Memory/Storage Education needed

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

I checked on my camera and with a 2GB microdrive I can get
126 Raw photographs at an iso 1600.
So half it .(63)

Pannawonica..


"Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:18OdnbEy3eogItnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Say I purchase a 1 GB card for use with one of the Canon 8 or 8.2 mp
> cameras. Shooting in Raw, how many images will fit on the card?
>
> Same question for JPEG images at the highest resolution.
>
> Thanks,
>
> KB
>

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

Pannawonica wrote:
> I checked on my camera and with a 2GB microdrive I can get
> 126 Raw photographs at an iso 1600.
> So half it .(63)
>

Somehow that doesn't seem correct to me: on a 20D with 2GB card and
Raw-only, I show more than 210-image potential; with Large-Fine JPG,
more than 500; Raw + Small-Fine, nearly 190.

Maybe our 8MP cameras measure things differently .. ?


--
Frank ess

>
> "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:18OdnbEy3eogItnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> Say I purchase a 1 GB card for use with one of the Canon 8 or 8.2 mp
>> cameras. Shooting in Raw, how many images will fit on the card?
>>
>> Same question for JPEG images at the highest resolution.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> KB

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

With my 2GB micro drive on a 20D -
Straight RAW it says 198
156 at iso 100
153 at iso 200
148 at iso 400
141 at iso 800
134 at iso 1600
thats this morning 27/03/2005

I figure that the last time I read it it had already subtracted the shots
that were already on the camera.
So you could be right Frank maybe the cameras measure differently


Pannawonica..


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:QM6dnXiBtowyTNnfRVn-iQ@giganews.com...
> Pannawonica wrote:
>> I checked on my camera and with a 2GB microdrive I can get
>> 126 Raw photographs at an iso 1600.
>> So half it .(63)
>>
>
> Somehow that doesn't seem correct to me: on a 20D with 2GB card and
> Raw-only, I show more than 210-image potential; with Large-Fine JPG, more
> than 500; Raw + Small-Fine, nearly 190.
>
> Maybe our 8MP cameras measure things differently .. ?
>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>>
>> "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:18OdnbEy3eogItnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>> Say I purchase a 1 GB card for use with one of the Canon 8 or 8.2 mp
>>> cameras. Shooting in Raw, how many images will fit on the card?
>>>
>>> Same question for JPEG images at the highest resolution.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> KB
>
>
>

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

Pannawonica wrote:
> With my 2GB micro drive on a 20D -
> Straight RAW it says 198
> 156 at iso 100
> 153 at iso 200
> 148 at iso 400
> 141 at iso 800
> 134 at iso 1600
> thats this morning 27/03/2005
>
> I figure that the last time I read it it had already subtracted the
> shots that were already on the camera.
> So you could be right Frank maybe the cameras measure differently
>
-- Freshly formatted in the 20D
2GB SanDisk Extreme III

raw+ raw+ raw+
..ISO raw fineL fineS fineM fineL

..100 222 530 194 177 123

..200 219 513 191 175 134

..400 214 481 186 169 140

..800 207 443 179 163 147

1600 197 422 171 156 153

.."H" 183 378 159 144 156

- - - - - -

My next guess is that there is different housekeeping overhead on the
microdrive.

It never occurred to me the ISO chosen would influence number of
expected images. Why is that?


--
Frank ess

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

In article <_9OdnT4RQLjAltvfRVn-uQ@giganews.com>,
Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>It never occurred to me the ISO chosen would influence number of
>expected images. Why is that?

Because compression (both on the RAW data, and any embedded JPEGs)
depends very much on how noisy the original data is. Images shot
at high ISO tenmd to be noisier, and so will compress less.