Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2005, 9:02 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 63
Default

Well, I gave up on waiting for the XT. Heard reports of Best Buy having them but no luck in a 100 Sq Mile radius from my house. Im going with the 20D instead. Im one of those instant gratification guys plus the 20D is just a better camera.

I have a question about memory cards. Can someone tell me how many pics I can expect to get on one card using the various quality settings of the 20D. I would imagine that a 1mb card would be the bare minimum. Just wondering if this info was handy.

Im going to buy the 20D at Costco online. You pay a little more (tax) but the return policy is unbeatable.

Thanks!
Bilbo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 7, 2005, 9:10 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Default

On my 20D with a Sandisk Ultra II 1GB CF card for raw only it claims 105 photos. If you pick RAW+Large/Fine Jpeg it claims 73. It should be right around there +/- a handful depending on how much it can actually compress the images, etc... For small/fine JPEG it claims you can get 725 photos on a 1GB card, although I can't speak for how photos taken at that size are, since I've never used anything other than RAW or RAW+L/F Jpeg...
Tim_The_Sandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2005, 9:24 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 63
Default

Thanks for the quick reply Sandman!

Thats a lot of photos. I have never shot and RAW photos so that will be something I have to learn about. I would imagine that the max JPEG setting is still pretty solid so maybe I will look at getting a 512mb card to get me started. Costco has the 512 Ultra II for $57 and the Sandisk 512 for $40.

Im a rank amature and am really buying more camera than I can handle. My previous cameras are a Rebel 2000 and a Oly D-40zoom. I have a few lenses from the Rebel. 50 1.8, Quanturay (Sigma?) 70-300 and the kit lens which I think is a 28-80. Pretty basic and cheap stuff.

I have a feeling that the learning curve on the 20D is going to be steeeeeeeep!
Bilbo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 8:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The learning curve will be steep in some ways, but in others it will be exactly the same as your old film Rebel. So don't worry about it too much.

I would suggest you get the better SanDisk card. The 20D (I have it too) will take advantage of the extra speed that card offers.

Have fun with it, its a great camera.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 9:17 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

The Sandisk Ultras should work great! I ended up witha pile of 1gb SandiskeXtreme II's because I got a good price on them (and a "free" geppewaterproof storage case for them). Still not sure what the eXtreme buys me, I personally don't see any difference in the performance in the 20D.

Yes with an empty cardthe camera estimates room for about 105 RAW images, but that varies as each image is taken. Each image filecan be a different size depending on what you took a picture of.

If you don't have one, alsoget a USB 2.0 CF card reader. The image files and CF cards are getting big and USB1 will put you to sleep waiting for them to transfer.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 9:19 AM   #6
Member
 
MitchInOmaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 41
Default

For comparison, when I shoot JPG only (I'm starting to shoot more raw, but have been a .jpg shooter until recently), the camera estimates 350 pictures (large, fine .jpg) on my 1Gb Extreme III card.

-- Mitch
MitchInOmaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 12:52 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
If you don't have one, alsoget a USB 2.0 CF card reader. The image files and CF cards are getting big and USB1 will put you to sleep waiting for them to transfer.

Peter.

Also available in Firewire.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 1:57 PM   #8
Member
 
MitchInOmaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 41
Default

I see a lot of references to Firewire in this community. Is it primarily used by Mac users? I have a firewire port on my Windows PC, but always thought of it as more of a "video download" link (from video camera).

USB-II is faster than firewire as I recall, right?

- Mitch
MitchInOmaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 2:11 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

Firewire, AKA IEEE 1394, has better throughput than USB 2.0, even though USB 2.0 has a nominally higher bit rate. Most new PCs have both.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2005, 2:56 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 63
Default

Ewok wrote:
Quote:
Firewire, AKA IEEE 1394, has better throughput than USB 2.0, even though USB 2.0 has a nominally higher bit rate. Most new PCs have both.
Would you say that its enough of a boost to justify someone upgrading if they already have USB 2.0? I wouldnt think it would be.
Bilbo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:03 PM.