On Mar 15, 2:47 pm, Doug McDonald
wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > For example, with a digital SLR, these can store photos in what's
> > called "RAW" format in addition to JPEG, and using this on an 8MP
> > camera, the result is that each time you take a photo, you consume
> > around 15MB of storage,
>
> at least with my Canon 30D, it's about half that
My number is purposefully on the high side, as I've assumed worst case
for compression on the JPEGs for planning purposes. In general, the
two will sum to around 12MB (but never less than 10MB or more than
15MB) with the RAW file's portion of this being around 8MB.
My reference is the Canon 20D, and with the (RAW+JPEG Fine/Large)
setting, I get 71-74 shots per 1GB card, but assume only 70 shots.
Yield on larger cards improves some, since the overhead loss for card
formatting is fairly fixed.
In either case, I only took 11 or 12 GB worth of CF cards with me on
my 'big' trip, which even at a rate of 700 per 5GB would have left me
with only 1400 photos, or roughly 1/3rd of the total capacity that I
ended up actually using. Granted, this trip was a fairly non-
typical, but it does serve to illustrate that there are times when
alternatives to "stack-o-CF's" can be considered: high speed media
isn't yet down to $10 per GB, so the approx 40GB that I used at last
year's going rate of $40 per GB of High-Speed would have meant a $1600
investment in CF's.
-hh
|
