William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Randy or Sherry Guttery" wrote
in message . ..

That was probably the case a few years ago -- but today -- with
the price of cards so low - there isn't near the "cost" for shooting
hi-res/low compression there used to be.

Cards have gotten so cheap that one might justify simply sticking in a new
card when the old is filled up, because the cost/frame is not much different
from that of film.

There's also the option (actually the necessity) of dumping the card to
disk. I try not to let too many linger there, in case something happens
to the card, or god forbid, the camera. Even at that, with a one gig
card and a 7.something megapix camera, that's a hundred or so
shots...even with the odd mpeg mixed in.

Sure beats the old days when the choice was between a 12 or 24 exposure
roll.

The cost/frame equation falls completely apart when you realize that
unlike film, you can reuse the card. Why anyone would store anything on
one for any longer than it took to get to a computer is beyond me.

Of course it makes sense to understand the tradeoffs -- and choose
the right resolution / compression for both the subject and the target
media. But since I don't always know that in advance -- I tend to keep
my camera at 2048 X 1536 and compression at minimum (though I can
set it to none, I can't tell the difference).

My experience as well; but I admit my camera's not that great.

jak