Shots per Mb?

[PlasticSpanner]

How many shots per Mb should I expect to get from a 400d? I'm trying to estimate what size memory card I would need.

I know brightness & colour will affect the file size but assuming I shot in jpg and an average green/blue landscape what could I expect from 512Mb and 1G?

 

[astrostu]

In my experience, you can expect 1 MB per Mpx when shooting RAW (so it would be about 10 MB per RAW image with the 400D). Shooting maximum quality JPEG is generally about 50-70% of this size, and I don't shoot below that so I don't know. To give you a ballpark estimate, I can get about 250-350 images on a 1 GB card shooting max quality JPG with my 350D, so you could expect 200-280 images if shooting this way on a 1 GB card on the 400D.

 

[tempra]

Does this mean you're going to have to change your sig? :mrgreen:

Another conversion!

 

[tempra]

oh, and answer to your question, astrostu is not far off based on what comes out of my 10D which is 6mpix.

And I would go for more MB in your cards, you can pick up a 2MB Sandisk Ultra II for around £30 on ebay - I'd also advise sticking with well known brands, as I've had bad experiences with no-name cards, and just keep them for backup now. Never had a Sandisk corrupt on me since I got one over a year ago.

 

[PlasticSpanner]

Thanks guys! Gives me an idea of the storage I'm looking at.

Tony, I just thought I'd get a DSLR for a backup camera!

Seriously though, I'll still be shooting film colour & B&W. I love working with the stuff, the smells & the magic of the darkroom! Plus true colour & B&W prints on photographic paper always look & feel nicer than ink prints!

 

[danalec99]

Consider Kingston too, if it's available over there.
I have a 4 gig kingston with zero complaints thus far.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Get the new Sansumg 64GB :stun: :stun: :stun: compact flash that should cover you

 

[DeepSpring]

Get the new Sansumg 64GB :stun: :stun: :stun: compact flash that should cover you

i saw that thing someone posted a link to it in another thread...... that is just amazing... AMAZING!!! That's more memory on that tiny little card then the internal hard drive on my laptop

 

[xfloggingkylex]

but if that card were to fail or get damaged, either physically or if it were to be damaged by heat or magnetic fields (non permanent) you would lose a TON of pictures.

 

[W.Smith]

but if that card were to fail or get damaged, either physically or if it were to be damaged by heat or magnetic fields (non permanent) you would lose a TON of pictures.

So store 'em in a little box in a closet and they'll still be good to go in a century or two....
Magnetic fields strong enough to affect the data on flash cards only exist in the vicinity of 'black holes' in the universe. Were you planning on going there, xfloggingkylex?
Seriously, destructive tests have shown that even if you physically drive a nail through a flash card, the remainder of the card still contains all the information/images.
Flash memory currently is pretty much the most stable way to store digital data. Bar none.