Benefits of lowering image quality with the 990IS?

I just purchased the 990 IS, and realize that the 14.7 megapixels is probably overkill as I usually only have 4X6 photos made. The manual discusses lowering image quality (Superfine, Fine, Normal) and also reducing the pixel size of each photo.

Can someone walk me through the benefits of reducing either, or both? If the sensor doesn't have to deal with as many pixels, is it possible I get a better picture using a lower image quality with this camera?

Would you mind going through all of the default settings on the SD990IS and tell me which ones you would recommend to change? I am looking to shoot on auto or scene settings- not any manual settings, as I am just an amateur photographer who is primarily shooting indoor and outdoor shots of my newborn grandson and shots of family vacations. I love my SD990IS, so far but I know that there are probably better settings to get even better pictures than I am getting now. I am also uploading to Clark or Snapfish for developing. Do you recommend any better online photo developers?

Well, full auto would be the default settings. THe shooting modes would be Program, Manual, Quick, Special Scene (Portrait, Foliage, Snow, Beach, Sunset, Fireworks, Aquarium, Underwater, ISO 3200, Indoor, Kids & Pets, Night Snapshot, Color Accent, Color Swap, Digital Macro, Stitch Assist), Movie

It really depends on the situation and lighting conditions. My recommendation is to thoroughly read your manual, and then experiment with the settings. THe nice thing about digital cameras are that you don't have to print every single image you take. You don't like it, you delete.

There's also a nice feature called "bracketing" where you can take three consecutive images at three different aperture settings. This will give you a choice of the best image to choose from. Lastly, Canon has it's own website which will teach you to better use your digital camera. Check it out here.

As for better online photo developers, they're really a dime a dozen.

Islandkiwi, I was intrigued by your original question about reducing the size down in the 990. I have found 1) no image improvement in reducing of the highest size setting, BUT 2) no real quality loss by using the next size down AND 3) it saves huge amount of storage space as the files are MUCH smaller than the full 14.7MP size. If you only print 4x6 or 5x7, you can save loads of storage space and still get very good quality pictures using the 9MP size setting. I use both 14.7 and 9MP sizes a lot and really see no loss in quality (nor do I gain in quality either). The 14.7MP size does allow me to crop quite aggressively if I want to frame the shot or zoom the shot for a marco effect.

I have recent;y bought a anon Ds 990 and will be attending a live concert. is there is anything special that I should know in order to get good sound.

Just remember that the microphone is very small, so the closer to the sound source the better. Also remember that it will pick up sounds close to it, so if you talk (or whisper) or someone else does, it will be recorded most likely louder than the concert. Some shows don't allow taping, but the SD990 is small so you may be able to sneak it in anyway. Have a large SD card in it to record long video. I would suggest either an 8 or 16 GB card if you plan on an hour or more concert. You might also consider something like a gorilla pod (small 8" type) to mount to a seat back or arm to hold the camera steady for low light shots (and be sure to disable that flash). Enjoy.

I am using my friend's Sony T500 to record a musical band. The sound is very acute. is there any way to diminish the sensitivity of the microphone?

One way to lessen the input into the microphone would to improvise by taping a small piece of cloth, or cotton, over the microphone. That would reduce the sound input. You would want to try different material or thicknesses to see which filters the sound best.

Remember that these cameras' sound features are really very much afterthoughts, included to allow you to get some basic functionality. The main purpose is to record audio to go along with video -- which is itself a secondary function.

What I'm getting at is that recordings made with them is "better than nothing," like when your favorite star sits down next to you at a cafe and starts singing, or the person busking in the subway is making incredible music, or some other situation where the sound quality is less important than getting any sort of recording. I'd never dream of using it to record music if I could find some other option. If you want to record a band or some such, it's much better to get a device meant for the purpose: something that at least has a proper microphone and stereo recording capability.

They're just too vulnerable to ambient or superfluous noise: like noises made by chairs scraping on the floor or ice rattling in a drink or the noises your fingers make if you handle the camera.

Try it with something that's not important, first. Listen to the playback and decide whether the quality is really acceptable to you. You can hook it up to a device like a boom box or receiver (using the included AV cable) and listen through the speakers you use to listen to CDs.

And Steve makes a very important point: many shows/artists expressly forbid recording devices and have people looking out for folks trying to record on the sly. It can turn a fun evening out into a huge hassle.

I'll take it one step further ... microphones on digital still cameras are omnidirectional and fairly cheap in design. As such, they pick up EVERYTHING. So you won't really be able to tweak the quality of the sound. This idea of covering the mic with cloth may have a certain appeal to be tried, but it will also muffle the sound making it harder to understand.

What I would do is try to "sweeten" it in software with a video editor. But in the end, as Kimbo suggests, you may just have to live with it.