This is why I went back to 24MP sensors. Tired of burning through NAS and cloud storage at such a fast rate. 118MB once made into a TIFF with a few PS edits is scary big.
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.
What size is your memory card?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is why I went back to 24MP sensors. Tired of burning through NAS and cloud storage at such a fast rate. 118MB once made into a TIFF with a few PS edits is scary big.
I took that into consideration when thinking about buying the A7R IV, as that sensor makes a big impact on one's storage, both internal in the computer and external HDDs and SSDs. I don't regret it, though, as I do appreciate the ability to crop as needed and to have a lot of resolution available in each image. But, yeah, buying new external drives more frequently than in the past definitely makes it clear that we do pay a price for that high resolution!
Curious, why Sony tough? the toughness is a factor of the body surely? and for transporting them out of the camera, put them in a protective case and again, no issue.
Also, they cause issues with sustained write speeds when used in UHS-1 devices. Has this been fixed yet?
Genuine curious BTW, I just read up on them and found them to be a bit much for marginal benefits.
A superfast SD card for high resolution cameras.
Sony 128GB SF-G Tough Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card
Buy Sony 128GB SF-G Tough Series UHS-II SDXC Memory Card featuring 128GB Storage Capacity, UHS-II / V90 / U3 / Class 10, Max Read Speed: 300 MB/s, Max Write Speed: 299 MB/s, Min Write Speed: 90 MB/s, Records 8K, 4K, Full HD, 3D & 60p Video, Bend / Drop / Water / Dust / X-Ray Proof, Magnet /...www.bhphotovideo.com
You want to check out the price of the CF Express cards! yowzas!!! XQD too. When I first got the Nikon Z6 and had to go get a card I almost fell over at the cost!
Also, the throughput on the M tough is plenty for 4K video apparently and comes in at just over a quarter of the cost of the G tough cards.
When I was buying the A7R IV I needed a couple new memory cards anyway so decided that since I was buying this new camera, might as well give her a couple of Tough Cards. My other memory cards are just fine, too, (Lexar, SanDis) and I still use them in the other cameras, no problem. And, yes, even though I'm careful with my memory cards, I figure it doesn't hurt to have them be more rugged, too, although I'm not exactly out there tromping around in fields and up and down mountains, etc.!
Yeah, those new CF Express cards are -- gulp! -- VERY expensive! That will be something to factor in when making my next camera purchase.....
Yeah, those new CF Express cards are -- gulp! -- VERY expensive! That will be something to factor in when making my next camera purchase.....
I prefer to shoot and store about 30-40 images on the card in a session, then off load. In case of data loss. Not a card loader here
UHS-II is a different ball game. The through put is fantastic as you can reach 300MB/Sec read and write. The writing helps clear the buffer sooner. The reading helps unload the card in my card reader (which is also UHS-II). You're basically paying for the speeds since other cards (like Sandisk Extreme Pro 300MB/s) are around the same price.
For some reason, the A7RIV is really picky about SD Cards. Therefore I get the Sony Tough-G cards.
I shot two events over the weekend. I had to use my older Sandisk Extreme Pro cards (170MB/s) and they took FOREVER to unload to my hard drive when I got home (3k images). Granted, I need to stop shooting so much, but I like getting different angles of the same shot and different poses.
For several years, I saved all my raw files because "storage is cheap". Except the ones where I accidently tripped the shutter, unintentional blurred pics, eyes closed, black exposure, etc.
Looks like I need to revisit that policy since the A7RIV will be my camera for several years.
Last edited:
It was a factor in my switch from DSLR to mirrorless (used to be a Nikon guy). I guess the SD Cards are next generation as is the A7RIV.
Oh I wasn’t even counting the pictures taken on my phone! That’s probably another ~500/month. Right now I have a Canon PowerShot G5X II, though it’s a bit broken now so I may replace it with a Sony RX100 or another G5X. I bought it in 2019, and have already taken more than 7000 photos with it. It’s also been carried with me for at least 2000 miles on foot so I guess I average about 3 photos per mile when I’m out walking/running!
Both the R6 and G5X have ~15MB files, which makes it a lot more manageable. That means even a 32GB card could fit over 2000 photos, which is more than I’m willing to sit around and wait for on import anyway. And if I do fill it up while out shooting I always try to have an extra card (either in my backpack, car, camera strap, pretty much anywhere they’d fit). I’ve forgotten my memory card at home before, and after that I make sure to have lots of extras around!
Again, really, really not a fan of SD cards, but IIRC even Nikons like the D500 and D850-both of which benefit from really fast storage(the former for large files and a high frame rate, the latter for huge files and a frame rate equal to the D500 if used with a battery grip) don't take advantage of UHS-II cards.
All of my SD cards in use now are ones that were top-of-the-line Sandisk when I bought them, and I'm almost positive they're all UHS-II. I know though that when I had my D500, I could see it bottlenecking when I did XQD+SD. It wasn't crazy, but I could usually hit the buffer in ~50 shots at full speed. Of course for all practical purposes this wasn't a big deal, since it was rare for me to even do a 15 shot burst before pausing at least for a few seconds for another-I could only really see this in testing. Using XQD only, though, and RAW+JPEG, the camera would write to the card at least as fast as it could fill the buffer so for all intents and purposes it could keep going until the card filled. I think I tested it out to about 300 shots one time and the buffer had maybe dropped from ~40 shots to ~35, but I'm having a hard time even thinking of a situation where I'd need a continuous burst of that many shots. In the above, the buffer would clear totally within a second of releasing the shutter.
All of my SD cards in use now are ones that were top-of-the-line Sandisk when I bought them, and I'm almost positive they're all UHS-II. I know though that when I had my D500, I could see it bottlenecking when I did XQD+SD. It wasn't crazy, but I could usually hit the buffer in ~50 shots at full speed. Of course for all practical purposes this wasn't a big deal, since it was rare for me to even do a 15 shot burst before pausing at least for a few seconds for another-I could only really see this in testing. Using XQD only, though, and RAW+JPEG, the camera would write to the card at least as fast as it could fill the buffer so for all intents and purposes it could keep going until the card filled. I think I tested it out to about 300 shots one time and the buffer had maybe dropped from ~40 shots to ~35, but I'm having a hard time even thinking of a situation where I'd need a continuous burst of that many shots. In the above, the buffer would clear totally within a second of releasing the shutter.
Yep, lets get AFB twitching....
If I had actually read the specs and knew the cards I was buying into, I may not have went Nikon Z series. The XQDs are massively faster than any SD including UHS-II but I am curious why Sony didn't opt to put their own technology into their own cameras for ultimate speed. By curious I mean mildly interested.
lol... sorry, gonna be nippy for a mo... A7RIV is not next gen. A1 is next Gen.
I used to be a Sony guy but hated the rate I was chewing through storage, hated the crap battery life (at the time - i know it is better now), the lenses were at a premium that meant I would rather buy more Leica lenses and I wasn't liking the frequency of refreshes that made the resale value of my gear evaporate.
Shooting Leica works better for my personal GAS journey. They don't release new shiny things as often as others so resale values and firmware support are much better - for me YMMV.
As a bigger answer to the OP's question, though, I'd argue that the size isn't important, but knowing how to use it is...
(at least that's what I keep telling myself).
With that said, mine is bigger than @Apple fanboy 's
(36mmx43mmx3.3mm)
(at least that's what I keep telling myself).
With that said, mine is bigger than @Apple fanboy 's
(36mmx43mmx3.3mm)
But older?As a bigger answer to the OP's question, though, I'd argue that the size isn't important, but knowing how to use it is...
(at least that's what I keep telling myself).
With that said, mine is bigger than @Apple fanboy 's
The thought of coming home with 1000 pictures horrifies me to be honest. Quality of quality is what I (try) to achieve.
Yes, up through the A7R IV Sony used SD cards, but now with the new flagship A1, they've gone into the CF Express cards (Type A). I think that one can also still use UHS-II SD cards as well but then would not have the ability to take full advantage of the speed possible with bursts and Continuous High in the new camera. So I'm resigned to the fact that eventually I'll be plunking out for the CF Express Type A cards. It is good to know though that in a pinch if I needed to swap out cards and for some reason only had an SD card with me instead of another CF Express card that I could use it.
When people go on several-day shooting excursions, especially involving wildlife such as water birds, and are out in the field for hours shooting, it is not all that hard to pretty quickly rack up over 1000 images, especially when shooting a BIF or a pair of eagles or other birds fighting over a fish! Years ago I went with friends to Florida for a week of shooting and I think when I got home I had something like 4,000 images to review -- yikes! Even at that we did take time each night to download our images and quickly review them and maybe even edit a few but for the most part I waited until I got back home.
For me that kind of shooting is NOT the norm; most of the time on a walk around the lake I'll come home with maybe 75-100 images at the most, and when shooting a macro at home on the dining table it might be as few as 30-40 images if I got experimental and played around with different perspectives, angles and lighting effects.
When people go on several-day shooting excursions, especially involving wildlife such as water birds, and are out in the field for hours shooting, it is not all that hard to pretty quickly rack up over 1000 images, especially when shooting a BIF or a pair of eagles or other birds fighting over a fish! Years ago I went with friends to Florida for a week of shooting and I think when I got home I had something like 4,000 images to review -- yikes! Even at that we did take time each night to download our images and quickly review them and maybe even edit a few but for the most part I waited until I got back home.
For me that kind of shooting is NOT the norm; most of the time on a walk around the lake I'll come home with maybe 75-100 images at the most, and when shooting a macro at home on the dining table it might be as few as 30-40 images if I got experimental and played around with different perspectives, angles and lighting effects.
Last edited:
But older?
The thought of coming home with 1000 pictures horrifies me to be honest. Quality of quality is what I (try) to achieve.
Obviously depends what you’re shooting, but I’d always rather come home with 1000 pictures than wait for the light to get better only for it to get worse! I don’t like having to sort through lots of photos, but any time the lighting keeps getting better that’s what ends up happening. I’ll take a photo, be happy with it, look back up and realize it’s even better now, and take it again. And again. And again. Until it stops getting better! Sometimes I’ll end up with 20 of almost the exact same photo, except each one keeps getting better than the one before it. But the alternative is just waiting to take the photo and risk missing it!
Here’s one example of two of the nearly exact same photo taken the same day, but the second one is (in my opinion) way better just because of the light changing:
But SD card sizes is just the easy problem (because I don’t mind deleting images there). It’s backup drives that I go through!
Pretty much the same here! It’s rare that I take 1000 photos before really going through them, 100-200 would be a lot. But on longer trips I tend not to really go through other than a few highlights to share before I get home. And then I want them all to fit on one card (images on card + images on computer = 2 copies in case something goes wrong) so I don’t have to delete anything until I’ve gotten back and am going through all of them and selecting the keepers.
To be honest, maybe it's a hold-out from film, but I don't shoot a ton either. A week long trip might leave me with 300-400 images depending on the purpose of the trip, although I can spend a day out and come home with that many too.
I went on vacation with my wife and her parents and siblings last week. They were joking with me beforehand about making an old-fashioned slide show, so I figured I'd make it not-a-joke and took my F6 with me. Granted the nature of the trip meant that I spent a lot of time not carrying it, but I got home with 5 shots left on the one roll I loaded. I need to find somewhere to burn them so I can shoot it.
Granted that's not different from what I see looking through old family negatives, where I'll often find 2 Christmases and 3 vacations on one 24-exposure roll. Back in the day, the casual family shooter(the same sort of person who wouldn't have any camera beyond their phone today) would be shooting a lot if they shot an entire roll on a vacation or at a holiday, while now people will end up with 30-50 photos easily just from Christmas dinner.
I went on vacation with my wife and her parents and siblings last week. They were joking with me beforehand about making an old-fashioned slide show, so I figured I'd make it not-a-joke and took my F6 with me. Granted the nature of the trip meant that I spent a lot of time not carrying it, but I got home with 5 shots left on the one roll I loaded. I need to find somewhere to burn them so I can shoot it.
Granted that's not different from what I see looking through old family negatives, where I'll often find 2 Christmases and 3 vacations on one 24-exposure roll. Back in the day, the casual family shooter(the same sort of person who wouldn't have any camera beyond their phone today) would be shooting a lot if they shot an entire roll on a vacation or at a holiday, while now people will end up with 30-50 photos easily just from Christmas dinner.
Yes, when traveling I have a couple of external drives into which I also dump all the RAW files along with having them in the computer and still on the memory card(s) as well. I want to be sure when I get home that I've got all the images!
Indeed the second image is better (beautiful actually). And yes waiting for the right light is an important skill to understand. But I still can’t imagine shooting more than the memory cards I carry. I always have spares in my bag.
Exactly my recollection of film cameras before I took up serious photography. I’d have holiday snaps where every shot of my 24 (I seem to recall getting 32) taken in a couple of days. All rubbish of course!
A lot of "consumer" 35mm rolls are nominally 24 exposures, but 20 was once common and you could even get 12 at one time. "Professional" rolls are almost always 36. These numbers aren't absolute and there's usually some "fudge factor" in the length of film. In "good" cameras I'd normally get 27 on a 24 at least using my Canon SLRs, although 36 was 36. Since I switched to Nikon, funny enough I actually can routinely get at least 37. The distance from cartridge to shutter on Nikons is about 2mm less than on Canon SLRs, or at least FD mount ones, which I think lets it squeeze out a bit more. The really thrifty people on cameras like the F2 and FM can even squeeze out 39 on 37 by watching their leader really closely and shooting two frames before the initial start, although at best I'd only trust one of the two frames with something important. Newer Nikons-like the F3 and FE2-turn off the meter and lock the shutter to the flash sync speed until you've advanced two frames after closing the back(don't remember if the FM2 does that or not). The F4 was conscious of being economical, and hit or miss I can often get 38 from it.
Of course, if you bulk load, all bets are off. For standard thickness emulsion, 40 is about the limit of what you can cram in a can, and unless you load in the dark you're going to end up losing the first two and last two frames due to fogging. Some really thin emulsions can take a few more.
35mm film is exactly 8 sprocket holes per frame, so the spacing is pretty exact. MF gets extra fun since you don't have sprocket holes and also there are multiple formats. The "normal" amount is 8 for 6x9, 10 for 6x7, 12 for 6x6, and 15 or 16 for 645. I had a Super Ikonta that would only shoot 11 frames as a safety buffer. My Hasselblad back space close enough that they could fit a 13th frame, but there's no way I'm aware of to make the camera do it. One of the signs that a Hasselblad back needs service(and unfortunately you don't know it until it happens, although it's usually gradual) is the spacing between frames 1 and 2 starts shrinking to the point where they overlap. Actually all the frame spacing will shrink, but it's most noticeable on those(and if you get more than a 1-2 overlap, the back is in bad shape).