on the camera setting, is it better to change it to the smaller pixel size instead of the 1600, maybe it sends easier or faster with a text?
213321
hi sorry i don't have internet on my phone so i don't send photos so i am not sure
213322
a smaller pixel should send faster pictures because it is smaller but the quality wont be as good and also the pixel size of the picture has nothing to do with the speed of sending a text and all our text send and receive very fast from this phone now if your sending a text with picture the more text you send and the bigger the picture the longer it takes so with short text and small pixel picture it will get there faster
1610489
Check your battery life, also if you are using built in flash it takes a little longer. Are you in manual or auto? If manual do a faster shutter speed and adjust ISO accordingly.
672113
Yes. Send it back right away. The camera is faulty. Other than that, just to be absolutely sure go into camera settings and reset all to default before you make a final decision.
307707
Sounds like a great suggestion, thanks. Do you use a 8G will this camera? Would I be correct in assuming you'd get about 1700 pics at fairly standard settings?
32232
it is pretty fast in Program mode, but incredibly slow in the mode that takes a 4 second video before taking the still picture. Avoid that mode like the plague.
1221146
I replaced this with a graphics card with much less RAM (256mb), which made it faster. It depends on what software you are using on whether the increased speed allows for a better graphics setting.
99189
It has a High speed burst mode setting [10.5 shots per second] (within manual setting) however the quality is compromised and locked at 2304x1728 and cannot be changed. As you take more pictures the shooting may slow down.There also is the standard continuous shooting mode [3.9 shots per second] (within auto). Essentially the same as above goes for this mode even though it is slower, you will be able to take pictures at a better resolution.
1747119
You can set it based on the type of picture.. I have mine on burst and it takes it instantly. There are also advanced exposure settings and color preferences.
1073947
No it will be a little lower on the D610. The D610 has 33% more pixels on the same sized sensor. That said at up to iso 6400 when you compare them at the same size side by side, as in looking at the D4 at 100% and the D610 at 80% you wold be hard pushed to see the difference. The D4 will shine over the D610 in other areas being a 'pro' camera rather than a prosumer as the D610. I have the D610 and it is a cracking camera I do not really bother what ISO I am shooting at and have it set to a max of 3200. There is of course a huge difference in price. Regards GW
1653264
still photo:: recording pixels 16-mp=4608 x 3456 ,, 12-mp=4608 x 2592 ,, 8-mp=3264 x 2448 ,, 5-mp=2592 x 1944 3-mp=2048 x 1536 ,, 2-mp=1920 x 1080 ,, .3-mp=640 x 480 lowest pixels are determined by photo quality i assumed you were asking for ?? light and speed settings will effect photo quality.. i am louise's husband phill,, this is basically a mini35 mm slr digital with rear lcd screen and small viewfinder for the eye when sun is bright and rear lcd screen is hard to see ( great feature if you wear aoto darkining glasses ) great travel camera ,, small - compact - all auto and manual features ( bells & whistles ) no need for telephoto lenses !!! best of all it takes great photoes uses regular aa bateries qty(4) will last 200/300 photoes and small video clips !! takes added 16 gb sd card high resolution photo type ... need to buy for added photo storage capacity cost $18/22 range !! best photo camera i have ever purchased ,, old camera is canon rebel eos non digital 35mm slr !! hope this helps you decide...
2178178
I'm afraid that I agree with Ben. If we start cropping and manipulating, we'll find some loss of info owing to the more lossy compression. It probably isn't noticeable under many conditions, Mario, but I don't get the point at all. Less loss gives the photographer more room to crop, do noise reduction, adjust colors, etc. I thought that Canon photos were a bit too smooth to begin with, losing some detail, and this only makes the problem worse. I don't mind not being able to shoot in raw, I guess but losing super fine is going in exactly the wrong direction. Unless Canon are trying to steer us to the G10. And that's an entirely different discussion. I'm afraid that I agree with Ben. If we start cropping and manipulating, we'll find some loss of info owing to the more lossy compression. It probably isn't noticeable under many conditions, Mario, but I don't get the point at all. Less loss gives the photographer more room to crop, do noise reduction, adjust colors, etc. I thought that Canon photos were a bit too smooth to begin with, losing some detail, and this only makes the problem worse. I don't mind not being able to shoot in raw, I guess but losing super fine is going in exactly the wrong direction. Unless Canon are trying to steer... » Read More I'm afraid that I agree with Ben. If we start cropping and manipulating, we'll find some loss of info owing to the more lossy compression. It probably isn't noticeable under many conditions, Mario, but I don't get the point at all. Less loss gives the photographer more room to crop, do noise reduction, adjust colors, etc. I thought that Canon photos were a bit too smooth to begin with, losing some detail, and this only makes the problem worse. I don't mind not being able to shoot in raw, I guess but losing super fine is going in exactly the wrong direction. Unless Canon are trying to steer us to the G10. And that's an entirely different discussion. « Show Less
103364
my old canon 6 mega pixel can do a nice 24 x 36.....which by most consensus it shouldn't!a 14 mega pixel can do 11 x 14. I'v no problem doing 16 x 20 with my nikon p500 which should be a 12 mega pixel...it's in another room and I'm feeling lazy. hope that helps you
393524
the macro setting isnt exactly the best, most of the time it turns out blurry - works best about 6 inches away, but the super macro mode seems to work better - for as close as about 2-3 inches. I know this probably isn't the most helpful response, but ive only had the camera for about a few days, this is just what ive noticed.
827159
I actually returned the camera. My pictures were out of focus. I tried several settings and different lighting and it was inconsistent. I didn't have that problem with the other point and shoots I've owned. I only uploaded a photo to Facebook once and it wasn't difficult. You connect with wifi.
1172966
Yes it seems to be in slow motion when using the Magic Pix(nightshot) mode.. although I'm not sure how this looks when transfered to P.C.
1442807
I'm more concerned with the image quality issue. They're getting 12 MP onto a really tiny sensor. The pixel density is 43 MP per square CM. That's really pushing it. Serious cameras (like DSLRs) tend to be under 5, sometimes even under 2. They use way bigger sensors, up to the size of a 35 mm picture, for a similar or not-much-higher pixel count. On paper this camera is exactly what I need, but I'm going to wait for some reviews before I put my money down for one. (Shouldn't have to wait too long, fortunately.)
1768957
you can use it instead of your webcam it might have better resolution... check it out