Jump to content


Photo

Big Is Best. ?


4 replies to this topic

#1 HUCKABACK PHOTO

HUCKABACK PHOTO

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 10:18 PM

Hi All
Just read marks write up about the forthcoming availabillity of
Seagate 5 Mb memory cards.
Its not many years ago most peoples computor hard discs would not have allowed this size to down load (my win 98 machine only had 2gb).
Well technology is moving on and todays machines have 60gb / 250gb or bigger.

The question to you all are we heading in the right direction with huge memory cards.

1 use several smaller cards on the same photo shoot, lose 1 or damage 1 & chances are you still have images on the other cards,
shoot all on 1 big card if there's a problem its a huge one !!!

2 The time it takes to upload 5 Gb onto machine.

3 if you use portable storage hard disc drives (I use Phototainer 20 Gb myself) I think it may well make the battery struggle and would not allow 2 @ 5Gb uploads,

My own choice would be 340 / 512mb or 1gb. with fast write speeds, I use 1d mk 2 with CF and SD for back up it works well.

So does anyone allready use these large ( 2gb upwards) memory cards are there any known issues with them ?
would you go out and buy a 5 Gb card ?

any thoughts...

#2 fdinaro

fdinaro

    Super Member

  • Advanced Members 50
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Location:3rd Rock from the Sun in a small town called New York.
  • Interests:Photography,baseball , Ham radio.

Posted 06 January 2005 - 04:17 PM

I have the 4GB microdrive.I never had a problem other then it's a little slow. Files are getting so big due to more pixels,you need a big card.I have a Canon 20d each photo in raw mode is 10mb, on a 512 card that's only 51 pic's. Not enough for me,plus when you carry 4 cards they are so small they get lost easy. A 2GB cf card is perfect.That will give you appx 200 pic in raw mode. biggrin.gif
"Leave the gun. Take the canolies." ...Frank

#3 markgoldstein

markgoldstein

    Super Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 10 January 2005 - 12:31 PM

I use 3 x 512Mb cards with my Canon EOS 10D - enough for about 240 RAW images - amd also carry a portable storage device with 20Gb hard-drive (the original Vosonic XS-Drive).
Mark Goldstein
Editor, PhotographyBLOG

#4 GandalfFishcake

GandalfFishcake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 08:25 PM

You can't stop the march of progress! Just think back a couple of years to when 256MB was considered huge. Also, once PCs and cameras fully move to USB2 then the speed of uploading images will no longer be an issue.
Cameras will only get more pixels and cards will only get larger - 16GB will be available within the next 6 months.

The advantage of all this is that the more modest cards will get cheaper and cheaper - I bought a 256MB card for 40 only 6 months ago - now available for 15. ohmy.gif

On a technical note, once you hit 4GB your camera needs to be able to use FAT32 disks.

#5 HUCKABACK PHOTO

HUCKABACK PHOTO

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 01:19 AM

Thanks for all the imput.
Truly the progress in slr digital cameras is remarkable, and yes bigger file sizes possibly dictate the need for larger memory cards, however with millions of cards being produced to satisfy the digital consumer market
( i.e. look at the cost of 256mb card mentioned above) its pos we may get to a saturation point through over production, and companies like Lexar & Sandisk will be forcing us poor old photographers to accept a new 8 gb 80x card as a free gift. !!!

With the Lexar 8 gb 80x compact flash cards costing approx 600. and decent 2gb cards about 250-350 i cant see these sizes ever becoming that popular (but i may be totaly wrong).
Think of the choice to make
A NEW 17 to 40 L CANON ZOOM or A NEW COMPACT FLASH CARD. (no contest).
A 20 gb phototainer or flashtrax at approx 250 or vasonic (even cheaper)portable storage has to make a lot of sense.
One other thing to consider do we really need to shoot all our images at max size / max res.
I think not if you are using cameras over 5/6 megapix, you should still get good results, if you only ever need enprints or 7 x 5 why waste space.
I have just had 30" x 20" print done by Photobox.com from a reduced file size image taken on my old d60, quality was amazing.
Cheers
huckaback photo



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users