Us seniors find all this stuff quite dull!
"-hh" wrote in message
news:1173986292.906617.256590@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
>
|