursts then the lower the quality setting the faster the frame rate and the more you will fit into the buffer before it is full.
Hope this helps.
Claude