Camera memory question and a few others

[mapes]

Hey folks

Well I took the plunge and bought a Canon Rebel T1i camera. (wish it was the t2i...but, the wife.....) Anyways I'm curious what would be the best guide lines for buying memory. The camera supports SD and SDHC.

Also a coworker of mine said larger memory cards have some type of issue with speed. Is he right?

Also since on this trip to Aus/NZ will be the first time I'll be using the thing I've thought about shooting in RAW format just to be able to correct the inevitable mistakes I'll make. Should I even bother?

I'll be bring a laptop with a built in card reader so I don't think space should be an issue.

[{CLR} ObiTroy]

You'll LOVE that camera! I got one last June. The first card I got for it was a 16GB SD (or said it was), thought it would work great but it really had some issues writing to that card and lost several pictures because of it. It would also hang when downloading images from it. I don't remember the name brand of this one, sorry. I returned it. It was the brand that was black with tan graphics, writing on it.

After I got back from vaction (bought the camera and card just before) I got a SanDisk Ultra 8GB SDHC (class 4). This thing works great. Would have preferred the 16GB but couldn't find one at the time locally to buy, was too anxious to order online. You'll be happy with this card, no hiccups even with continuous shooting. Holds about 1150 images on highest resolution (jpegs, not sure about RAW).

All the reviews I read before buying mine said to get the T1 and use the money saved over a T2 for lens and gadgets. I, too, wanted the T2 but really couldn't justify the price difference being I'm just an amature. I really couldn't find a bad review on either camera though.

I can't help you with the RAW question as I haven't played around with RAW format yet but plan to at some point.

Be sure to share some pictures when you get back! Have fun!

EDIT:
Just checked... card holds 320 images in RAW format. 250 in RAW & JPEG.

[Apache Warrior]

I have two ScanDisk Extreme16 GB. They are rated 60 MB/s and are fast. I have not had any problems with them and highly recommend them. If you can get them online as they are not cheap.
Apache

[BigTwinky]

When it comes to memory, dont be cheap and get the no name brands. Stick with the bigger brands...Sandisk and Lexar. The last thing you want is to have your card crap out on you, which I have had happen to me with lower budget cards.

Spend the money. I use only Sandisk now and have had no issues.

Larger cards don't have an issue with speed, or if they do, its news to me. The issue with larger cards when they are first released is quality. I would not buy a 32g or 64g card today. 2 years ago, I would not buy a 16g card. Now I use 2 16g cards and 4 8g cards.

Do you need ultra fast? No. The read write to the card is dependant on your camera buffer. My 8gs are Sandisk Ultra cards. They have higher end Extreme and Extreme Pro. Ultras are MORE than enough for casual shooting and family portraits. The only time I need higher rate write to the card is when shooting sports or action and doing lots of burst shooting. My 7D does 8fps, so that fills the buffer fast.

Thats why my 16g are Extremes, as I fill them up fast and need the speed for shooting action.

SD vs SDHC is about the storage. I think 2g and under is SD and 4g and up is SDHC. I use CF cards and not SD so the speed ratings are different.

Sandisk Ultra CF = 30mb/s
Sandisk Extreme CF = 60mb/s
Sandisk Extreme Pro CF = 90mb/s

So if you get something that is rated in the 30mb/s range or even 20mb/s, you are totally fine as the speed your card will write to the hard drive can easily be throttled by the actual card reader. I have a crappy card reader that only writes at 10mb/s, so I would not see any increase between a Sandisk Ultra or an Extreme Pro.

When I went to Australia, I had my XSI and brought 3 4GB SDHC Lexar Platinum II cards and 1 8GB SDHC Lexar Platinum II card. I believe these are Lexar rated at 100x, which is approx 15mb/s.

I wish all these companies had some sort of frakin standard

[BigTwinky]

I have two ScanDisk Extreme16 GB. They are rated 60 MB/s and are fast. I have not had any problems with them and highly recommend them. If you can get them online as they are not cheap.
Apache

A store had them as their day breaker special, well, the CF cards not the SDHC. Regular retail is about $225, they had them for $99 , limit 1 per customer.

Memory can be cheap, so do some online shopping. I purchased a Sandisk 8GB Ultra card from Newegg for $30 when they sell for $75 normally. They don't carry CF anymore, but still have SDHC, so you might be lucky.

[mapes]

A store had them as their day breaker special, well, the CF cards not the SDHC. Regular retail is about $225, they had them for $99 , limit 1 per customer.

Memory can be cheap, so do some online shopping. I purchased a Sandisk 8GB Ultra card from Newegg for $30 when they sell for $75 normally. They don't carry CF anymore, but still have SDHC, so you might be lucky.

BT your pics were one of the reason I decided to get a dSLR. I'm not a photography person...yet but, I'm sure I can pick it up (hey it's gotta be easier then network debugging). Anyways I'm curious what your input would be on me shooting RAW or JPEG.

[Skud]

Mapes, Congrats on the camera purchase! I'm little help on cards (un-photographic memory)...but will agree with BigTwinky on the buffer part (only time the photos seem to take a while to record is those long exposure night shots...and it's not like I click those in bursts anyway).

For the format, in my short experiences with DSLRs: I started shooting with the pics being written as both jpegs and RAW/NEF (Nikon's RAW), thinking that would give me the options later to do what I want with the photos but also have them ready to send out or whatever in the jpeg.

After a few shootings, I found that storage size would quickly become ridiculous, saving them in both formats...so I switched to just the RAW format on the camera, which I believe gives me around 524 photos on an 8 gig card...usually more than enough for a day or two of shooting. And of those 524 there usually aren't that many (If any) exceptional shots I've taken, so it's easy to just convert them to to jpeg and/or edit after selecting them...or one can use a batch process and let it grind for a little bit to convert them all, if so desired.

So, short story: I use the RAW format because I'm anal enough to at least try for perfection (though I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the jpegs and raws). Load it onto the computer, and burn it onto dvds for hard back-up, just in case.

I can't wait to see some photos, Mapes! Oh, I wish all the camera club could go on a trip together! Learn new things, share knowledge, drink beer!

[BigTwinky]

BT your pics were one of the reason I decided to get a dSLR. I'm not a photography person...yet but, I'm sure I can pick it up (hey it's gotta be easier then network debugging). Anyways I'm curious what your input would be on me shooting RAW or JPEG.

For a trip like this, its worth it. We travelled with another couple and the guy bought a T1i a few weeks before the trip with an 18-55 lens. He then bought a 55-250 while on the trip. It was $250 AUD (about $225 CAD) compared to $350 CAD. They went to a few zoos and animals places which my wife and I had no interest in and a telephoto lens was worth it for him.

RAW vs JPG...always a fun discussion. I always shoot raw. I never shoot jpg. I did speak with a 35 year experience photojournalist who has covered 8 olympics who said he always shoots jpg because he has no time to processed and work on the images to get them to the editor. But when he shoots for himself, he shoots raw.

You dont need to be a photoshop expert to take advantage of the data contained in a raw file. One of my raws is about 25mb. A high res jpg is about 15mb. So you can see right there by the file size that the raw contains way more data than the jpg.

You can use something like Lightroom (or aperture if you are on a mac) and there are easy to use tools to help fix up an image. Two sliders near the top are a good help to fix an image with bad exposure (although it doesnt do miracles). One is recovery which will bring back in some of the blown out white and the other is fill light which will bring back in some of the shadows. The key is that the data needs to be there for you to bring back, which it may not be for the jpg. Just for that, raw is key. Plus, if you do any other work or even apply presets having more data is better.

For a big trip like this where I dont really plan on going back soon, raw is a must, even if it takes more room. I fit just under 500 raw images on an 8gb card (7D shoots bigger files due to higher megapixels than an XSI - 18mp for the 7D, I think 15mp for the T1i and 12mp for the XSI).

I had a netbook with me. 250gb hard drive. I loaded Lightroom 2 and Photoshop Elements. I barely used Elements as it was a bit slow and I only did when I had some free time to work on something my wife needed for her travel blog she was keeping.

In a typical day, I'd shoot 300-400 images. Rarely more, so never had to change out my 8gb SDHC card on the XSI. I would sometimes delete the obvious bad shots on the go, but generally I did not. I would get back to the hotel room and upload the images to a folder for the area we were at (had one folder per area we were at.

In lightroom, I would browse through the images and mark to delete the crap and flag the really nice ones. If I had time, I'd do some slight adjustments and export in JPG to then put on facebook or what not.

Worked pretty well. I tool about 5500 photos in total. With the workflow, when I got home, I had about 2500 left and already had a good 400 flagged as nice images I could then work on to make a Blurb book (awesome site btw... 120 images in an 80 page big book for $115, shipping included!).

So yes, shoot raw, dont chance it.

[Apache Warrior]

I have to agree with Twinky, the more data the better. I shoot RAW images for my macro photography.
Apache

[{CLR} ObiTroy]

...
I can't wait to see some photos, Mapes! Oh, I wish all the camera club could go on a trip together! Learn new things, share knowledge, drink beer!

Thanks for the info on the RAW... I'm anxious to play around with it now.

[mapes]

Thanks guy's! This is such a helpful group and your input is much appreciated!!!!

[Apache Warrior]

Remember, the secret to great pictures is to take a lot of them. Make slight variations in them. Exposure, focus, angles and distance to name a few.
Apache

[BigTwinky]

Remember, the secret to great pictures is to take a lot of them. Make slight variations in them. Exposure, focus, angles and distance to name a few.
Apache

Awesome suggestion!!

One of the things that I do to push my personal creativity is that when I see something interesting, I force myself to take 10 images of it... focus, angles, depth of field...

[{CLR} ObiTroy]

Agree. I come home after haven taken 400 pictures and keep maybe 40 of them... go for quantity and sheer luck will give you a few of good quality.

[Apache Warrior]

I learned that trick back with my 35 mm SLR. And it was more expensive shooting film. I used to shoot mostly Kodachrome. I learned to do that the first time I had some 35mm film, and was using filters, and the developer altered it to "make it look better". What you shoot is what you get with Kodachrome. The developer could not alter your special affects.
Apache