Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Size of Card to Buy?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)

I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
4 weeks in a month.

I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
at the most.

My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
Lexar or Sandisk card?
Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.

More about : size card buy

Anonymous
December 17, 2004 10:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<stdenis@aei.ca> wrote in message
news:1103341299.843300.13070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.
>
> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
> Lexar or Sandisk card?
> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.
>

So buy 2 X 256 cards on Ebay? If you aim to print, you need high resolution.
You will also take a lot of shots that you delete once home. I used a a full
1.5 gig on holiday in S Africa, deleted poor shots daily and still deleted
over half at home.That's the great advantage of digital.
December 17, 2004 11:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here in the USA many Kroger food stores, Wal-Marts, CVS drugstores
and... have the ability to read the memory card and make prints or ...
burn you a cd for just a couple of dollars. But, I was able to buy a
512 card at .. for only $30 after rebate in the Friday after
Thanksgiving sale. ;-)
Related resources
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<stdenis@aei.ca>
> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.
>
> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
> Lexar or Sandisk card?
> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.


I'll chime in with most of the choir and say I'd maximize the
potential and shoot high res photos instead, you can't have
too much detail, and go with at least two 512 meg cards
for a trip like that. When are you going to get another chance
for those shots? Card failures are pretty rare, your chance
of losing them are higher so I'd minimize the odds by having
a consistent place to keep them.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 8:13:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

stdenis@aei.ca wrote:
> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.
>
> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
> Lexar or Sandisk card?
> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.
>


Chances of a card failure are small, but it CAN happen. I would go with
multiple 256 meg cards. You may find that with the current price of
cards, you can just buy new cards whereever you happen to be (most
cities will have them easily available) as you fill cards. I took
enough cards on an Alaskan cruise for 1200 pictures, and only took 470
shots in 7 days. My plan was to shoot at max res until I put in the
last card, to switch to lower (2mp) resolution. I did not get to the
last card.
You also shouldn't have any trouble finding a place to copy cards to CD
in just about any city there.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 3:53:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I
>> don't plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the
>> pictures on my PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its
>> megapixels.)
>>
>> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
>> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia
>> for 4 weeks in a month.

Following a 5MP camera purchase, we recently decided that 2 x 1GB and 4 x
512MB SD cards would be the right amount to get (in addition to existing
16MB and 256MB cards). The trip is not repeatable, so it almost seems
best to take multiple pictures of each location of different cards and
even on two different cameras. No portable PC to store pictures on
nightly, either. One of the reasons behind so much storage was the
discovery of what fun the movie modes on these cameras can be....

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 8:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> stdenis@aei.ca wrote:
>> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
>> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
>> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>>
>> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
>> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
>> 4 weeks in a month.
>>
>> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
>> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
>> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
>> at the most.
>>
>> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
>> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
>> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
>> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
>> Lexar or Sandisk card?
>> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.
>>
>
>

If I were you,I'd buy two 512M cards and then go to any local photo store
when they are full to have them burned onto CD. You can get a full 512M card
on a CD - but not a 1M.

I was in New Zealand a few weeks ago, and you could get a CD burnt at any
photo store - cost was about five UK pounds.

I'd also take all photos at the highest resolution setting I could.

Normally though, I'd just take my laptop with built in card reader and CD
burner and do it myself as I went.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 17 Dec 2004 19:41:39 -0800, stdenis@aei.ca wrote:

> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.
>
> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
> Lexar or Sandisk card?
> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.

Buy the 512.

Oh, and I reckon you should be shooting in the highest res mode you can.
Somewhere down the track you will be cursing yourself if you use lo res.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 11:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<stdenis@aei.ca> wrote in message
news:1103341299.843300.13070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.

Depends on where you are, and what's around.

A camera store or pharmacy is easy to find, but fairly expensive. I think
their prices start at AU$10.

If you can find an internet Cafe, they will mostly have the equipment to do
it,
and are often quit a bit cheaper.

I'm an Aussie, and I had a 2 week holiday earlier this year. I went to
Tasmania,
then Melbourne, Albury & Canberra.

In Tassie I found a good internet Cafe in Hobart, where they would burn a
CD full of my photos for AU$5. Sorry, I can't recall the name, but they were
really nice people and they were near Salamanca place.

In Melbourne it was just an internet cafe in the centre of the city, and
they were
about AU$8.

Where are you going? You might want to use www.yellowpages.com.au to
look up the camera stores & internet cafes in those areas.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 1:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt wrote:
[]
> Movie mode is probably the only reasion you'll need larger card than a
> 256MB, unless the battery life is astonishiningly good, or you shoot
> stills quickly without the LCD on.
>
> I'd be happy to change card and battery at the same time.
>
> There is a small point in favour of one supersize card that stays in
> the camera - if one is enough.
>
> So long as you have a comfortable number of shots for a session, I'd
> go with more, smaller cards - the risk of a card failing by itself is
> small, but if the battery gives out during a write, it can make a hell
> of a mess - recovery software time!

That's an interesting perspective. Using Nikon Coolpix cameras I haven't
been unlucky enough to loose a picture due to battery failure. When the
battery is exhausted, you just get a message to change it. Perhaps I've
been lucky?

I've never tied changing cards into changing batteries or vice-versa.

Cheers,
David
December 19, 2004 3:26:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

stdenis@aei.ca wrote:
> I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>

wrong attitude, you should alway shoot at the highest res or the normal
mode the camara can do, one reason is the camera will take the shot in
high res, regardless of the setting you have picked, then it will crunch
it down to the resolution you have selected, depending on the camera
that can take longer to do and write to the card than just simply
writing the high quality jpeg to the card.

shoot at high resolution always, there are plenty of viewers for the pc
that automatically resize the image to fit the screen, photoshop or the
freeware Gimp can resize a copy the image for web pages.

I have a Minolta A1 5mp camera, with a 256mb card I can fit 60+ extra
fine jpegs on it, so buy at least 3 x 256mb cards, they are cheap enough
now, just wait until you get home to process the images, I wouldn't
bother with writing the cards to cd

another reason to shoot in high res is the cropping and printing, if you
crop a low res image and resize it larger you lose detail, with high
res you can crop the image then resize it to suit, for printing again a
high res image is better

I have an Epson picturemate photo printer, it can only do 6x4 prints,
but even so you can see the difference between a 2mp, 3mp and 5mp images
of the same scene.

enjoy your stay in Oz, getting nice and warm down here.
December 19, 2004 3:26:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in news:41c4d8c0$0$5287$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> wrong attitude, you should alway shoot at the highest res or the normal
> mode the camara can do, one reason is the camera will take the shot in
>

If you shoot every shot with the intention of producing fine art, then by
all means shoot them all at maximum quality.

I mix and match, shooting lower resolutions at times when I simply want to
record something, and the best possible mode when I plan on printing a
photo for visual pleasure.

That's only on a long trip though, where I could run out of space and wish
I hadn't used it all up.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:26:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:12:49 -0600, bob <usenetMAPS@2fiddles.com>
wrote:

>zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in news:41c4d8c0$0$5287$afc38c87
>@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> wrong attitude, you should alway shoot at the highest res or the normal
>> mode the camara can do, one reason is the camera will take the shot in
>>
>
>If you shoot every shot with the intention of producing fine art, then by
>all means shoot them all at maximum quality.
>
>I mix and match, shooting lower resolutions at times when I simply want to
>record something, and the best possible mode when I plan on printing a
>photo for visual pleasure.
>
>That's only on a long trip though, where I could run out of space and wish
>I hadn't used it all up.
>
>Bob

We take fairly long vacations (3 to 4 weeks at a time); photo storage
can be a real problem on that sort of vacation.
We solved that problem with a laptop; this isn't a workable solution
if you're backpacking or doing something similar.
In such a case, you'll need to find some other way to get the storage;
maybe a standalone hard drive storage solution, or more cards.
There are ways to do this even if it looks like there aren't. Borrow
some cards from a friend. Buy a solution for the trip, and sell it on
Ebay afterwards, considering the differential as the cost of the
storage for the trip; "rental" if you will. :-)
But always shoot at high quality/size. Any shots considered as not
being for printing can always turn put to be considered such later,
and if the pic quality isn't up to it, you'll realize how
short-sighted the decision to save space was. On later examination,
it's amazing how often someone will say, "Can I have a print of that?"
someone will

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 19, 2004 11:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:

>
> If you shoot every shot with the intention of producing fine art, then by
> all means shoot them all at maximum quality.
>
> I mix and match, shooting lower resolutions at times when I simply want to
> record something, and the best possible mode when I plan on printing a
> photo for visual pleasure.
>
> That's only on a long trip though, where I could run out of space and wish
> I hadn't used it all up.

sorry still wrong attitude, memory cards are cheap now, buy 3 or 4,
point is not every shot you take will be perfect, shooting at high res
gives you more options for cropping, etc.

I will often take a bunch of shots and not worry too much about
composition until the final edit on the pc.

a high res shot can cropped, corrected if needed, and then resized for a
web page, and if later I need to print that photo I still have the
original high res shot to work with.

point being how are you going to know which shot you will print, which
will be for a web page or as you say recording something, I don't, I
just take shots when I see something interesting, or related to work,
and leave the final editing for the pc.

if you only want low res shots then there is no reason to go more than 1
or 2mp
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 11:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I agree with Zog, I take all pics with high res, ya never know.
December 19, 2004 11:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in news:41c543a0$0$5131$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> sorry still wrong attitude, memory cards are cheap now, buy 3 or 4,
> point is not every shot you take will be perfect, shooting at high res
> gives you more options for cropping, etc.
>
> I will often take a bunch of shots and not worry too much about
> composition until the final edit on the pc.
>

You can have your attitude, but I'll keep mine, thank you.

If I just want to make a record of a telephone number on a sign, for
instance, I'm never going to need one bit more resolution than what it
takes to be able to read the number. Smaller files are faster to copy and
open later.

As far as composition goes, my preference is to capture the composition
that I like in the first place, and not have to worry too much about
editing later.

It's nice that you have so much money that you can simply buy more
storage that you can possibly use, and it's nice that you have so much
time that you can sort through everything later; I, on the other hand, am
short on time, and must work within the limits of what gear I own, at
least for now.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
December 19, 2004 11:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in news:41c543a0$0$5131$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> point being how are you going to know which shot you will print, which
> will be for a web page or as you say recording something, I don't, I
> just take shots when I see something interesting, or related to work,
> and leave the final editing for the pc.
>
>

Different styles of photography, I suppose. I know what I'm going to do
before I turn the camera on.

With a 4x5 camera (which I sometimes use), there is no other way to work;
it just takes too much time to set up.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
December 20, 2004 4:40:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1. Memory cards are cheap - buy larger rather than smaller
2. Buy more than one
3. Stay away from Sandisk, IMHO - have had 2 corruption problems with 2
cards. I've have no problems with Lexar.
4. Consider speed of card if you like to shoot several pictures quickly.

<stdenis@aei.ca> wrote in message
news:1103341299.843300.13070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I just bought a digital camera. It's a 4 megapixel camera, but I don't
> plan to use it on high res since I will be viewing the pictures on my
> PC. (I bought it for its Leica lens, not its megapixels.)
>
> I'm debating whether to buy 256MB or 512MB SD memory card. Normally
> 256MB would be more than I need, except that I'm going to Australia for
> 4 weeks in a month.
>
> I don't know what it would cost to download say 400 pictures onto a CD
> in Austraila, how hard it would be to find a place to do it and how
> long it would take. I only plan to be in any one place for a few days
> at the most.
>
> My main concern about buying a 512MB card is that I'll be putting all
> my eggs in one basket. If the card malfunctions or is lost, all those
> once-in-a-lifetime pictures would be lost and I'll return home with
> just memories. What are the chances of this happening with a basic
> Lexar or Sandisk card?
> Any arguments for one size of card or the other would be welcomed.
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:29:11 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>In such a case, you'll need to find some other way to get the storage;
>maybe a standalone hard drive storage solution, or more cards.

Something like this?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/digital_walle...



--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 2:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:56:34 +0800, Christopher Pollard
<xmastree@hotpop.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:29:11 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>In such a case, you'll need to find some other way to get the storage;
>>maybe a standalone hard drive storage solution, or more cards.
>
>Something like this?
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/digital_walle...

Yes, something like that, exactly.
There are many on the market, I didn't want to single out one over
another is all.
As I've said before, though, I find a laptop meets our needs (and
traveling habits) very well.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 20, 2004 5:56:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
>
> It's nice that you have so much money that you can simply buy more
> storage that you can possibly use, and it's nice that you have so much
> time that you can sort through everything later; I, on the other hand, am
> short on time, and must work within the limits of what gear I own, at
> least for now.

well I am not rich, I drive a 14year old car which was cheap to buy when
new, as for time, it doesn't take that long in the evening edit a few
pictures, print some and so on.

$30 gets 256mb compact flash cards brand new from ebay, and you can
never have enough storage.

and as for taking time to "compose" the shot, is not really needed, you
are not wasting film, if the shot didn't work, delete it and take another.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote:
-snip-
>$30 gets 256mb compact flash cards brand new from ebay, and you can
>never have enough storage.
-snip-

$35 after rebate will get you a 512 from Newegg.com .

[Actually now they have a Dane for $45 with $20 rebate- and a
Kingston for $40 with a $15 rebate - as well as the Lexar for $44 with
$15 rebate.]

Jim
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 5:56:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:32:25 GMT, Jim Elbrecht <Elbrecht@email.com>
wrote:

>zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote:
>-snip-
>>$30 gets 256mb compact flash cards brand new from ebay, and you can
>>never have enough storage.
>-snip-
>
>$35 after rebate will get you a 512 from Newegg.com .
>
>[Actually now they have a Dane for $45 with $20 rebate- and a
>Kingston for $40 with a $15 rebate - as well as the Lexar for $44 with
>$15 rebate.]
>
>Jim

Under $50 will get you gigabyte CF cards from Fry's Electronics or
Outpost.com when they're on sale.

What used to be massive storage isn't all that expensive anymore.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 20, 2004 7:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:41c64d86$0$1078$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

> and as for taking time to "compose" the shot, is not really needed,
> you are not wasting film, if the shot didn't work, delete it and take
> another.
>

Look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson. You only need one shot, if you
get the right one. It's not a question of wasting film. Unless you are
shooting still lifes in a studio, the scene is always changing: In the
time you spend capturing those photos that don't work, you might miss the
opportunity to capture one that really does.

Your argument in favor of shooting wide and cropping later is at odds
with your argument in favor of shooting everything full resolution. Or
maybe the later is a result of the first. I prefer to do my cropping at
the time of shooting, when possible, leaving the maximum amount of
resolution in the photos for later editing.

Bob
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 7:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:11:06 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:41c64d86$0$1078$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> and as for taking time to "compose" the shot, is not really needed,
>> you are not wasting film, if the shot didn't work, delete it and take
>> another.
>>
>
>Look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson. You only need one shot, if you
>get the right one. It's not a question of wasting film. Unless you are
>shooting still lifes in a studio, the scene is always changing: In the
>time you spend capturing those photos that don't work, you might miss the
>opportunity to capture one that really does.
>
>Your argument in favor of shooting wide and cropping later is at odds
>with your argument in favor of shooting everything full resolution. Or
>maybe the later is a result of the first. I prefer to do my cropping at
>the time of shooting, when possible, leaving the maximum amount of
>resolution in the photos for later editing.
>
>Bob

So that was *you* with the tripod for 30 minutes waiting for the
perfect cloud formation, fiddling with who-knows-what on the camera,
then cussing up a storm when a tourist stepped in front of you when
you were finally ready to shoot? :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 20, 2004 9:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in
news:o l5es0t8hqjoj3naepo7e19np3h54bsvg0@4ax.com:

> So that was *you* with the tripod for 30 minutes waiting for the
> perfect cloud formation, fiddling with who-knows-what on the camera,
> then cussing up a storm when a tourist stepped in front of you when
> you were finally ready to shoot? :-)
>
>

I don't know about that [ ;-) ], but once I did set up my tripod in the
rain and wait for over an hour for the mist to clear. It finally did,
revealing the waterfall in a spectacular manner.

Bob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:06:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

buy one or two 512Megs, and an extra battery.

the worst part about a trip is when you either ran out of storage
space or if you run out of battery for the day. that happened to us
before and it is a real bummer as then we cannot record the great
memories of our trip. you want to have plentiful of spare because you
don't want to constantly worry about battery or storage space running
out.

to give you a ballpark of how much we used. we use up 2x 128Meg card
for 5MP *everyday*. and we wish we have more storage space. so please
make plans to download the pictures into a CD or a laptop computer.


--
btooth
brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:54:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gp5es0d2e8aej8818gon562qnavj24f26c@4ax.com>,
Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

> There are many on the market, I didn't want to single out one over
> another is all.
> As I've said before, though, I find a laptop meets our needs (and
> traveling habits) very well.

I have high hope of using my iPod for such a purpose. I have my ENTIRE CD
collection (and I have a *LOT* of CDs - all good stuff) on the 40gb iPod and
it is only half full. They make a card reader for the iPod. Adding this
function to a device that I use CONSTANTLY is just icing on the cake.

(Sorry to butt-in...)

:) 
JR
December 21, 2004 1:39:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:41c64d86$0$1078$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>
>>and as for taking time to "compose" the shot, is not really needed,
>>you are not wasting film, if the shot didn't work, delete it and take
>>another.
>>
>
>
> Look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson. You only need one shot, if you
> get the right one. It's not a question of wasting film. Unless you are
> shooting still lifes in a studio, the scene is always changing: In the
> time you spend capturing those photos that don't work, you might miss the
> opportunity to capture one that really does.

you know for someone who complains they don't have enough time you seem
to have enough time to stuff around waiting for the right shot.

so what if I take 10 shots of the same scene, I will only need one that
works

>
> Your argument in favor of shooting wide and cropping later is at odds
> with your argument in favor of shooting everything full resolution. Or
> maybe the later is a result of the first. I prefer to do my cropping at
> the time of shooting, when possible, leaving the maximum amount of
> resolution in the photos for later editing.

why do you assume I shoot wide?, some I don't crop at all, others I
might crop slightly to change aspect, if it's for a web page then it
might be cropped and resized quite a bit, I simply cannot see the point
in constantly changing the resolution, because one day it will catch you
out, as people mentioned above, memory cards are cheap.

and I don't bother using the camera to take a photo of a phone number, I
use my PDA or for a really novel idea I actually store the number on my
phone!
December 21, 2004 1:39:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:41c762a1$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:


> you know for someone who complains they don't have enough time you
> seem to have enough time to stuff around waiting for the right shot.
>
> so what if I take 10 shots of the same scene, I will only need one
> that works

The potential problem is that in the time you spend making the 10 shots,
you might well miss the one really spectacular one. If you get the one
spectacular shot and 9 tossers, and if I only get the one spectacular shot,
then by comparison, you've wasted time and storage. You could make an
argument that in the cases where I need to wait for the right shot the time
comes out the same, and you might have a point, but I would contend that
such time might be better spent contemplating the subject, rather than
being distracted trying to think of different ways to photograph it.


> why do you assume I shoot wide?, some I don't crop at all, others I
> might crop slightly to change aspect, if it's for a web page then it
> might be cropped and resized quite a bit, I simply cannot see the
> point in constantly changing the resolution, because one day it will
> catch you out, as people mentioned above, memory cards are cheap.

I didn't really assume you shoot wide: You said so yourself. And as I said,
I typically shoot full resolution, but when the odd situations comes up, I
don't hesitate to use lower.

> and I don't bother using the camera to take a photo of a phone number,
> I use my PDA or for a really novel idea I actually store the number on
> my phone!

There you go with the money thing again ;-) I have neither a PDA nor a cell
phone.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:39:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:41c762a1$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>
>
>>you know for someone who complains they don't have enough time you
>>seem to have enough time to stuff around waiting for the right shot.
>>
>>so what if I take 10 shots of the same scene, I will only need one
>>that works
>
>
> The potential problem is that in the time you spend making the 10 shots,
> you might well miss the one really spectacular one. If you get the one
> spectacular shot and 9 tossers, and if I only get the one spectacular shot,
> then by comparison, you've wasted time and storage. You could make an
> argument that in the cases where I need to wait for the right shot the time
> comes out the same, and you might have a point, but I would contend that
> such time might be better spent contemplating the subject, rather than
> being distracted trying to think of different ways to photograph it.
>
>
>
>>why do you assume I shoot wide?, some I don't crop at all, others I
>>might crop slightly to change aspect, if it's for a web page then it
>>might be cropped and resized quite a bit, I simply cannot see the
>>point in constantly changing the resolution, because one day it will
>>catch you out, as people mentioned above, memory cards are cheap.
>
>
> I didn't really assume you shoot wide: You said so yourself. And as I said,
> I typically shoot full resolution, but when the odd situations comes up, I
> don't hesitate to use lower.
>
>
>>and I don't bother using the camera to take a photo of a phone number,
>>I use my PDA or for a really novel idea I actually store the number on
>>my phone!
>
>
> There you go with the money thing again ;-) I have neither a PDA nor a cell
> phone.
>
> Bob
>
What? No cell phone? Come on, Bob, it's the 21st Century. Get with
the program. GRIN.
December 21, 2004 1:39:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
news:vITxd.274$1z6.229@fe27.usenetserver.com:

>> There you go with the money thing again ;-) I have neither a PDA nor
>> a cell phone.
>>
>> Bob
>>
> What? No cell phone? Come on, Bob, it's the 21st Century. Get with
> the program. GRIN.
>
>

Mumble mumble, cough.

My boss has one of those camera phones. He got it about a year ago. Don't
think he's taken a photo with it yet. I took one once just to see how it
worked. Much better than I was expecting.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
December 21, 2004 7:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:41c762a1$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
>
> The potential problem is that in the time you spend making the 10 shots,
> you might well miss the one really spectacular one. If you get the one
> spectacular shot and 9 tossers, and if I only get the one spectacular shot,
> then by comparison, you've wasted time and storage. You could make an
> argument that in the cases where I need to wait for the right shot the time
> comes out the same, and you might have a point, but I would contend that
> such time might be better spent contemplating the subject, rather than
> being distracted trying to think of different ways to photograph it.
>

well thats the way you do it, my subjects generally don't wait around
for me to setup my shots, time taken is again irrelevant since my camera
can take photos as quick as I can push the button, and again storage
is not an issue.

>
>
>
> I didn't really assume you shoot wide: You said so yourself. And as I said,
> I typically shoot full resolution, but when the odd situations comes up, I
> don't hesitate to use lower.

never said I shoot wide
>
>
>>and I don't bother using the camera to take a photo of a phone number,
>>I use my PDA or for a really novel idea I actually store the number on
>>my phone!
>
>
> There you go with the money thing again ;-) I have neither a PDA nor a cell
> phone.
>

irrelevant, since both are supplied for work
December 21, 2004 7:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

zog <zog@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:41c7b037$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

> well thats the way you do it, my subjects generally don't wait around
> for me to setup my shots, time taken is again irrelevant since my
> camera
> can take photos as quick as I can push the button, and again storage
> is not an issue.

You seem to be saying that you can set up 10 shots in the same time it
takes me to do one.

>> I didn't really assume you shoot wide: You said so yourself. And as I
>> said, I typically shoot full resolution, but when the odd situations
>> comes up, I don't hesitate to use lower.
>
> never said I shoot wide

You said you crop. If you crop, you necessarily must shoot wide. That was
when I stated my preference for shooting what I intend to print.

>> There you go with the money thing again ;-) I have neither a PDA nor
>> a cell phone.
>>
>
> irrelevant, since both are supplied for work

Must be nice.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
!