Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwistedThrottle" data-source="post: 720208" data-attributes="member: 46724"><p>Each person has a different priority and if space is of concern, then the lower quality JPG is most functional.&nbsp; If space is not the concern, it sounds like you might want to look into more RAM if your computer is choking on JPG's.&nbsp; I needed a faster machine so I did a RAM upgrade and also swapped out the main hard drive for a SSD, what a huge difference that made! (I am a CAD drafter and need a fast machine.&nbsp; Pictures are my hobby and I&nbsp; benefit from a fast machine.)&nbsp; I only brought up the past digital cameras because that was the technology that we had available to us at the time and although the memories are fond, the image quality (especially printed) is not what I am used to in today's eyes.&nbsp; I imagine in the future, it will be a similar scenario so to me, it makes sense to use the best of whats available today for mediocre quality in the future.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="TwistedThrottle, post: 720208, member: 46724"] Each person has a different priority and if space is of concern, then the lower quality JPG is most functional. If space is not the concern, it sounds like you might want to look into more RAM if your computer is choking on JPG's. I needed a faster machine so I did a RAM upgrade and also swapped out the main hard drive for a SSD, what a huge difference that made! (I am a CAD drafter and need a fast machine. Pictures are my hobby and I benefit from a fast machine.) I only brought up the past digital cameras because that was the technology that we had available to us at the time and although the memories are fond, the image quality (especially printed) is not what I am used to in today's eyes. I imagine in the future, it will be a similar scenario so to me, it makes sense to use the best of whats available today for mediocre quality in the future. [/QUOTE]

Verification