Ofnuts wrote: > philo wrote: >> no mention of size...so I'll probably go for an 8 gig card
> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
1. If a card goes long enough to write it over completely 2 or 3 times the chances that it fails over its useful lifecycle are pretty close to nil.
2 With 2 cards there is more risk of failure (2 cards has more chance of a fail in one of the cards than one card has).
3. There is more chance of losing a card while swapping in the field.
4. There is more chance of formatting a card before emptying it (human error). (This is a recoverable error with vendor or 3rd party recovery tools, but can lead to further write over if not caught on time).
The only card I had fail on me died in under 100 frames. And as I was testing a new camera, I had already offloaded most images in any case (a few at a time). [though I had that sick feeling of a failed new camera for a few seconds].
Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: > Joel wrote: >>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode. >> How about 1GB is 4 times safer, and 512M is 8 times safer? <bg> I use >> 16GB which is 2x less safe. > If a card stands one chance in a thousand to fail (or be lost, or > stolen) during a given period of time, then, when using two cards, you > stand two chances in a thousand to lose some pictures (ie, failure/loss > of either card)
The chance to not loose data is 999:1000 per card, so the chance not to loose data at all is (999/1000)^2, and the chance to loose some data is thus (1 - (999/1000)^2).
You thus don't stand a 2‰ chance, you stand a 1.999‰ chance to loose some data, assuming your model is correct.
> but you stand only one change in a million to lose all > you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
Then you should use a million cards, or at least one card per shot. You'll have a very good chance of loosing a number of cards, but you'll rarely loose them all. Except that in the case of theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards)" in clear conscience.
Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards than necessary.
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: >> Joel wrote: >>>> Using two 4GB cards is safer. This is still over 200 pics in raw mode.
>>> How about 1GB is 4 times safer, and 512M is 8 times safer? <bg> I use >>> 16GB which is 2x less safe.
>> If a card stands one chance in a thousand to fail (or be lost, or >> stolen) during a given period of time, then, when using two cards, you >> stand two chances in a thousand to lose some pictures (ie, failure/loss >> of either card)
> The chance to not loose data is 999:1000 per card, so the chance > not to loose data at all is (999/1000)^2, and the chance to loose > some data is thus (1 - (999/1000)^2).
Yes, P(X or Y)=P(X) + P(Y) - P(X and Y)
> You thus don't stand a 2‰ chance, you stand a 1.999‰ chance > to loose some data, assuming your model is correct.
>> but you stand only one change in a million to lose all >> you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
> Then you should use a million cards, or at least one card per shot. > You'll have a very good chance of loosing a number of cards, > but you'll rarely loose them all. Except that in the case of > theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 > chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- > --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is > indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change > in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss > of both cards)" in clear conscience.
But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place. The cards are small enough to be kept in a wallet when not in use, or remain in the luggage at the hotel... However I do agree that the first day, all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more pictures can be taken in the following days.
> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your > bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues > against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards > than necessary.
The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> The chance to not loose data is 999:1000 per card, so the chance >> not to loose data at all is (999/1000)^2, and the chance to loose >> some data is thus (1 - (999/1000)^2).
> Yes, P(X or Y)=P(X) + P(Y) - P(X and Y)
>> You thus don't stand a 2‰ chance, you stand a 1.999‰ chance >> to loose some data, assuming your model is correct.
>>> but you stand only one change in a million to lose all you pictures >>> (simultaneous failure/loss of both cards).
>> Then you should use a million cards, or at least one card per shot. >> You'll have a very good chance of loosing a number of cards, >> but you'll rarely loose them all. Except that in the case of >> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 >> chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- >> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is >> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change >> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss >> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place. The > cards are small enough to be kept in a wallet when not in use, or remain > in the luggage at the hotel... However I do agree that the first day, all > the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is > stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more > pictures can be taken in the following days.
>> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your >> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues >> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards >> than necessary.
> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
The argument that more cards = more safety must have been made under the same mathematical principal that it is entirely possible to demolish Mt. Everest with a hammer.
Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> Except that in the case of >> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 >> chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- >> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is >> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change >> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss >> of both cards)" in clear conscience. > But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place.
You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the hotel back home?
> However I do agree that the first day, > all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is > stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more > pictures can be taken in the following days.
So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)?
>> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your >> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues >> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards >> than necessary. > The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain number of cards suddenly is less safe.
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: > Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Except that in the case of >>> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 >>> chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- >>> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is >>> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change >>> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss >>> of both cards)" in clear conscience.
>> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place.
> You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the > hotel back home?
I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane crash during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns. Keeping the cards in a pocket and not in the camera bag is already quite sufficient. Thieves may be after my camera, my (battered) watch, my mobile phone, but I seriously doubt they are specifically after my memory cards.
>> However I do agree that the first day, >> all the pictures will be on the first card. But if the card is >> stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more >> pictures can be taken in the following days.
> So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)?
Yes, although unlikely, with only one camera (although the card is spring-loaded in the camera, and shit happens). But it can also be a case of a defective card (in which case I have still got the camera), and in the extreme cases I can buy/borrow/rent another camera. So I still come back home with pictures.
>>> Additionally, 'safe' means "lose no data" to me, not "hedge your >>> bets that you lose some, but not all data"! Which clearly argues >>> against schlepping millions of cards, and also against more cards >>> than necessary.
>> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine.
> The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are > safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain > number of cards suddenly is less safe.
Not less safe, less practical. Absolute safety isn't needed (and doesn't exist anyway). We just need the pictures to be about as likely to return home as we are.
Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >> Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: >>>> Except that in the case of >>>> theft or lossage of your photographic gear, your 1:1.000.000.000 >>>> chance of loosing all your photos comes true --- >>>> --- and thus proves that at least the second part of your model is >>>> indeed broken, and you cannot argue "but you stand only one change >>>> in a million to lose all you pictures (simultaneous failure/loss >>>> of both cards)" in clear conscience. >>> But I'm not stupid enough to keep all the cards at the same place. >> You send half of them as a parcel to the hotel and from the >> hotel back home? > I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am.
In other words, "no". You do keep all the cards at the same place at least sometimes.
> If i die in a plane > crash during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
Muggings, theft and robbery are said to disappear more cameras and cards than people.
> Keeping the cards in a pocket and not in the camera bag is already quite > sufficient. Thieves may be after my camera, my (battered) watch, my > mobile phone, but I seriously doubt they are specifically after my > memory cards.
Tell me your address and I'll inform the relevant thieves. :-)
>>> But if the card is >>> stolen/defective then one isn't losing all the pictures, since more >>> pictures can be taken in the following days. >> So you can lose your card, but not your camera(s)? > Yes, although unlikely, with only one camera (although the card is > spring-loaded in the camera, and shit happens). But it can also be a > case of a defective card (in which case I have still got the camera), > and in the extreme cases I can buy/borrow/rent another camera. So I > still come back home with pictures.
If you loose your one and only card, you can also buy/borrow/rent another card and come back home with pictures. Same resolution to the same failure mode.
>>> The suggestion to use using millions of cards is yours, not mine. >> The suggestion is the logical continuation of "more cards are >> safer". If you disagree, feel free to explain why a certain >> number of cards suddenly is less safe. > Not less safe, less practical.
Ah, but isn't a single, large enough card more practical than having to swap cards and risking loosing shots because you cannot insert another card with enough space fast enough?
> Absolute safety isn't needed (and doesn't > exist anyway). We just need the pictures to be about as likely to return > home as we are.
Eye-fi card (or laptop or public internet access or ...) and a convenient hotspot, then: the pictures can be home before you are.
Peter <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > "Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote in message >> I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane crash >> during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns. > If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever.
Beware, you may have to answer your maker. In other belief systems you may be reborn as a spider for your deeds.
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:j534t6-vot.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >> Peter <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> "Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote in message
>>>> I don't need the pictures to be safer than I am. If i die in a plane >>>> crash during the return trip the cards are the least of my concerns.
>>> If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever.
>> Beware, you may have to answer your maker. >> In other belief systems you may be reborn as a spider for your >> deeds.
>> I'd rate that as a major concern.
> Under a belief system such as you described, any such concern would only > be temporary.
Hah, yes. That is astute and quite funny in its own way.
Zen Buddhism has some comment on the nature of divinity and change. While this is a subject in itself the issue of merit and light are of concern to the photographer. Additionally, the related Japanese method of "Kaizen" is of direct practical value to engineers.
>> Peter <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> If I die in any manner I will have no concerns whatsoever. >> Beware, you may have to answer your maker. >> In other belief systems you may be reborn as a spider for your >> deeds. >> I'd rate that as a major concern. > Under a belief system such as you described, any such concern would only be > temporary.
In that case *any* concern is temporary.
Unless you have infinite lifes as a spider or worm or whatever-animal-you-don't-want-to-be before you.
On Nov 5, 6:06 pm, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week... > but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards... > so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
Shooting video, multiple exposures, bracketing with Raw tax the write speed. The cheapest slow cards work but getting a faster card you will see an improvement in speed. I dont think you need the fastest cards as they are also very expensive. If you are getting several cards at least try one fast card before getting all slow cards. I use 4gb but you can go alot larger.
ransley wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:06 pm, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote: >> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week... >> but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards... >> so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
>> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
>> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
> Shooting video, multiple exposures, bracketing with Raw tax the write > speed. The cheapest slow cards work but getting a faster card you will > see an improvement in speed. I dont think you need the fastest cards > as they are also very expensive. If you are getting several cards at > least try one fast card before getting all slow cards. I use 4gb but > you can go alot larger.
My Canon 50D does not do video...I have another camera for that.
Tried it out last weekend and as it turns out card speed is sort of a moot point...
I can shoot as fast as I want...even hi-speed multiple shot... the camera buffers it all. When I was done with my sequence... it took about 7 seconds for it to write everything to the card...
Fantastic feature!
BTW: The camera will not turn off until all data are written to the card.
Cat(h) wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:06 am, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote: >> I ordered the 50D and I should get it next week... >> but I see that all I have is a few 256 meg cards... >> so I want to pick up a few larger ones.
>> I cannot find any specs as to the maximum capacity...
>> I'm guessing 2 megs but can it take larger?
> My 400 D takes 4 meg, so I would imagine it can take more than that?
> Caít()
My 4 gig card works fine and I guess I can go as large as I want.
So far the camera is working out well... the only snag was that RAW format is now CR2 which Photoshop CS2 can't handle.
It was suggested that I try the DNG converter...and I just got around to that this morning... works fine!
|
