 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / April 2005Digital disk size question
Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: storage, I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The last question is not a question, for you humor impaired people. A friend of mine just returned from Africa. A trip to the Okovango (sp?) Delta. He said he was shooting a 16mp camera. His photos are like National Geographic stuff. I am sure he would have had to take a lot of camera cards, or his computer where he could transfer images to hard drive, CDs, or other storage medium. He was talking about taking about 500 pictures. I saw about 150 of them. My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at high resolution settings. Just as an example, let's say a 5 mp camera and a 512mb card. I am trying to determine this so that I can select a camera, have it do what I want to do, and know how much card storage I will need to carry. And what my capacity would be before I had to dump it to storage. Oh, and which card has the best resolution? ;-) Steve > Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: > storage, I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > carry. And what my capacity would be before I had to dump it to > storage. On Hi JPG my Canon 20 D (8 MP) will store approx 120 images on a 512 MB card. The number of images will vary depending on the detail in image, and color variation of the image as well as the compression algorithm used by the mfr. > Oh, and which card has the best resolution? ;-) The card does not determine the resolution, the camera does. That question is like asking which hard drive would have the best resolution. The card stores 1's and 0's and there is no difference in the quality from 1 card to the next.  Signature"No man can climb out beyond the limitations of his own character." Viscount John Morley http://www.bobhatch.com >> Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: >> storage, I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > stores 1's and 0's and there is no difference in the quality from 1 card > to the next. As the OP said, the last question was a joke <VBG> Geoff >> My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX >> megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at >> high resolution settings. Just as an example, let's say a 5 mp >> camera and a 512mb card. As a general rule, each picture is stored at a bit less than 50% of the sensor size, i.e. a 5 mp picture on average would be stored at a bit less than 2.5 megabyte. For a 5 mp camera, a 1 gigabyte card would be an appropriate option, allowing you to store around 400 to 450 pictures per card. 1 gigabyte cards tend to represent good value storage. For most consumer level cameras, you don't really need a more expensive 40X or 80x speed memory card, since even in pro cameras they only increase storage speed by about 3 to 4x; and for consumer cameras, they may offer anywhere from 0 to 2X increase in speed. A slow 5 mp camera may take up to 3 or 4 seconds to write a picture to memory card, whereas a higher end camera and memory card will cut the write-time down to about 1 second. > >> My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX > >> megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sensor size, i.e. a 5 mp picture on average would be stored at a bit > less than 2.5 megabyte. <snip> That may be the general rule for some JPG images, but doesn't hold for other image types. For instance, I save images as RAW in my Canon 10D. It is a 6 mp camera and the RAW images I save have a small (1500x1000) fine JPG in them. The image size varies from about 5.5 MB to over 8 MB depending on what the image is, the ISO setting and various other factors. Some cameras save TIFF images which for a 6 mp camera will have a file size over 18 MB. Ron >>>>My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX >>>>megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ron In addition, the actual file sizes vary from picture to picture. Remember, that designation of 3, or 6, or whatever megapixels is the number of pixels, not the size of the files. Each pixel can represent r,g, and b with up to 12 bits per pixel, each. If it's any help, my 512 meg chip indicates that it will hold 43 RAW and basic JPEG images for my 6 meg D-70. However, that's just an estimate. -Raf SignatureMisifus- Rafael Seibert mailto:raf_seibert@cox.net http://www.ralphandsue.com >>>>> My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my >>>>> XX megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that >>>>> would be at high resolution settings. Just as an example, >>>>> let's say a 5 mp camera and a 512mb card. snip See www.lexar.com Try search in other card and/or camera sites Capacities of SD cards for various megapixel cameras: http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/capacity_chart.html Many-faceted and colorful scenes will make bigger file sizes. (Leafy trees for example.) Know the file types you can use in *your* camera (compression types and settings (JPEG) or uncompressed such as RAW or TIFF) -Dot Check your camera's manual. The manuals for both of my Canon digital cameras shows the average number of photos of each size and resolution that will fit on a given size card. Ron > >>>>> My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my > >>>>> XX megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Dot > Check your camera's manual. The manuals for both of my Canon > digital cameras shows the average number of photos of each size and > resolution that will fit on a given size card. > > Ron You're kidding! Read the manual? <VBG> Yes, the estimated capacities are in my Canon manuals. However, the OP did not name a specific camera brand, so I suggested other sources. I wish I could afford a lighter, higher res version of my old Canon S300 Elph. Yet it still serves me well when high res is not as important -- such as for a website. For traveling, the Canon S1 IS (bought last year for its IS) is more bulky in my purse. -Dot > > Check your camera's manual. The manuals for both of my Canon > > digital cameras shows the average number of photos of each size and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > important -- such as for a website. For traveling, the Canon S1 IS > (bought last year for its IS) is more bulky in my purse. We have a Canon G1 which can fit in my wifes purse, but her purse isn't nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when we have the 100-400L IS lens on. <VBG> Once you get some zoom, you always want more and more! Ron > her purse isn't nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when > we have the 100-400L IS lens on. <VBG> I'll bet! Don't ya just LOVE a lens that costs 2-3 times MORE than the camera body itself? :) JR > > her purse isn't nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when > > we have the 100-400L IS lens on. <VBG> > > I'll bet! Don't ya just LOVE a lens that costs 2-3 times MORE than the camera > body itself? Actually the 100-400L F4-5.6 IS lens was slightly cheaper than the 10D body was in June of 2003. The price does go up considerable when you get the long L lens in F2.8, but then so does the size and weight of the lens. I haven't checked it out, but the $$$ per pound may be the same! <g> Ron >We have a Canon G1 which can fit in my wifes purse, but her purse isn't >nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when we have the 100-400L IS >lens on. <VBG> Once you get some zoom, you always want more and more! Har!! We have a 2 mp Canon Powershot A40! A great little pocket camera; but the time has come to get back into action. Before we head out this summer, I'm going to pick up a Rebel XT, but haven't yet decided upon which lens I want: The 70-200 2.8L IS; or the 100-400L IS; along with the 1.4X converter. They both seem to be such great lenses! :-) > >We have a Canon G1 which can fit in my wifes purse, but her purse isn't > >nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when we have the 100-400L IS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 100-400L IS; along with the 1.4X converter. They both seem to be such > great lenses! :-) If you are going take a lot of photos of wildlife, I recommend that you get the 100-400L F4-5.6 IS. For wildlife you just can't have enough telephoto. If you get the 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter, I recommend the Tameron 1.4x which I use. It doesn't report itself to the camera like the Canon 1.4x does. If the camera (Canon 10D, 20D, Rebel, 350x) knows you have a teleconverter on a F4-5.6 lens it won't attempt to AF. If the teleconvert doesn't tell the camera it is there, the camera will AF as long as you have decent light. Also, don't expect to hand hold the camera when you are at 400 with the 1.4x even with the IS. That combination is the equivalent to the field of view of a 900mm lens on a 35mm camera. When I am using that combination I either use a monopod or find something to brace against. Ron >If you are going take a lot of photos of wildlife, I recommend that you get >the 100-400L F4-5.6 IS. For wildlife you just can't have enough telephoto. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >doesn't tell the camera it is there, the camera will AF as long as you have >decent light. I hear that there is a work-around that can be employed with the Canon 1.4X: By taping off a couple of the contacts, AF will work with the 100-400L. I do intend to do at least some wildlife photos, but before buying a long lens, I'm first going to give digiscoping a shot. I have an 80mm Pentax spotting scope (PF-80EDa), which in resolution tests, is just a hair off of the Swarovskis at 60 yards. It takes standard 1.25" astronomical eyepieces, so a telescope T-mount adapter should work fine in providing me with a compact lens somewhere in the order of 1600 mm at f12 for so. The ED glass provides excellent contrast, free of chromatic aberration. I'm also trying to find an adapter that will allow the camera lens to be mounted to the, but there isn't much out there big enough to fit the big honkin' 2.5" (65mm) outside diameter of the Pentax eyepiece. >Also, don't expect to hand hold the camera when you are at 400 with the 1.4x >even with the IS. That combination is the equivalent to the field of view >of a 900mm lens on a 35mm camera. When I am using that combination I either >use a monopod or find something to brace against. Yeh, I realize that a good tripod is necessary with that kind of reach; in addition to which I intend to get a remote control which will allow the mirror to be locked up and hands off while shooting. I also have to find a window-mount tripod big enough to fit on a motorhome window-opening. I'm also experiencing problems in finding 1 or 2 GB memory cards in the Toronto area. They seem to be perpetually on back order, except for a few off-beat brands. I should be getting the new Rebel within the next few days if they are now in stock; and a 70-200 2.8L IS as a general knock-around lens. This particular lens is a LOT more expensive in Canada ($2,200 US), so I'll probably be able to make my best deal on one, in a package purchase; otherwise I'll have to order one from B&H. :-( > >If you are going take a lot of photos of wildlife, I recommend that you get > >the 100-400L F4-5.6 IS. For wildlife you just can't have enough telephoto. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1.4X: By taping off a couple of the contacts, AF will work with the > 100-400L. Yes, you can tape off several of the contacts on the Canon 1.4x and the camera won't know it is there. The last time I checked the Canon 1.4x cost about $280 and the Tameron was about $80. While the Canon 1.4x is better glass than the Tameron, it isn't anywhere near $200 better in my opinion. > I do intend to do at least some wildlife photos, but before buying a > long lens, I'm first going to give digiscoping a shot. I have an 80mm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > f12 for so. The ED glass provides excellent contrast, free of chromatic > aberration. At 1600mm you will need a very very stable tripod. That means heavy and expensive unless you get a carbon fiber tripod in which case it will be very expensive. Also, the F12 will probably cause the shutter speed to be to slow for many shots. > I'm also trying to find an adapter that will allow the camera lens to be > mounted to the, but there isn't much out there big enough to fit the big [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > find a window-mount tripod big enough to fit on a motorhome > window-opening. The down side with tripods for photographing wildlife is they often refuse to stand still and hold that pose while you get your tripod out and set it all up. <g> I have a monopod, but almost all of my wildlife shota are handheld. I have gotten pretty good at bracing my arm on the armrest on my pickup door or the window frame. The IS lens gives you some help in these situations. > I'm also experiencing problems in finding 1 or 2 GB memory cards in the > Toronto area. They seem to be perpetually on back order, except for a > few off-beat brands. I bought a 1 GB card last month via online order from Wal-Mart. It took about ten days for me to receive the card. With my 10D I save photos in RAW with a small fine jpg embedded. With a 1 GB card I get 140-155 photos at ISO 400 depending on the subject. You might also check out microdrives. I have a 340 MB (4 years old) and a 1 GB (1 1/2 years old) and have been pleased with the performance of both of them. > I should be getting the new Rebel within the next few days if they are > now in stock; and a 70-200 2.8L IS as a general knock-around lens. This > particular lens is a LOT more expensive in Canada ($2,200 US), so I'll > probably be able to make my best deal on one, in a package purchase; > otherwise I'll have to order one from B&H. :-( Ron >Yes, you can tape off several of the contacts on the Canon 1.4x and the >camera won't know it is there. The last time I checked the Canon 1.4x cost >about $280 and the Tamron was about $80. While the Canon 1.4x is better >glass than the Tamron, it isn't anywhere near $200 better in my opinion. I tend to be a little gun-shy on this issue Ron. In the past I've gone with a somewhat "less-than-the-ultimate" converter; and if IIRC, it was a Tamron. And It was a major disappointment. But . . . that was a whole lot of years ago . . . While I've heard that the Tamron converters do a pretty reasonable job, past experience tells me: Get the very best you can find! >At 1600mm you will need a very very stable tripod. That means heavy and >expensive unless you get a carbon fiber tripod in which case it will be very >expensive. Also, the F12 will probably cause the shutter speed to be to >slow for many shots. Sheesh! Have you checked out the kind of mega-buck prices required to acquire one of these carbon-fiber tripods?? !! Duh!! Notwithstanding, I'm totally impressed with the benefits of carbon-fibre. A couple years ago, at the Toronto Sportsmans' Show, I "lifted" a carbon-fibre canoe paddle. Awesome! It couldn't have weighed in at more than a couple ounces. Wow! I'm impressed! >> >Also, don't expect to hand hold the camera when you are at 400 with the >1.4x even with the IS. > >Yes, you can tape off several of the contacts on the Canon 1.4x and the > >camera won't know it is there. The last time I checked the Canon 1.4x cost [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > While I've heard that the Tamron converters do a pretty reasonable job, > past experience tells me: Get the very best you can find! You may want to check the following for additional opinions: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029 It is basically a forum on Canon lens. Do a search on Tameron 1.4x and you should find a number of threads from the last couple of years. Many of those contributing include photos and some test of the Canon vs Tameron 1.4x are there as well if I remember correctly. Information on this forum prompted me to buy the Tameron instead of the Canon. > >At 1600mm you will need a very very stable tripod. That means heavy and > >expensive unless you get a carbon fiber tripod in which case it will be very [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "lifted" a carbon-fibre canoe paddle. Awesome! It couldn't have weighed > in at more than a couple ounces. Wow! I'm impressed! When you buy the carbon fiber tripod you will have put out big bucks. The savings come in by not have to hire two men and a strong boy to carry your tripod! <vbg> Ron > >> >Also, don't expect to hand hold the camera when you are at 400 with the > >1.4x even with the IS. > You might also check out microdrives. I have a 340 MB (4 years old) and a 1 GB (1 1/2 years old) and have been pleased with the performance of both of them. Recently read a Rob Galbraith report: In the process of reviewing a Hitachi microdrive, he accidently dropped it 2" to the table. That's all it took to completely trash it! > > You might also check out microdrives. I have a 340 MB (4 years old) and a 1 GB (1 1/2 years old) and have been pleased with the performance of both of them. > Recently read a Rob Galbraith report: In the process of reviewing a > Hitachi microdrive, he accidently dropped it 2" to the table. That's all > it took to completely trash it! My 340 MB microdrive has taken a dive from table top to hard floor while it was inside the camera. No ill effects to either camera (G1) or microdrive. The "experts" say that microdrives don't work above 10,000 feet above sea level. Both of mine have been used on Beartooth Pass northeast of Yellowstone National Park. The highway there is just a little short of 11,000 feet above sea level. My experience has been that my microdrives are pretty tough devices. I am giving some thought to purchasing a 2 GB drive since they are only slightly more than all but the slowest 1 GB cards. Ron >> Before we head out this summer, I'm going to pick up a Rebel XT, but >> haven't yet decided upon which lens I want: The 70-200 2.8L IS; or the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >doesn't tell the camera it is there, the camera will AF as long as you have >decent light. Well Ron . . . I finally took the plunge! I've got one of those wives who says "Instead of *talking* about it . . why don't you just go and get it!! So . . I did! :-) After due diligence and investigation I ended up with a kit-lens Rebel XT. While the 18-55mm kit-lens isn't all that awesome, it's a cheap, and for my purposes, an acceptable wide-angle option. For the primary knock-around lens, I settled for a 70-200 2.8L IS, along with a Canon 1.4X; but it'll be at least a few days before either arrive at the local photo store. From the outset, the whole effort, has presented a whole lot of frustration; primarily with an AF that seems to have a mind of it's own, that has tended to do everything but what I want it to do. :-) After taking a raft of out-of-focus pics, I think I **finally** have that aspect of the beast under control. Best to get all that stuff outta the way before we hit the road. :-) >>We have a Canon G1 which can fit in my wifes purse, but her purse isn't >>nearly big enough for our Canon 10D especially when we have the 100-400L IS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 100-400L IS; along with the 1.4X converter. They both seem to be such > great lenses! :-) I would suggest that, given the cropping factor (1.5), you might want to consider a basic lens that will give a bit of wide angle. I just spent a day shooting butterflies and found that my 70-300 wouldn't let me go wide enough to fit some shots at very close range. -Raf SignatureMisifus- Rafael Seibert mailto:raf_seibert@cox.net http://www.ralphandsue.com >I would suggest that, given the cropping factor (1.5), you might >want to consider a basic lens that will give a bit of wide angle. > I just spent a day shooting butterflies and found that my >70-300 wouldn't let me go wide enough to fit some shots at very >close range. I am going to get a basic lens: the 18-55 kit lens. And from what I hear, it doesn't do all that bad a job at around f8; and that's the kind of lens that is usually used with optimum lighting. Notwithstanding, I'll probably get a 500D closeup lens for the 70-200. And I'm also hoping that the 18-55 will also be an acceptable lens for landscape shots where a "28 mm" might be needed. For those kind of photos, at least from my perspective, obtaining the very last line-per-mm, isn't all that critical. A little experience with the system will reveal deficits that might have to be addressed further. > >I would suggest that, given the cropping factor (1.5), you might > >want to consider a basic lens that will give a bit of wide angle. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A little experience with the system will reveal deficits that might have > to be addressed further. I have the Canon 28-135 IS and it does a fine job most of the time, but I have been giving some thought to getting the Canon 17-40L for those times when the 28-135 just isn't wide enough. I am so addicted to IS that I am not sure if I can get by with a lens that doesn't have it. <g> Ron Canon 10D Canon 100-400L IS Canon 75-300 IS Canon 28-135 IS Tameron 1.4x > "Flo Cala" <floREMOVEcaladot@earthlink.net> wrote... snip >> I wish I could afford a lighter, higher res version of my old Canon >> S300 Elph. Yet it still serves me well when high res is not as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ron Ron: I've had digitals since 1997, purchased when the models $first$ came out. :( I take photos of travels, pets, family and back yard creatures. Many of them get emailed, put on the web, or, at most, printed at 4x6 or 8x10. One son used to be photographer, and, before I retired, I often did graphic art work for photogs. I know better than to line people up on a sofa to say "cheese"! <g> I have no use (or extra money) for long zoom lenses and bulky cameras that are not convenient to carry. My tripods stay in the closet. I'm happy at the moment with 10x optical and image stabilizer. When smaller, better and cheaper are available after a few years, I'll get yet another camera -- if the walker I'll have by then has room for a purse with a camera . <VBG> ITMT, enjoy your big Canon and lenses. I appreciate your helping to keep Canon viable because I like Canon products -- cameras, photo paper, and printers. Great combination for great results. -Dot The number of images that can be stored on digital film (SD card CCFlash, etc) depends on the image type being stored as well. For example, My Nikon D70 (6.1Mp) has a 2Gb CF card - when images are taken as JPG, it will store 1,100 image. However, if I shoot NEF (otherwise known as RAW), the card will hold about 200 images. Shooting in NEF gives me 12-bit colour and no compression loss, while JPG is 8-bit colour with compression loss. As for speed, the newer digital film on the market is much faster than the old stuff. My 2Gb Sandisk Extreme writes 80x - which together with the internal memory means I can shoot a 3 frames per second for abouot 30 frames in NEF, and probably continuously for much of the card in JPG. FWIW, the Canon 20D has really good performance as well. The only time that you see slower writing speeds (given the same digital film) is with the smaller point-and-shoot types of cameras. >> Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: >> storage, I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >stores 1's and 0's and there is no difference in the quality from 1 card to >the next. My 4mp camera has about 200 pics from a 256K card. It depends on the resolution, the camera, and the complexity of the picture. Here is a table, but I think the values are quite low, from my experience. http://www.lexar.com/kodak/faqs_gen.html#8 When I travel, albeit in the US, it is pretty easy to find a place to to xfer your pictures to a disk for about $5-10 Those cards can be pretty inexpensive if you keep your eyes out, and dont mind filling in rebate forms. My son bought my daughter a 256 compact flash card for for her 12th birthday. After rebates it was $20. Pretty trivial. There are some pretty nifty standalone devices that can download thousands of pics, and it has a screen, but they are expensive, and not really worth it right now. > Oh, and which card has the best resolution? ;-) I have heard good things about Fuji cards :-) BTW, apparently some cards are faster than others. I dont know if that is true or not. Now for my pet peeve - places market those cards as Digital Film. Laura > My 4mp camera has about 200 pics from a 256K card. It depends on the > resolution, the camera, and the complexity of the picture. Here is a table, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mind filling in rebate forms. My son bought my daughter a 256 compact flash > card for for her 12th birthday. After rebates it was $20. Pretty trivial. That is almost expensive for today's market. If you check around, you can buy 1 GB (1000 MB) cards for about $50 after rebates. > There are some pretty nifty standalone devices that can download thousands > of pics, and it has a screen, but they are expensive, and not really worth [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > true or > not. Yes, some cards are faster than others. However, your camera may not be able to take advantage of the faster card speeds. > Now for my pet peeve - places market those cards as Digital Film. Most of the cheaper cards are the older slower cards, but many cameras are not able to write faster than the older cards are designed for. Also, if you are only taking a photo every minute or so, the speed won't make any difference until you copy the images to a PC. Ron >> My 4mp camera has about 200 pics from a 256K card. It depends on the >> resolution, the camera, and the complexity of the picture. Here is a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is almost expensive for today's market. If you check around, you can > buy 1 GB (1000 MB) cards for about $50 after rebates. true, but a little out of a 14 year olds budget for his sister. But the fact is that you can buy a card, and then later buy another. They just dont cost that much. If you think about all the money spent on real film, the cards quickly pay for themselves. As someone else brought up - there are other issues - battery life/easy & speed of recharging is a biggie. Also, time between pics can be an issue for many people. BTW, I really like my Kodak DX6490. 4mp, 10x Zoom, takes good pics and is easy to use. Has a lot of advanced features you can use or ignore. I got mine of Ebay - it was a reconditions model, but came with a full year warantee. Sometimes the reconditioned models can be better, because they are actually checked out before leaving the factory. I saved a lot of $$$ Laura >Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: storage, >I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The last question is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Steve We have a 4 mp Cannon with a 512 card. We shoot and store everything at the highest resolution possible and get about 175 pictures on the card. I'd rather carry a computer for downloading the pictures rather than a bunch of cards. As somebody who has had to repair military computer backplanes with a bunch of tiny pins, I'm just not real crazy about pulling cards out and pushing new cards into a $600 camera with those little tiny connector pins. We also have a 4 mp Sony that uses the mini CDs. Capacity of the CD is 185 mb and we get about 60 pictures per cd. We bought a box of 10 re-writeable CDs, giving us a capacity of about 600 pictures with that camera. In either case, we also carry a Toshiba laptop with an 80 gb hard drive to dump the pictures to when we go out shooting. It takes about 5 minutes to dump the card from the Cannon to the computer and with the mini CDs, we usually just wait til we get back to the trailer to copy the pictures to the tower computer and reformat the cds. A bigger concern with our hobby is battery life. It takes four to six hours to recharge a set of batteries that will only last about 1 1/2 -2 hours under full time shooting. So we usually have two sets of batteries on the charger at all times plus another set on a portable charger in the truck. Greg > >Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: storage, > >I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The last question is [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > batteries on the charger at all times plus another set on a portable > charger in the truck. Next time you are looking for a new camera, check out the Canon models that use lithium ion batteries. My G1 and 10D use the same model lithium ion battery. With the 10D using an image stabilizing lens, I can take 400+ images, the specs say up to 600. With the G1 I have taken 140+ images using the built in flash on one battery charge. These batteries recharge in less than 1 hour using the charger that came with my 10D. I recently purchased two new non Canon batteries and they cost $24.99 for the pair including shipping. Ron >> >Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: >storage, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Ron When I said "full-time shooting", I meant that we do genealogy research and spend quite a bit of time in cemeteries shooting pictures of each gravemarker. Adds up to about 30-60 pictures per hour, so the batteries don't get any breaks. One good days worth of shooting (8-10 hours) with the two cameras uses three Sony batteries and four sets of Cannon rechargeable li batteries. Greg > >> >Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: > >storage, [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > three Sony batteries and four sets of Cannon rechargeable li > batteries. Both my Canon G1 and 10D use Canon's BP-511/BP-512 battery. According to the manuals the 10D will get 650 photos from a fully charged battery and the G1 will get 260 with LCD and 800 without LCD. In practice I always filled a 340MB MicroDrive with raw images (about 150) and still had battery left even when using flash on 50% or so of the photos. With the 10D I have never run out of battery using the single shot mode and taking up to 275 photos using image stabilization lens. Recently I have been taking a lot of photos of flying birds using continuos focus (AI Servo) and after 300+ shots the AF starts to slow down so I change the battery. I have done quite a bit tombstone shooting my self, but never run out of battery. Now running out of space on compact flash cards is another matter. <g> I currently have enough cards to hold 2.9GB of files and fill them all up with RAW photos in 2-3 hours every once in a while. So for me CF cards are a bigger deal than batteries. Ron >I have done quite a bit tombstone shooting my self, but never run out of >battery. Now running out of space on compact flash cards is another matter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Ron Did I mention that my SO insists on using the two inch LCD monitor screen on the cameras rather than the viewfinder? That's what eats up the battery life. ;-( > My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX megapixel > camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at high resolution [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve Not all digital cameras let you choose the qlty of the stored image. My Oly 755 (4 Meg pixels) has 4-5 qlty modes running from no compression to high compression. Also not all cameras have the same actual number of pixels for a given Meg size. My Oly also has 2 different aspect ratios that yield slightly different file sizes. A HQ jpg file is slightly less than 2.5M and an uncompressed pic is 11.26 M. You'll have to check on the specific camera you're interested in and see what qlty levels you can save to and the specific file size that results for typ pictures. Mickey > Not all digital cameras let you choose the qlty of the stored image. My > Oly 755 (4 Meg pixels) has 4-5 qlty modes running from no compression to > high compression. Also not all cameras have the same actual number of > pixels for a given Meg size. My Oly also has 2 different aspect ratios > that yield slightly different file sizes. A HQ jpg file is slightly less > than 2.5M and an uncompressed pic is 11.26 M. You probably have more choices than that. For my older C 700, I have 3 choices in JPG format, and 4 choices in TIFF format. After 4 years, I still haven't used all of the programable features in that camera. SignatureJon JPinOH poke the "i" out to reply > Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: storage, > I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The last question is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Steve Fuji has the best resolution. Your camera's digital read out will tell you the number of pictures you can take on the card, for each resolution you choose. > Fuji has the best resolution. Your camera's digital read out will > tell you the number of pictures you can take on the card, for each > resolution you choose. No big special there. My $200 Olympus that I bought in 2000 does the same thing, and the information not only varies per resolution used but the size card that is in the camera. This information is no good if you don't already own the camera (what I think the original question was) unless you go to a store that has working demos and a clerk that will show a prospective buyer the results. Tom J Tom J > how do I determine how many photos of my XX megapixel > camera will store on a XXX mb card? That depends a lot on the operating system of the particular camera and its various resolution settings. The manual of the particular camera will provide a table with approximations based on memory card size and camera photo quality settings. I almost ran out of (digital) "film" for the first time since getting my new camera last November. I was shooting my grandson's 3rd birthday. Fortunately, there was a lull in the action and I took the time to gasp that my frame counter showed only 7 frames left. I had started with 77. Using the on-camera LCD display, I viewed what I had already shot and erased the handful of obvious stinkers. This gave me enough free space to shoot the rest of whatever would happen. No sweat. In anticipation of the February 25th birth of our third grandchild, a beautiful "little" (8.9) girl, I bought a Belkin accessory for my iPod (40 GB model). This little 2AA-powered interface backed-up all the photos I had on my camera to the hard-disk drive in my pocket (iPod). Not only that, with his permission and my card reader, I obtained a copy of all the photos that my son-in-law had taken! With the price of RAM (memory cards) steadily if gradually dropping, the SIZE of the card shouldn't be much of an issue anymore. The issue that is becoming AS important is read/write performance of the memory card. That's what determines HOW LONG you must WAIT for your nifty, little digital camera to be ready to shoot a SECOND picture. (During those annoying pauses, the camera is busy "writing" the previous shot to the memory card.) Brand new cameras or those bought within the last six months or so may VERY likely benefit (become FASTER between shots) using a "faster" memory card. These cards tout that they are 60x or 80x. The card I chose uses more specific measurements: 9 MB/sec read and 10 MB/sec write speed. I think that is 60x - what ever 60x means. > And that would be at high resolution > settings. Just as an example, let's say a 5 mp camera and a 512mb card. Some one is going to get ticked-off at our OFF TOPIC discussion. At least I amended the Subject line to cover MY @$$. <grin> With a SanDisk Ultra II 1 GB Compact Flash card, my 8 MP Canon 20D, shooting the BEST/FINEST jpeg *AND* a 7-8 MB RAW duplicate file, indicates a maximum 77 frames on its counter. Turning OFF RAW and shooting medium jpegs (suitable for up to 8x10), the counter shows somewhere in the upper 400s. In smallest, the counter maxes at "999". Unless anyone is a camera/photo NUTCASE <blush>, a 512 MB card would hold MORE than you'd shoot before you got back to your computer. (If you are going to Yellowstone, take a second card.) For mere mortals not shooting Camera RAW and under 5 MP, a 256 MB card would be a GREAT size to start with. Again, if your camera is "new", buy the "second generation" (faster) version of memory card. That does NOT include the GREAT buys on these cards at Sam's Club. If your camera is older or you don't mind the time lag between taking pictures, the cards at Sam's Club may be as good as ANY place for the best price. If you are buying a new camera, don't even worry about what SIZE the included memory card is. It's a "giveaway" and will be TINY. Do NOT buy your intended replacement card where you buy your camera, especially if insisting on a newer/faster version. The best place for LOWEST prices on these cards is on-line. > I am trying to determine this so that I can select a camera, have it do what > I want to do, and know how much card storage I will need to carry. 256 MB = good 512 MB = better 1 GB = overkill for mere mortals. It's better to have two, smaller cards than one HUGE card. This is good insurance that a once-in-a-lifetime event is "lost" because your LONE memory card died immediately before the event started! My camera didn't come with ANY memory card. (It doesn't have a "movie" mode, either.) I wasn't surprised or disappointed. Canon obviously and correctly assumes that, when selling such an "upper end" camera, the inclusion of a TOKEN-size memory card is a wasted expense. I bought the above-mentioned 1 GB, fast(er) card. > Oh, and which card has the best resolution? ;-) Definitely SanDisk. <http://www.sandisk.com/retail/ultra2-cf.asp> When I used cheaper memory cards, my photos were just "every day" stuff. Now, with SanDisk cards, every photograph I take is PERFECT and suitable for framing. <big grin> :) JR > > how do I determine how many photos of my XX megapixel > > camera will store on a XXX mb card? [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > :) I use a Canon 10D and save photos in RAW with a small fine JPG embedded in the RAW. A 1 GB card holds 140-150 images depending on the ISO and what is being photographed. I often take wildlife photos and fill the buffer with 9 images in 3-4 seconds. At that rate a 1 GB card isn't all that much storage and I want a card that can accept data as fast as the camera can send it. I always want more telephoto, faster frame rate, bigger buffer, larger CF card, faster write times, etc., etc. <g> Oh, one more thing, came someone tell me how to get wildlife to hold that pose while I take a shot. <bg> By the way, everyone knows that an IBM MicroDrive stores better photos than just a regular CF card. ;-) Ron > My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX > megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at high [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what I want to do, and know how much card storage I will need to carry. > And what my capacity would be before I had to dump it to storage. If you are trying to determine this before buying a camera, then check out any reviews that you can dig up online about the one that you are considering. If you are trying to figure it out for one you have, then simply stick and empty card into it, select the picture quality level that you interested in, and check the readout. If you are shopping for a higher capacity card, then do the math. SignatureJon JPinOH poke the "i" out to reply Well, since the other discussion has taken on a life of its own re: storage, I would like to ask a question or two ....... HINT: The last question is not a question, for you humor impaired people. A friend of mine just returned from Africa. A trip to the Okovango (sp?) Delta. He said he was shooting a 16mp camera. His photos are like National Geographic stuff. I am sure he would have had to take a lot of camera cards, or his computer where he could transfer images to hard drive, CDs, or other storage medium. He was talking about taking about 500 pictures. I saw about 150 of them. My question is this: how do I determine how many photos of my XX megapixel camera will store on a XXX mb card? And that would be at high resolution settings. Just as an example, let's say a 5 mp camera and a 512mb card. I am trying to determine this so that I can select a camera, have it do what I want to do, and know how much card storage I will need to carry. And what my capacity would be before I had to dump it to storage. Steve, when you get some ideas on what camera you want, go to their website and look at the specs. That way your not guessing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.