What does it use instead of film?.. stone tablets?

<heavily edited, for brevity>

<edited>

Hello, Jerry:

Today (Tuesday, 6-5-07), I set a new, personal record, for a single day
of snapshooting. I took a ton of pics, while on a shopping trip, plus
several more, after arriving home. That's a grand total of 254 digital
photos, with my trusty Kodak V603.

Unfortunately, I may have set photography back, many centuries, in the
process! :-D

Cordially,
          John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

John Turco offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

John, your usage and experience sounds very typical of my friends
and family, except for reading this NG, none of them do that.
<grin> I did take my wife's Kodak 3 mega pixel to the WPC museum
a couple of times to see how it'd do and results were quite good.
I attribute that mainly to the "syndrome" or theory I've
developed that says that the smaller cameras are designed to work
reasonably well under a broad range of conditions. So are the
higher end EVFs and all DSLRs, except that they EXPECT the user
to have SOME expertise besides "point and shoot". I think it is
the very sophistication of my former Nikon 5700 and current Canon
Rebel XT that cause me so much trouble because the camera's are
smarter than I am! <grin again>

Prior to my last less-than-memorable try at cars in a museum, I
AGAIN RTFM for both the camera and flash, and did the experiments
I described above plus some others. It blows me away - and, I'll
admit, pisses me off - that I can do extremely well around the
house but so generally poorly in an actual museum setting. I've
mentioned this before, but for those in this NG that shoot
anything at all in museums, they know that there seldom are
close-in walls around exhibits unless they are there as props,
and their almost never is a ceiling. Walls and ceilings make
wonderful light reflecting "umbrellas", which is why I think my
in the house shots are generally so good. Also, as I'm mentioned
a number of times, there is precious little in my house (except
for my car in the garage) that is highly reflective AND has
overhead spot lights shining light on it. I'm still noodling on
what I can do about all of this absent trying the tripod method,
but typical light on and around the cars is both highly variable
and garish, meaning that there's an even higher than average
likelihood of inky shadows, blown out highlights, and glare spots
all over the car, especially from the flash.

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

<heavily edited, for brevity>

Hello, Jerry:

Well, I usually just take snapshots, and typically leave my digicam(s)
in full auto mode. I should really experiment with my Kodak P850's
various manual settings, though, as that fine camera allows for far
greater creative control.

Trouble is, I spend much more time, reading this newsgroup, than I do,
actually photographing anything! <g>

Cordially,
          John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

John Turco offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

John, I may have left a few names off my "dream group" list but I
included you because you have taken an even strain with what has
sometimes been a "us vs. them" sort of debate here.

Thanks for the comments on your equipment and your experience.
One of the really nice thing about the higher end P & S/EVF
cameras is the ultra-long zoom range, which is impossible to
achieve with a DSLR no matter how much money you spend.

I will keep on working towards better technique to solve my
continuing museum problem. e.g., I spent several hours yesterday
experimenting around my house and with the cars in my garage with
my Rebel on a tripod. Inside the house, where lighting is both
higher and more even, results were quite good using both AF/AE
lock and multiple ISOs. To get the least camera shake, I used the
self-timer. Then, I tried my cars in the garage with just a few
incandescent light bulbs on in the ceiling and a couple of
windows providing that "beautiful" backlighting. Results were
just dismal. Groan! It was exceedingly difficult to get a decent
AF lock, so I switched to manual focus, which turned out to be
not much better. And, with my intentional pathologically bad
lighting environment, typical of many museum exhibits, the camera
had a really hard time exposing correctly even when using AE
lock.

This little story is NOT to say that tripod photography sucks or
will always be unsucessful, it just means that it is what I
suspected it would be - VERY difficult to learn and VERY slow.

John, I don't know the subject type(s) you shoot nor those of the
others that I've complemented for their even temperment, but I'd
bet that most people's high percentage of successes is in
situations where lighting is at least even, even if it is low
requiring a tripod or high ISO. The bane of every car
photographer I have come across is the ultra-unevenness (is that
a word?) of the lighting in a musuem. As to ISO, it would appear
that lots of people have succeeded in this, but my experiments
both in my house and in my garage, as well as real-world in
twilight daylight and in those pesky museums is that 400 is about
it for me.

<heavily edited, for brevity>

<edited>

Hello, Jerry:

If I'm the "John" that you're referring to, above, then, I'm extremely
flattered. ;-) Seriously, I own a number of Kodak P&S digicams, with
the best of the bunch being a P850 (a 5 megapixel, EVF model). The
latter boasts 12x optical zoom, RAW, IS (i.e., image stabilization)
and countless other features -- including fully automatic and fully
manual modes, and everything in between.

I bought the P850, in May of 2006, and have still barely scratched
the surface of its vast potential. Of late, I've been taking a V603
(subcompact, 6MP, 3x) with me, when I go out.

My V603 is a beautiful, metal, metallic red jewel of a device. It has
22 "scene modes," and I always select "museum," when I'm in a public
place (e.g., a store, most often). That keeps the electronic flash from
firing, yet also, results in somewhat slow shutter speeds.

Thus, those particular shots are normally well exposed, but often suffer
the ill effects of camera shake. It's especially noticeable at full
telephoto; oddly, Kodak chose to enable the V603's IS, only during video
capture!

Anyhow, in its museum mode, I think the V603 would do a surprisingly
good job, on your indoor car shots. All you'd require is a fairly steady
hand, and from your film experience, you probably already possess that.

Good luck and happy snapping!

Cordially,
          John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

David J Taylor offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

David, I didn't see a date on the dpreview test. Was it recent? I
don't recall one way or another if dpreview had done noise tests
on the Rebel XT at its state of firmware et al at the time I was
evaluating it, more than 18 months ago. It just confounded me
that multiple camera stores assured me that both Nikon and Canon
DSLRs were capable of low-noise images at high ISO and Boom!
smacked right in the forehead with Pop Photography. The mag did
say, though, that the 20D was far superior to the Rebel, maybe it
should be at its much higher price! <grin>

As to testing, I haven't done my usual what I call "controlled
tests" of noise specifically. I commented on my Day One
experience on Auto and during my 10-day test drive during which I
could have returned the camera for a full refund, I did go to the
Henry Ford Museum and tried shooting Rosa Parks' bus with flash
and at varying ISO available light.

The way the museum has the bus situated, at about a 45 degree
angle and with VERY little space around it so I couldn't stand
farther back, flash images were pretty dismal from the inverse
square law of light fall off over a 50' bus length. That's why I
tried available light but didn't like my results.

I have also tried available light at the Walter P. Chrysler
Museum up to ISO 800. I get acceptable results at 400 but noise
is an apparent problem at 800. Now, I also know that noise goes
up dramatically if the exposure isn't right on the money,
especially if it is underexposed. I suspect that it is more of
variable exposure caused by uneven ambient lighting than a defect
in the Rebel's design that shows more noise than dpreview sees.

I occasionally shoot at up to ISO 400 in daylight in order to get
maximum DOF or at twilight when available light starts to drop
off. Noise is OK in highlight and mid-tone areas but naturally
gets pretty bad in the shadows.

To quote President Nixon, "let me say this about that". If I am
shooting in an area with relatively even ambient lighting and
with subjects with very low reflectivity, I CAN get images with
less noise, just not reliably all the time.

You know what I think would be a really fun experiment? I'd like
to go with you, Dennis, Alan, John, and a couple of the others
here that are level-headed and understanding of other people's
experiences and go around as a group and shoot a number of
subject categories, including scenics, architecture, people,
general photography, museums but NOT cars, and cars in museums,
all with available light at varying ISO and flash in the dimmer
locales. It would be highly interesting to me to observe the
success or failure of this groups of "objective testers" using
different techniques and see if we could at all agree on better
ways of doing each type of subject and learn from each other. I
can't prove it but I suspect that when ANY debate starts in this
NG and in the slr NG, people taking mild or strong issue with
each other don't exactly share identical experiences.

My little experiment is not to vindicate my contrarian views but
for all of us to learn from each other in a friendly-but-
controlled test environment. Over in the several car picture NGs
I monitor, I fairly often read comments from OPs about the
various struggles they have when they are forced to shoot in
other than optimum ways, e.g., severe backlight because they
can't get the sun on their back when they shoot. Universally,
these fellows hate museums. The one BIG thing that they do to
secure superior images to mine, though, is RAW. So, maybe it is
about time I got off my dead a.s and learned it!

I'll close for now by commenting - gently - that I DO understand
the basic theories of photography, if for no other reason, than I
was forced to learn it in my 35mm film days. As with other
endeavors, though, it can be quite a stretch going from having a
fundamental theoretical knowledge of good technique to actually
putting it to practical use.

Thanks for your observations and suggestions. As Mr. Spock used
to say, "Captain Kirk, I shall consider it!".

[]

[]

[]

That surprises me, given the DP Review shot I quoted, but of course you've
done the tests and I haven't.  Thanks for your insight.

David

David J Taylor offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

David, during my eval of various DSLRs in late 2005, I narrowed
the choice to the Nikon D70s and the Canon Rebel XT. I thought
they had similar features and about the same reputation for
quality. Independent testing of the body and optics seemed
similar as well. I chose the Canon because I liked its smaller
size and weight.

I somehow missed reviews that said that noise on Rebel XTs starts
at ISO 200, gets worse at 400 and is quite difficult to control
at 1600. One such review was a Popular Photography issue about
the time I bought the camera. I have to tell you, that is perhaps
the biggest dissapointment I've had with it so far. ISO 400 is
about as high as I have found it practical to shoot. I CAN
control the noise at 800 and 1600 but the amount of time and
effort to gain an acceptable compromise between relative noise-
free AND relatively good detail/sharpness is more than I have
time for, sadly.

I "discovered" that my Rebel wasn't a very noise free camera when
going out the first time on full auto, which locks the ISO at
400. Results from a noise standpoint were pretty dismal.

At the time I purchased it, I wasn't considering the higher end
Canon or Nikon cameras because I wasn't yet convinced I really
wanted to move from an EVF to a DSLR. Now that I have a
considerable amount of money invested in a flash and glass, I
will stay with Canon DSLRs, but pay much more attention to noise
next time.

BTW, I was at a Barnes & Noble book store yesterday and spotted a
large book on the Rebel XT. I flipped through it fairly quickly
but didn't see enough substance to justify the price. But, I did
peruse the section on flash carefully. Seems I AM "doing it
right" in that the author of this book recommends using
intelligent trial-and-error to pick an optimum spot on a subject
for flash AE. They specifically cited the problems I get where
glare off a shiny part of a car wrecks the exposure, and
recommended exactly what I do - choose a spot on the subject that
is as non-reflective as possible and choose either a well-lit
spot of the subject or a shadow part depending on whether it is
desired to get darker or light flash images. I thought it was
interesting that my empirical method is what this author
recommended.

I had simply wondered if a monopod might have been a more practical
solution than the tripod, that's all.

As Jerry only requires a lower-resolution output, I would also have
thought that the Canon, with its lower noise sensors and built-in,
in-camera noise reduction, would have provided good results at ISO 1600.
The DP Review samples look excellent.

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page26.asp

Perhaps Jerry will have a chance to test that at some point?

David

 He's said many things.  He has argued that this is only a hobby
for him and that he doesn't need to waste time trying to squeeze out
every bit of image quality that the sneering elites think is
necessary.  But on the other hand he says that he needs the flash
because noise is too big a problem at ISO 1600.  I guess that he's
unaware of the ISO 1600 (and higher) quality that's possible to get
with some of Canon's better cameras.  In many cases they'd eliminate
the need to use his flash.  You know, his annoying bugbear that
ruins some of his shots.  Heck, his own camera would probably
suffice at ISO 1600 if someone switched it without telling him.  :)

Jerry, I recall you said a tripod was impractical for you - have you ever
tried a monopod?

David

Prometheus offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

I can follow quotes and Xnews shows a red "score" to indicate
someone replied to something I posted either directly or
indirectly. Don't be astonished that I mention the obvious. I did
that to illustrate that the world of modern digital photography
is very wide, very tall, and very deep. It is not at all shallow
to include only those with extremely well developed skills using
very expensive equipment. And, I mentioned it as part of my
campaign that I don't think it serves anyone reading the many
good threads and comments in this NG to get the idea that there
is any one or even any finite number of "right" ways to do
things.

My comment here would be "whatever floats your boat". I don't try
to tell people how to do their brand of photography and try my
best to take an even strain on the wide variance of opinions
herein. I don't diss other people, at least not intentionally,
and I hardly claim that my methods are the best. They clearly are
not.

Let me state my views in a different direction. Photography,
mainly cars, yes, is a HOBBY with me, it is not a job. I do it to
have fun and I share most of my work with others. If they like it
fine, if not, not. I try my best not to be critical of other's
views or methods, and simply explain my take, my experience, and
my needs vs. wants. Perhaps, though, you may be able to
understand that it gets old pretty fast with so many people
either explicitly telling me I am a moron, or implying it. I also
do not view my hobby as a contest, and I didn't think of the kind
of 35mm photography I used to do, which was more scenics and
certainly NOT cars in them days. That said, I try to allow people
to gravitate to what pleases them.

Please keep one other tidbit in mind: I didn't ask for help, I
just used my experiences to explain - in context - how what I see
is different than what others see. To wit, I would never presume
to tell you how to do scenics or wildlife with a long lens on an
SLR or somehow with a 12:1 zoom P & S, because I would not have
any credibility. I would appreciate the same courtesy from folks
who don't generally shoot cars and certainly don't try it in
museums.

HokusPokus may or may not be all wet. If he doesn't like DSLRs,
that's his right, and his freedom to make the choice(s) he does.
Ditto for everyone else. To broaden the thought, I believe that
people should have the right and freedom to buy what they want
and not buy what they don't want, even if their reasons are
unsound - in the opinion of others. In fact, I would prefer using
a smaller, lighter EVF. It tires me out very quickly lugging
around my Rebel XT. But, enough people over a 2 year period
convinced me that I was whistling in the dark, literally, in
attempting to do what I profess to want to do without a DSLR.
And, after trying it, they were right.

In short, whether it is cameras or cars, politics or religion,
there will always be extremes of opinion across a broad
continuum. My life's experience tells me that the truth - if
there can be "truth" at all - lies someplace between the extremes
of a continuum. So, neither P & S, advanced EVFs, nor DSLRs have
the correct fitness of purpose for all things at all times for
all people. Maybe the solution, if it is possible, is to throw
money at the problem and buy one of each! <grin>

I didn't specifically say that you did. But, the flavor that
comes across to me very strongly whenever I decide to enter one
of these debates is that there IS one "right" way, supported by
whoever is talking, and if I weren't so stubborn, I would adapt
X, Y, or Z's methods and be both a better photographer and a
happier person.

No, I was disagreeing with the notion that only a race car or
only a full-blown off-roader is "best" for everyone. I said I
agreed with his analogy because the way I read it was that - for
him - a race car was useless but an ATV/SUV was superb. If I
understood your comment correctly, and I may not have, you said
his analogy "is; vacuous and specious". Now, if I blew the quote,
I apologize to you. My "I disagree" was to whoever said the
analogy had no worth; when comparing it to my car analogy, it
made sense to me.

Yes, I did. Please keep in mind that more people are reading
posts here than just the people posting. My mantra is summarized
in this last paragraph of mine, which plenty of people herein
apparently do not agree with to the point that I get called
"moron", "dumb-a.s", "don't know what you're doing", and the
like. As I said above, that wears thin really fast.

And, so, did you read and understand my posts before putting
fingers to keyboard? I think I'll go back to lurking again. There
just is no upside to getting involved in these debates. Sooner or
later, usually sooner, somebody will implicitly or explicitly
tell me I'm nuts, and life is too short to argue these points,
particularly when - excuse me for repeating - there just AIN'T no
simple solutions to complex problems and certainly no singles
"right" methods.

Have a good week in spite of me!

All perfectly true, I have not suggested otherwise. I am taking issue
with the accusation by HokusPokus in Message-ID:
<3esp539n012a0oqf1lf3p93qchvr38hhm1@4ax.com> that "But then, DSLR owners
have to grasp at any straws they can to justify why they wasted so much
money".

Obviously, I astonished that you feel the need to remind us.

Another plain fact; I am happy with the results I can produce on my
3.2MP P&S, but there are times when I need longer, wider, more
sensitive, higher resolution. Few photographers have or need a 1920mm
lens (I can not afford one) but I do have a 300mm for my DSLR which
takes photographs the P&S can not, and the P&S goes where the DSLR can
not. I was taking issue with HokusPokus for the view that there is no
real for DSLR cameras.

I have no problem with there being other points of view, unlike
HokusPokus, although he is entitled to his view that DSLRs are a waste
of money, and to him they might be, but to presume they are a waste to
everybody else is unwarranted.

Pardon, I am puzzled by this comment, I have never suggested otherwise.

Now I am perplexed, HokusPokus states "What good is a high-performance
race car if it can only move on tracks specifically designed for it", I
dispute this and you disagree with me!

I have not said otherwise, did you actually bother to read my post
before you put fingers to keyboard?

Prometheus offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

This is all true, but I might answer "so what?" Life is more than
trying for absolutes in any endeavor. Your experience and skill,
and what you need and want, are completely different than others
here. That neither makes you right or wrong, nor the rest of us
right or wrong, it just makes us all different. If this were not
so, there wouldn't be hundreds of cameras on the market for all
kinds of budgets, purposes, quality expectations, etc.

For just a moment, consider your comment that a P & S cannot take
a "stunning" landscape or wildlife photo. That is entirely true,
yet there are millions of people that are happy as clams with
what they achieve even without a 1920 mm lens.

I'm not taking you on specifically, but have you ever given any
thought that there may be other points-of-view other than yours,
mine, the person who replied to me, or others here? Life is all
about choice and all about compromise, there simply are NO one-
size-fits-all answers - IMO. YMMV, and it clearly does ...

I disagree. Broadly speaking, whenever any of us buys a commodity
whether it is "goods" or "services", we should judge our success
or failure on how well it meets our expectations for what is
known as "fitness of purpose". Any commodity that exeeds our
expectations will be judged as "excellent". So, if the other guy
wants to go off-roading and you want to run drag races or LeMans-
style road races, isn't there enough room in the world for both
of you to be happy camperes?

Your ATV will never keep up on the race track, just as your P&S will
never produce such a good large portrait as my SLR, nor will it produce
such good macros. Will your P&S produce stunning landscapes as my 16mm
(35mm equiv.) lens, or wildlife as a 1920mm (35mm equiv.), and what
about the perspective & FOCUS correction of a T&S lens in architecture
and landscape?

Which is why I have both SLR and P&S, the SLR returns the best and most
versatile photographs, but the P&S goes where the SLR does not.

I suspect that race car engines do get dust in their air filter when
racing, in fact since they do not operate in a clean room they must do;
and they do not fail because of it.

Yes, your analogy is; vacuous and specious.

They don't you are.

They don't you are.

What good is a high-performance race car if it can only move on tracks
specifically designed for it? Put one little bump in the road and it's toast.

Give me a good off-road ATV, 2, 4, or 6 wheeler (long-zoom P&S), and I'll get
photos (i.e. be able to go places and record it) that no high-performance
race-car could ever obtain. And it's not going to break down at the first sign
of a twig in the road either, or die a death the moment it gets a little dust in
its high-tech one-of-a-kind air-filter.

What a freakingly useless analogy. But then, DSLR owners have to grasp at any
straws they can to justify why they wasted so much money. They get more and more
obvious and desperate as the years go on....

David Dyer-Bennet offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

I used the exotic ultra-high performance in another analogy,
stating that it is likely the average driver couldn't even drive
one, and would likely kill themselves attempting to drive it to its
envelope.

To bring this back to cameras, even us who presumeably have at
least SOME understanding of photography and the theories behind
digital can produce lousy photos from simply not knowing how to
properly use a complicated EVF or DSLR, but virtually anyone can
pick of a $150 P & S and at least get pictures good enough to print
to 4 x 6 and be happy as clams.

I agree completely.

More than that -- *some* kinds of "superior" equipment is of the type
that is more controllable and flexible -- but requires more operator
expertise to get any results at all.  I've never driven a real race car,
but I understand they're like that in comparison to an "ordinary" car.

Robert Coe offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

Pretty simple point: simply having good equipment is not at all a
guarantee of success - in any endeavor. It has long been my
belief that being very skilled with "inferior" equipment is
better than being very unskilled with "superior" equipment. I can
cite lots of examples but I don't think I would convince you, so
let's just let it go.

I don't know if the OP did or didn't get anything out of this, or
even if they understood any of it. What we had, though, were lots
of discussion trying to convince people objectively about
something that is highly subjective - image quality, and it's
bigger brother, overall photographic quality.

Maybe you need to change photo editors. With a reasonably good one (even the
freebies they give you when you buy a Canon camera), I've found RAW mode
easier to work with than JPEG. White balance is easier to change, and the
pictures don't wash out when you turn the brightness up.

Well, yeah, but the assumption underlying my "sweeping generalization" was
that one has access to a computer with which to manipulate the captured image.
Without that, you're a P&S photographer, and you probably ought to stick to
JPEG.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. But in this newsgroup and
elsewhere there's a tendency to understate the effect of good equipment. A
good camera will make almost any photographer better; good clubs will make
almost any golfer better; etc. (How much better does depend, of course, on the
individual.) One thing I've noticed: most of those who berate others for not
getting good results with inferior equipment are themselves well equipped.

Oh, I don't know. I think the OP posed an interesting question, and the large
number of replies seems to show that others agree. For it to have been
worthwhile, the OP doesn't have to subscribe to, or even understand, any
conclusions that arise as a result of the discussion.

Bob

Robert Coe offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

Let's clarify this a bit, and maybe dispel some myths. First, not
all cameras can shoot in RAW, but I would say that of those that
can, the users that know how are a really small percentage. I've
tried, but can't get high enough up the learning curve to do squat
with RAW, so I gave up. I am more than content with the JPEGs I
produce.

Anytime someone makes a sweeping generalization, it is at the same
time likely to be both right and wrong. e.g., your comment about
JPEG is certainly right, but the owner of any given camera cannot
control what it is doing, the best they can hope for is to
understand it enough to make a decision on what pixel size and what
compression they want to shoot at.

Lots of my retired friends are golfers, probably more hackers than
golfers. What gives me the ROTFLMAO is people who buy the most
expensive possible composite clubs but are incapable of hitting a
golf ball even 50 years down the fairway. So, it isn't the quality
of the input that counts, it is the quality of the output.

I think I've run the course on this thread. If the OP doesn't come
back and clarify some things, this is a pointless debate best left
for everyone to make their own decision about.

Some JPEG compression programs seem to do a better job than others. If you
shoot in RAW, you can always try other programs until you get a result you
like. Then (and only then) delete the RAW version if you don't have space to
save it indefinitely.

Bob

But your image becomes a jpeg at *some* point -- either when
printed or shrunk to fit on a monitor.

So I gather that what you are saying is that you are happier
when *you* control the compression rather than the camera.
I can agree with that.

On May 25, 8:55 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net>
wrote:

While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression
only reduces color purity.  Jpeg  compression introduces image
artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of
color depth/fidelity.

Austin

On May 25, 8:40 am, skark...@gmail.com wrote:

But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that
I did not intend when I originally made the shot.  Memory cards are
coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a
problem.

I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on
most cameras).  I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with.
High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file,
but with not-that-bad a loss of information.

Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
only color purity.  Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor
in image quality.  As long as you use JPEG only for the initial
storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose
all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native
format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.).

I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.