On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:31:52 +1000, Ryan Lee wrote: >Yeah, but the thought of shooting 34 RAW shots on a 512, then having to >change cards.. so much for the digital no-more-film-loading advantage! I >think the 1GB cards are probably the most practical option, but I was still >thinking of the 2gb, not because I'm a gambler, but because I'm quite >confident in a reasonably big name like Lexar or Sandisk
I started out with one 512Mb and two 1G cards which was plenty since I was mostly shooting JPG. However, since switching to RAW alsmost exclusively, the 35/70 images per card are on the low side. I have added one 2Gb SanDisk ultra-II card now, and use that as my main CF-card. It holds about 140 images, enough for most of my shootings. If I need more, I still have the 1Gb and 512Mb cards as spare ... (and on hollidays I have a laptop with me so can offload stuff each night) I also have an older 340Mb Microdrive, but don't really use that since it is noticably slower and takes at least twice the power ... >(though Lexar does offer the WA 'technology'.. anyone compared it >to normal CF cards?), All major brands use similar techniques now, these "write accelerated" cards are a bit more expensive than the older ones, but will be the only thing you can get before long :-) The fact that they could transfer data upto 40 or 80 times faster than the very slowest ones does not men that much 'in camera' since it is not just the card speed that matters. The speed advantage is noticable, but in the realm of 10 to 20% at most. >and >wasn't he talking about his experience with rather dodgy cheap CF cards? >Also, I think babying my equipment counts for something too. Of course, if >something goes wrong, I'll let you reserve the right to go 'I told you so'. Yes, his bad experiences seemed to be with the older and el-cheapo stuff. Regards, JvW ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
