Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Internal memory on cameras
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can’t believe I’m actually googling this for you.
and before you say you are just a hobbyist and you don’t use a dslr, the principles are the same regardless of the type of camera.
photo.stackexchange.com
and before you say you are just a hobbyist and you don’t use a dslr, the principles are the same regardless of the type of camera.
Why don't DSLR cameras have internal memory to save images?
Most DSLR cameras use external memory chip to save images. Why don't they use large internal memory?
Back when digital cameras started, some of the P&S had some internal memory, but rather on the small side… memory cards were expensive back then and formats changing regularly… I have never seen a DSLR with internal memory.
Point, including internal memory will drive the price up. A lot of people do already have SD cards and want to re-use. Cards give you more flexibility for your needs.
But you really would have to ask the manufacturers, their marketing folks.
Point, including internal memory will drive the price up. A lot of people do already have SD cards and want to re-use. Cards give you more flexibility for your needs.
But you really would have to ask the manufacturers, their marketing folks.
When I bought my new Canon I had to buy a new memory card as my old one would not work in it.
Technology evolves, different form factor, different interface etc etc… just like you won’t find a new computer anymore with a parallel interface to connect a printer…
All of my recent cameras have a small amount of internal memory, typically 32MB or less. I use it to place a photo of a card with my contact info, there in the event I lose the camera and someone honest finds it.
Yes I meant MB but it might be 16MB. Just enough to store a handful of images should one want to test the camera in store.
Given that most of us shoot raw that’s not a solution. A 24mp camera shoots a single raw image at around 24MB. We actually want that file size for post processing and cropping. And even switching to jpeg in camera, we would *still* want larger file sizes.
I don’t know what the big deal is about raw. Millions use jpg and are happy with it.
Millions also don't edit their photos or care what they look like. They are just taking a picture.
It’s fine that you want to shoot jpeg. I’m not suggesting you switch. But for those of us who do shoot raw, internal storage is not practical.
I’m getting perplexed by some of the topics recently!
Millions shoot with their iPhone and are happy with it. But I’m (like most in the sub forum) shoot RAW because it gives you better results.
With jpeg, the camera is making many of the processing decisions for you and they are "baked in" so that later in post-processing it is often impossible, or at least difficult, to make too many adjustments. With RAW, everything is recorded as shot and there is little processing done so that when the photographer sits down at the computer he has flexibility to correct any exposure errors, to adjust the level of contrast, to emphasize certain aspects of the overall scene in the editing process, etc.
A classic example of why it is good to shoot in RAW is if someone goes out to shoot and they're shooting a one-time kind of situation, say, the cherry blossoms at the tidal basin in Washington DC and only after returning home does he realize that oops, he didn't change his white balance settings from the previous shooting expedition he'd done a few days before, which, er, happened to have been under fluorescent lighting! With a DSLR one has to look at the LCD screen after the shot has been made -- usually referred to as "chimping" -- in order to be sure everything looks OK, and for whatever reason he didn't do that. If he'd shot in jpeg his entire trip to the cherry blossoms would have been wasted, the images unable to be saved. Fortunately, he always shoots in RAW and it was a matter of making the appropriate exposure and white balance adjustments in his editing program and he was able to salvage most of the several hundred images he'd shot that day. Just one real-life example of the value of shooting in RAW.....
A classic example of why it is good to shoot in RAW is if someone goes out to shoot and they're shooting a one-time kind of situation, say, the cherry blossoms at the tidal basin in Washington DC and only after returning home does he realize that oops, he didn't change his white balance settings from the previous shooting expedition he'd done a few days before, which, er, happened to have been under fluorescent lighting! With a DSLR one has to look at the LCD screen after the shot has been made -- usually referred to as "chimping" -- in order to be sure everything looks OK, and for whatever reason he didn't do that. If he'd shot in jpeg his entire trip to the cherry blossoms would have been wasted, the images unable to be saved. Fortunately, he always shoots in RAW and it was a matter of making the appropriate exposure and white balance adjustments in his editing program and he was able to salvage most of the several hundred images he'd shot that day. Just one real-life example of the value of shooting in RAW.....
The Kodak ez-something from 2001ish had or could hold 15 photos whereas the 2007ish Nikon 500D cannot hold any photos therefor older camera from last century could while this century most unlikely.
Jpg is a compression and format that cant be adjusted as macrumors demi-goddess explained.
Jpg is a compression and format that cant be adjusted as macrumors demi-goddess explained.
Also I think saying they don't have much internal memory isn't accurate, they just don't let you keep images there. So there is internal memory, just not internal storage.
All DSLRs have lots of internal memory, otherwise, you couldn't take pictures as fast as you can. On my 80D if I recall correctly, I can take 14 images that are completely stored on the internal memory while it's writing to the card.
If each RAW image is around 35MB + JPG around 7MB, that means there's about 512MB of memory inside that is at least twice as fast as the U3 SD card.
All DSLRs have lots of internal memory, otherwise, you couldn't take pictures as fast as you can. On my 80D if I recall correctly, I can take 14 images that are completely stored on the internal memory while it's writing to the card.
If each RAW image is around 35MB + JPG around 7MB, that means there's about 512MB of memory inside that is at least twice as fast as the U3 SD card.
The Zeiss ZX1 has a 512GB fixed internal storage. While it would be faster storage than an SD card technically, I would not want something like a non user serviceable part like that in the camera. Also, I think the flexibility of being able to swap out cards for loss limitation and well, just flexibility outweigh the marginal performance benefits of internal storage.
All digital cameras do have a buffer though for burst shooting. I think the current expected norm is about 2GB. But this is not really for storing images at rest.
As for JPEG, if it works for you then that is cool. We all have our own path to walk. My problem is that I make a mess of exposure too often so having a RAW file is more versatile to my flow.
Here is a poor example where I have amplified it to show the reason. The dark frame is the basic exposure. As you see it is hideously underexposed Note: please ignore the copyright notice, I keep forgetting to turn the damn thing off.
You see if I was going for dark shadows it would tick that box. ha ha ha....
This next image is the JPEG with exposure lifted. If you look in the lower waterfall, there is very little in the way of shadow details. Also, in the water trail itself, you see some artefacts.
However, in this image - an export to JPEG of the raw, exposure lifted, you can see more detail in the shadows in the lower fall and also fewer artefacts.
Each to their own though, we all have our preferences. Personally, RAW provides a crutch for me when I am stupid/lazy with my camera.
Man, those colours and the clumping are hideous in the JPEG too.
Hopefully this makes sense.